Post by rayancaleb on Jan 5, 2018 14:35:53 GMT 8
Hi,
That is of course quite understandable. Organisations must survive to discharge their functions, even in the minimal sense, and it would have been negligent of Mr Birol to fail to ensure that the IEA had a robust subscription base to fund its activities. Equally, one might say that the membership must expand to reflect the undoubted fact that the pattern of energy consumption has changed greatly since 1974, when the founding member states – Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States – created the International Energy Agency in response to the oil shock of 1973. In 1977, the OECD consumed 60% of global Total Primary Energy, but today account for 39%. While the IEA could have remained the private think-tank of a select club, the wish to expand its relevance and reach is entirely rational, if only to ensure access to nationally collected data.
The downside of this charm offensive is that the IEA’s commentary, of which its World Energy Outlook (WEO) is the key vehicle, now seems to lack bite or critical edge. In trying to please its current members, and in an effort to win further supporters, the International Energy Agency is slipping towards an anodyne and uncommitted style. One can deal with this by skipping over the main text, and studying the charts and the data tables, but even this method cannot completely offset the IEA’s obsession, not too strong a word, with “Scenario” construction, and the reader has to continually recall that the multiple scenarios presented are not predictions. Indeed, the current WEO (2017) even has a Spotlight box explaining why the IEA “doesn’t have a long-term forecast” (p. 40):
Thanks!
For more details:
Product launched
That is of course quite understandable. Organisations must survive to discharge their functions, even in the minimal sense, and it would have been negligent of Mr Birol to fail to ensure that the IEA had a robust subscription base to fund its activities. Equally, one might say that the membership must expand to reflect the undoubted fact that the pattern of energy consumption has changed greatly since 1974, when the founding member states – Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States – created the International Energy Agency in response to the oil shock of 1973. In 1977, the OECD consumed 60% of global Total Primary Energy, but today account for 39%. While the IEA could have remained the private think-tank of a select club, the wish to expand its relevance and reach is entirely rational, if only to ensure access to nationally collected data.
The downside of this charm offensive is that the IEA’s commentary, of which its World Energy Outlook (WEO) is the key vehicle, now seems to lack bite or critical edge. In trying to please its current members, and in an effort to win further supporters, the International Energy Agency is slipping towards an anodyne and uncommitted style. One can deal with this by skipping over the main text, and studying the charts and the data tables, but even this method cannot completely offset the IEA’s obsession, not too strong a word, with “Scenario” construction, and the reader has to continually recall that the multiple scenarios presented are not predictions. Indeed, the current WEO (2017) even has a Spotlight box explaining why the IEA “doesn’t have a long-term forecast” (p. 40):
Thanks!
For more details:
Product launched