A Speech by Fatih Birol on IEA Report, Financial Crisis, Coal, Depletion, etc.

Here is a recent talk given by Fatih Birol to the Council of Foreign Relations:

Awesome... I am at 15 minutes into the vid... and this guy has already confirmed there would be not enough oil in the future and that mature oil fields are declining very rapidly. I wish people who're actually going to run the country take this entire picture into account.

My understanding is that he has been making the rounds talking to corporate/government leaders last few months. That message has more urgency than the IEA WEO report itself (other than the Executive Summary first few paragraphs)

A very sobering presentation. His remarks on climate change allow only a very small space for compromise; on one hand it is very good that the Council on Foreign Relations would provide a forum for such blunt remarks. If this organization can appear to endorse the idea of climate change and accept it as a hazard to future business, this should take the wind out the sails out of some of the denialists.


On the other hand, I do not share Mr. Birol's faith in cap and trade and efficiency technology. I suppose he is required to toss the technologists a bone every now and then.

What happened to 350 ppm?


Birol is speaking about 450 ppm as if it's yesterday's news. I've also heard this from all people:


Usually, he talks about vitamins, but every once in awhile launches into a bitter, invective rant against the establishment. He was ranting about a violent revolution in America the other day and I thought I was going to lose my dentures; if I had any. Null was speaking about having exceeded the climate tipping points a year ago ...

" Null was speaking about having exceeded the climate tipping points a year ago ..."

Probably referring to how climate scientists over the past year (months?) have said that it's already too late to avoid some of the negative consequences. Most projections say that even if we put all our effort and resources into it now, temperatures will still rise about a degree or 1.5 on average because of the lag effect of the CO2 currently pumped into the atmosphere.

I thought it very interesting that he expressed genuine surprise that he and the report has not been widely attacked from industry, government, or others.

Having described the oil fields decline dynamic and prospects for the future, why spend most of the rest of the presentation on Climate Change and carbon capture? It makes no sense. All of this suggests that national leadership will constraint the use of fossil fuels over and above natural depletion rates. Better have a lot of guns. Of course a permanent depression can get us to that idyllic state. We may be there now, or at least close. If individuals, corporations and countries are not providing enough investment capital to maintain oil field flow rates, what is the likelihood they will make the investments to build power plants which consume 40 percent of their output for carbon capture? Answer: nil

Having described the oil fields decline dynamic and prospects for the future, why spend most of the rest of the presentation on Climate Change and carbon capture?

Because they're not stupid.

I'm seeing no link above (with Firefox and Flash player 10). Seems to be to do with the arguments included.

hi garyp, it's a youtube-video, if you don't see how to start it try this link .


Indeed, I'm capable of pulling the link out of the source code. I just thought I'd let people know.

thanks for this video.

Birol annoyes me !
He is the best IPCC spokesman out there for the moment touting about this (hopeless IMO) Carbon capture and storage, giving no second thoughts on as to how scalability and pace will be solved.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm onbord and agree to the urgency regarding climate, but free me from Birol telling me this. I'd like to hear him say two words on Peak_Underscore_Oil instead !

Whatever else he is telling is loosely anchored to a sandy bank, but when listening carefully he is saying we are at Peak Oil NOW folks ..... but without never usinge those words nor rising his vioce.(Bad performance)

And from the video, at time 47:35 Sallys Question is a good one but Birols/IEA answer is shocking, at least to me.

The IEAs forcasting methodology up till this years WEO2008 has been something like this :
Birol : " ..... up to now we all (IEA,EIA,EU) made the projections that we have a global oil
demand and then you look at the non-Opec supply and the rest will be met by OPEC ... (!)"

Just like that, in plain words. No wonder some agencies still see 130 mb/d in 2030 .... just like that

Hello Nate,

Thxs for the video. The ASPO rep [kudos to her] asked the right question, but Fatih didn't give an answer, dammit.

She basically asked: What 'Evidence' do you have that OPEC & OECD will find the future equivalent of 4 Saudi Arabias just to offset the 6.4% postPeak depletion to keep production flat, much less finding 6 KSAa to meet expected demand growth?

I bet he didn't answer the question because he knows he doesn't have any supporting evidence. Therefore, it was a lost golden opportunity for him to Clearly State that we are in for some rough, downhill sledding ahead.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

And the next questioner call the IEA forecast 'pessimistic'.

How many times did Fatih need to point out all the "IF"s in the assumptions to make it clear that the forecast was decidedly on the sunny side.

Ask me no questions, I'll tell you no lies!!!

The man walks in a political minefield. Do you really expect him to tell us that the game is up? He comes close enough in the video. He touches on resource nationalism but is silent on declining exports (he probably believes that smart people will read between the lines anyway). The very fact that he says we need4 KSAs to stay where we are tells you a story. He also mentions that too much time is spent on demand forecasting rather than on decline rates. He talks of peak oil for a particular field and then how production rates decline.

He cannot shout "Fire" in what is now a very crowded cinema theatre. Instead he uses phrases such as "If you look closely to that corner of the cinema, you will find that there is a chemical reaction going on in which carbon is combining with oxygen and giving off a lot of heat".

I hope the Indian government features in his briefings. We are putting our bets behind the auto industry and planning our cities for cars rather than emphasizing public transport. Most Indians follw the ELP model and we are trying our best to get them out of it!!


The fire warning in a crowded theater is an interesting analogy in a number of ways. I've reviewed many catastrophic industrial accidents. Very often there were warning signs of the pending incident. Very commonly these warnings were ignored by the workers because: 1)I didn't want management to blame me for stopping operations if here really wasn't anything wrong, 2)I might be blamed for the problem even though it wasn't my fault, 3)I knew it might be a problem but it wasn't my responsibility. 4) Someone else will take care of it.

Unfortunately it's easy to imagine these same excuses being offered by TPTB when the true nature of the problems becomes obvious to the general public.

The video is confirmation that the red flashing light has started up over at the IEA.

So the next 5 years;

All the paper printing will eventually sink in and prices will begin to slowly rise after years of firesales, demand will still be low due to tighter credit conditions. Unemployment will remain stubbornly high. Many oil investments will get cancelled. The Trillions needed to bring new potential supply online will be spent on sorting out the financial mess, bailing its institutions but the general infrastructure will improve including electrical power supply and capabilities.

Oil demand will creep back up to potential supply then one of the major fields will undergo a big big and 'unexpected' decline (think Canterell). Possibly one of the Saudi fields. This is the Black Swan Event.

People who have read and understand the IEA report will say "I told you so -we simply havn't been investing enough" and the mass of the people will begin to 'get-it' as $8 gas and filling station linups plunge the economy back into another recession. The evening news will be full of analysis of why its happening. TOD hits will go through the roof. This is the "PO Epiphany Event" -far more important than PO itself and far more important than last years which was masked by financial turmoil.

I put this around 2011-2013.

If it does happen at the tail end of Obamas term its going to be a toss up whether the people will see through to the real causes or simply blame the incumbent government: "Drill baby drill" will probably be resurrected as the party slogan of The Opposition and least best saviour. I expect a lot of Govt. flip-flopping in the decades ahead 'It's the Economy Stupid' -no, actually it's 'expensive energy stupid' but lets see who gets it first...

So the decisions of the next few years will not just define the shape of the coming decade but possibly the future of Industrial Mankind itself.


since when did the IEA have official directive to investigate Global Warming?!

I know I am a minority here, but running out of the fuel of modern life and the study on climate change are not mandatory tandem subjects of study.

Anyway, one will solve the other.

Anyway, one will solve the other.

I find this a rather naive, non-rigorously considered notion. A simple observation suffices: energy issues can be solved by simply burning more coal. There is no need to reduce carbon output. How does that solve Climate Change?

Another simple observation suffices: If the problem is handled in terms of energy only, the time line is not as urgent. I know you will say, "Peak Oil is now!" but that is ignoring that Climate Change is already past tense. Time is very, very short.

Your assumption is incorrect and dangerous. I encourage you to think on it again. As I have said: PO can wreck out economies, and even our societies, but it can't make the planet unlivable. Climate Change can and, in my opinion, will if we don't make massive changes fast.



"..solve Climate Change..." "...massive changes fast..." You've got to be kidding. What planet are you from? The climate has been changing for millions, even billions, of years. The climate is continuously changing. It's called dynamic equilibrium. Have you ever studied the basics of control theory? You must have been raised in a closet with snakes. Chill out and get a life.

You're a troll.


From a good article on Climate Change:

"The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored."

By Gregory F. Fegel


The fact is the real propaganda is now coming from the western press, politicians and government financed academia, not the likes of Pravda. What goes around comes around. I've lived to see it all. My how things have changed since the fall of the Soviet Empire. Perhaps it was decades of their own internal propaganda. Perhaps we are next, given the absurd, and relentless drumbeat of AGW misinformation and similar banalities. But of course, in your mind, Pravda must be receiving big payoffs from Big Oil now. But, please, continue to keep sipping the "GREEN" koolaid. Keep the faith, baby. It's consistent with your mindset, and a goodly number of those posting on this website, including some of the editors. I would love to see TOD browsing statistics over time. This ridiculous preoccupation with CO2, Global Warming, and Climate Change in the face of imminent PeakOil only serves to dilute the TOD message and calls into question the good sense of ANYONE openly participating on this website --- even me, God forbid.

"The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time

Whomever would make such a stupid claim is an idiot.

Yeah, I googled him.

This is the best I could find:


Ah yes, Gregory F. Fegel, noted anti-Americanist and.....uh.....not
really much else.

Then there's this:

The Board accepted the Voluntary Surrender of Gregory F. Fegel’s Registered Nurse license (084060031RN) for failing to conform to the essential standards of acceptable nursing practice. He resides in Portland, Ore.

Don't know for certain they're the same, but other references indicate he's from/living in Oregon.

Then there's this:


Please, just stop typing. You're truly off your nut if you think some anonymous blogger is a reliable source for climate science.

Go away, troll.

"Anyway, one will solve the other."

Anyone who says this has not been keeping up with the GW situation. We are way past the level at which irreversible and horrific runaway global warming kicks in. We need to essentially stop all UN-sequestering of carbon, that is fossil fuel extraction, immediately and find ways to effectively RE-sequester large amounts of the carbon that have already been released.

Neither of these is politically (and the latter not yet technically) feasible.

During the entire development of human civilization over the last thousand years, CO2 concentrations had not exceeded 300 parts per million. Now they are about 380 ppm and rising over 2 ppm every year. Reducing the rate at which we increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is not going to "solve" gw.

But maybe I misunderstood you. Perhaps you meant that, with the imminent total collapse of the Arctic icecap and the probable havoc this will wreak on the planetary climate and weather systems and so on the possibility of raising enough food to support 7 billion people, most of human civilization is about to collapse, so PO will seem a rather academic concern.

If this was your meaning, I apologize and would tend to agree. GW could indeed "solve" PO in such a way in the next very few years.

The host asks about greater efficiencies and questions Fatih's negative outlook. Within his comments he says there are some 130 (#?) offshore rigs under construction.

Does this seem like it could be accurate?

He also questioned why, given all those rigs under construction, we couldn't find 5, 6 or 7 new Tupis. He asks this as if Fatih is a bit dense.

Does he not know the very, very slow progress at Tupi? Does he not know Tupi will likely not produce more than 1mb/d (being very generous, imho) and that even 7 Tupis meets only about 10% of future need given decline rates?


I feel like we have really fallen through the Rabbit Hole. On one hand we have this IEA speech from Fatih Birol (who can hardly be called a fringe nut-case) which clearly demonstrates that PO can GW are issues that need to be taken seriously (an understatement).

On the other hand, a couple of days ago, I attended a “Listening Session” sponsored by Russ Feingold, our Wisconsin US Senator. Naively, I prepared a statement that would take about 8 minutes for me to read. It provided a short overview of the PO and GW issues and then urged the senator to support laws and regulations designed to mitigate the threats associated with these issues. My friends, including college professors, reviewed the statement and they felt that it was clearly written, easy to understand, and relevant for the listening session. There was no inflammatory rhetoric or wild statements – actually, most TOD readers would think the dangers were understated.

The Senator clearly was not in a mood for this type of input. He seemed distracted and hardly looked at me. After 3 or 4 minutes he interrupted me and asked if I was “almost finished”. I tried to read faster, but a minute or two later he announced that I was finished and we needed to move on to the next person. His total time at this event was one hour and 15 minutes.

A couple of other people raised questions about the possibility of raising gasoline taxes to discourage excessive consumption. He said he was very much opposed to putting more of a burden on the backs of people who were already financially stressed. Although he said he would try to keep an open mind. That seemed to be the extent of his interest in PO or GW.

How can we expect to see any meaningful government intervention with this kind of attitude on the part of a senator who bills himself as a “Progressive”? I realize that most TOD readers see government as irrelevant as the PO & GW scenarios unfold. But, I also suspect that some of us still have some hope that there is a useful government role to lessen the impact or avoid the worst scenarios. The question is – how do we motivate these representatives? Or, more importantly, how can their voting constituents be educated about the dangers? Currently, my personal observation is that most people are very skeptical and cynical about these issues – just blame “big oil” and “goofy tree huggers”.


I believe your post highlights a fear that some here, including myself, harbor: the gov't IS NOT irrelevent as the stated problems unfold. Instead the gov't will be proactive and develop solutions to problems that don't exist while taking actions which only intensify the negative aspects of the situation. It sounds like your senator may be at the forefront of such uninformed and potentialy destructive policies.

The true root of my pessimism lies in the fact (from my point of view) that these problems will be solved by individual actions building to societal changes, the corporations and politicians be damned.

But, then one factors in complexity and realizes there is virtually no way to get 6.7 billion people moving in the same direction; certainly not in the time allotted.

Thus, we are well and truly screwed barring something akin to a Gaian awakening (Asimov reference, I believe).

None of this implies the trying is not worth the effort, nor that the trying isn't the moral and ethical choice.

But it is hard to feel success is at hand.


But, then one factors in complexity and realizes there is virtually no way to get 6.7 billion people moving in the same direction; certainly not in the time allotted

You've lost track of time. Closer to 6.8 billion now...

I'll have a seance and have H.G. tune up my time machine. Those darn ghosts are jsut not as dependable as they used to be...


Unfortunately, sometimes the speaker is more important than the message. If the speaker isn't important enough, than the message will be ignored, no matter how well constructed

Very cool of you to try though

The question is – how do we motivate these representatives?

Umm, tar and feathers?! Nah, never mind we're almost out of tar...

Hmmm ... Fatih's 15 minute executive summary at the begining should be on the national news channels, hopefully a lot more people would get the predicament the world almost certainly finds itself in. I’ll send the link to my MP … this is serious stuff indeed!

So ...

What happens if there isn't actually a viable way to adequately capture carbon from coal and gas and oil consumption?

What happens if there isn't enough Uranium available in the timescales required?

What happens if there isn't enough money to invest in CCS, nuclear and alternatives like windmills and efficiency gains?

What happens if the US doesn’t massively and rapidly plan to reduce it’s per capita consumption of oil to the same level as Chindia?

There’s a lot more ‘ifs’ like those questions as well!

Sometime in the future, people will look back on this time and label us as verifiably insane. It will be necessary to bring up only one argument, which is:

"They found out that burning fossil fuels caused climate change, and yet they continued doing it. Worse, they decided to capture and store some of the excess CO2 they were producing. What were they thinking we would do with it? They were not only ruining their own world but ensuring that we would continue to have to deal with their troubles long after they were gone!"

Who in the future is going to take care of that captured and stored CO2 - to make sure that it doesn't get out and cause yet more problems? Who now is willing to claim that our current civilization is so important that we can put our offspring at such risk?

Coal miners know what carbon sequestration looks like.

Well put.

"Sometime in the future, people will look back on this time and label us as verifiably insane."

Why wait. I think we can stick that label right on us right now. Maybe add "dangerously, terra-cidally..." before "insane"?

I recently coined the term sui-genocidal for deniers (and any others actively working against solutions...like, say, Exxon, et al...).


Fatih Birol and The End of the Peak Oil Hysteria: It has been rebranded Climate Change Hysteria

Fatih Birol's remarks before the Council of Foreign Relations effectively indicated the central concern of the intellectuals, energy agencies, large businesses and political class of the developed world, and it is NOT peak oil.

The intellectual effort, the publications and further research, education and resources of the world's intellectual class is now focused almost laser like on what they see as the single great danger to humankind and possibly to all species on the Earth: Climate Change.

Fatih Birol did give us one fact as definitive: OECD oil consumption has peaked. Yes, Fatih Birol of the IEA has declared peak, but it is a peak in consumption instead of production.

This means, and Fatih was very clear in stressing this, that global warming is in many ways a world threat that is now in the hands of the Chinese, Indians, and other developing nations. If the U.S., Japan, and Europe do everything they can to stop increases and perhaps even reduce carbon release but cannot get the developing world to buy into the arrangements and take part in carbon reduction, then the developed nations are essentially engaging in a hobby, tilting at windmills and wasting their time and money.

Interestingly, after pointing out early in the speech that the problem is coal burning, the rest of the discussion by Birol and the questioners was spent dealing with oil! Why? A huge part of the solution would be to reduce waste of electric energy, convert to nuclear, naturual gas and renewable energy, and decommision coal plants, and absolutely forbid building anymore of them. How simple, except Birol knew he was preaching to the choir. The OECD can and possibly will do the above. But will China, India and the poorest countries of the world agree to such an expensive program? Can they afford to even if they want to?

Birol is essentionally laying out the blueprint for the future in the OECD: The energy utilities and the transportation industry will have no choice but to spend money and effort funding universities, entreprenuers, intellectuals, subcontracters, and financial investments to reduce carbon release. Any carbon releasing utiliity must be very afraid now, and any industry which relies heavily on transportation must be seeking ways to reduce carbon release NOW.

This is interestng, because just as Saudi Arabia has feared, it simply will not matter whether they can deliver the oil or not, the consuming industries will essentially be for the most part barred from using it. The coal industry must, for the most part, cease to exist, at least in the U.S., as we can assume that OECD nations will tighten the noose ever tighter around the neck of any industry that survives by putting carbon into the air.

The last phase may take a bit longer, but every trend, every indication, every projection one can make based on current evidence indicates that it is true: The much kick down "renewable" energies are poised to become the fastest growing industry on Earth since the dawn of the automobile. If we take Fatih Birol serious as a thinker and as reading the projections correctly into the future, there is no choice. We know that the EROEI of oil and natural gas is going down. We know that due to efficiencies in production and reduction in raw material imput per kilowatt produced for the solar industry, EROEI of solar and other renewables are going up. The advantage is moving to the true renewables such as solar, wind, ocean wave and some geothermal even before we declare an emergency due to carbon release. Once the petroleum industry is no longer allowed to externalize the cost of carbon release, the die is cast. Renewables with efficiency planning, and nationwide methane recapture is the only path forward. It is now almost certain that if China, India and the developing world will join in this new technological revolution, most of the last trillion barrels of oil on earth will remain in the ground. And if the developing countries will not join this revolution, nothing that Europe, Japan and the U.S. do will matter anyway.


Very well said ThatsItImout. But I'm not sure I would exclude the US from your list of developing nations increasing the carbon output. The last time I saw the statistic coal has been providing an ever increasing source of our eletrical production for at least the last 25 years. While we do waste much oil on transportaion, life and industry in our country depends upon electricity which has increasingly depended upon coal. Perhaps that trend will change in the future but it has yet to materialize. Even England, which had agreed with the EU to shut down coal-fired electrical production, is now facing an energy shortage forcing them to reconsider that commitment.

IMO global warming issues will not be addressed because they are critical to the ecology of the global or a threat to those living near sea level. They will not be addressed because it is a moral imperative. It will be addressed only when it is a viable economic option for the industrialized countries. Given the current global economy it's difficult to imagine such a status being reached anythime soon.

"viable economic option"

Well put. But we may be leaving the age where "economic viability" is the supreme god that all others lie down before. "Viability of the planet" should and may yet trump economic viability.

Having said that, there are lots of activities that could be counted as economic that will be necessary to move to something like a sustainable future (if any such is possible, at this point).

Economic growth, ever higher GDPs, these are all illusions constructed by economists that have little to do with the wellbeing of most people or the planet. I think more and more people are waking up to this fact.

But we can create another set of economic parameters that factor in resource depletion, ecosystem destruction, and exhaustion of ecological sinks for the wastes we produce. This can set up the new "game" that new economists can play so they have something to do and measure and feel important about.

It's interesting to see the inmates here trying to fathom the 'Inner Birol'; the fact that he isn't just cheerleading for the energy/transportation business suggests a paradigm shift.

I think the price of crude has put Peak Oil on the back burner. "How can oil be running out, when it is so cheap?" This leads to a long- winded explanation of the wickedness of markets that most people don't want to stand around and hear.

"Perhaps the markets have created the needed four or more Saudi Arabias and the excess of new production is driving down prices!"

"Where are these new market- created Saudi Arabias?"

"I dunno, Mars?"

The peeps don't wanna hear about the coming Great Depression Deux. Too depressing.

Economics has more to do with both CC and energy outcomes than does any amount of planning, initiatives or technologies. Every passing day renders the 'build- out' solutions to the energy/climate issues less and less relevant and less reachable at the same time. It is clear the priorities of the Establishments of all the developed countries is the comfort of bankers and speculators; when the dirty work of bailouts is over and done with, there will be little left in the till to finance anything. It is probably the expression of the wickedness of markets ... expanding the conceit of markets to include politicians meddling in them.

The question marks are indeed China and India. Both could survive to beocme planet destroying humanoid cancers ... or ... both could collapse socially and politically from 'Made In USA' economic failure. Time will tell. In the meantime, it is the human propensity to fail in its most spectacular - and stupid - ambitions which gives me hope.

Mies Van Der Hohe had it right; less IS more!

"It is clear the priorities of the Establishments of all the developed countries is the comfort of bankers and speculators; when the dirty work of bailouts is over and done with, there will be little left in the till to finance anything."

Spot on.


And any scrap that is left will be gobbled up by the most expensive and dangerous "alternative" energy source--nukes.

It is now almost certain that if China, India and the developing world will join in this new technological revolution, most of the last trillion barrels of oil on earth will remain in the ground

Dream on ThatsItImout ... dream on.

You are not getting this , IMO.
Humanity will burn through all the fossils they can glut-hold-of as fast as humanly possible. The IPCC message is just a disturbance in MSM. In my national press CO2 was the buzzword in 2007 ..... in 2008 ? ... gone! vanished ! out of popularity ... whatever .. it is simply not mentioned anymore and lack of interest started a year ago, long before the financial crisis.

Did you skip over the part that where Birol said that even if demand remained flat, we'd need to discovery 4 Saudi Arabias. 6 if we need to keep up with demand?

Did you skip over the part where he said the decline rate would increase in the future?

Climate change is a huge problem, but that does not preclude peak oil being a significant issue.

"Did you skip over the part that where Birol said that even if demand remained flat, we'd need to discovery 4 Saudi Arabias. 6 if we need to keep up with demand?"

No, but I also heard him pretty much dismiss that as an investment problem, and remember that he only viewed OECD consumption as remaining flat, not developing world. If developing world oil consumption were to remain flat, the need for the 4 Saudi Arabia's would depend only economic growth and the technical ability to bring in efficiency and alternatives.

"Did you skip over the part where he said the decline rate would increase in the future?"

No, but the structure of his argument leaves no doubt as to where he stands: Let us imagine that depletion did not increase, or that a new Saudi Arabia or North Sea was found every year. That would still not in Birol's mind be a solution to the great emergency of climate change. It would in fact be deadly to not only humans, but all life on earth. At least one can say that peak oil threatens predominantly humans and allows the little furry creatures to live while we humans perish.

What Birol and others who see climate change as the central emergency is saying is truly revolutionary: The more oil, gas or coal you can find and use, the deeper trouble your in. This argument essentially ends peak oil as an interesting point of discussion since fossil fuels are declared as essentially a poison to all life.


China can afford to stop building coal electric plants and instead build nuclear electric plants. So could the US, Britain, and Germany. But they are all building coal electric plants.

We've got to become willing to pay a 2 or 3 cents more per kwh to stop using coal.

Since oil production is going to decline the amount of extractable coal has become the biggest question with regard to future CO2 emissions.

This is an excellent video. Though at times, Fatih Birol is hard to understand. For a moment, I thought he was talking about "gigabytes" instead of "gigawatts".

Is there a transcript for this anywhere?

I'm surprised this video hasn't gotten more attention (only a few comments compared to the Drumbeat)

I suppose technically it's nothing new, but to hear Birol speaking and see people discussing it is really something else