User:EnergyAnalyst1/sandbox6

History
Add a few lines about the history of the IEA. Which was founded in France. It is located a block from the Eiffel Tower.

Structure
Governing Board, Ministerials, Standing Groups, Committees. Elaborate....

Membership
Explain the privileges and commitments of membership in the IEA.

Association states
Explain what association is, why it is a useful tool. What privileges association countries have vis-à-vis full members
 * 🇦🇷 Argentina
 * 🇧🇷 Brazil
 * 🇨🇳 China
 * 🇪🇬 Egypt
 * 🇮🇳 India
 * 🇮🇩 Indonesia
 * 🇲🇦 Morocco
 * 🇸🇬 Singapore
 * 🇿🇦 South Africa
 * 🇹🇭 Thailand
 * 🇺🇦 Ukraine, formally invited on 16 June 2022

Accession states
Explanation of the accession process to the IEA
 * 🇨🇱 Chile
 * 🇨🇴 Colombia
 * 🇮🇱 [[israel|Israel]]

Net Zero scenarios
Our work tracking all different scenarios

Country reports
Energy Policy Reviews, Country reports, etc.

Energy reports
We produce analysis across all energy types -- fossil fuels, nuclear, biofuels and waste, and renewables. Also minerals. Name specific reports. Name World Energy Outlook.

Criticism
The IEA has been criticised for systematically underestimating the role of renewable energy sources in future energy systems such as photovoltaics and their cost reductions.

Ahead of the launch of the 2009 World Energy Outlook, the British daily newspaper The Guardian, referring to an unidentified senior IEA official, alleged that the agency was deliberately downplaying the risk of peak oil under pressures from the USA. According to a second unidentified former senior IEA official it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" and that the world has already entered the "peak oil zone".

The Guardian also referred to a team of scientists from Uppsala University in Sweden who studied the 2008 World Energy Outlook and concluded the forecasts of the IEA were unattainable. According to their peer-reviewed report, oil production in 2030 would not exceed 75 Moilbbl/d while the IEA forecasts a production of 105 Moilbbl/d. The lead author of the report, Dr. Kjell Aleklett, has claimed that IEA's reports are "political documents". Other research from the same group has thoroughly reviewed oil projections done by the IEA World Energy Outlook.

The anticorruption NGO Global Witness wrote in its report Heads in the Sand that "Global Witness' analysis demonstrates that the Agency continues to retain an overly-optimistic, and therefore misleading, view about potential future oil production." According to Global Witness, "the Agency's over-confidence, despite credible data, external analysis and underlying fundamentals all strongly suggesting a more precautionary approach, has had a disastrous global impact."

In the past, the IEA has been criticized by environmental groups for underplaying the role of renewable energy technologies in favor of nuclear and fossil fuels. In 2009, Guy Pearse stated that the IEA has consistently underestimated the potential for renewable energy alternatives.

The Energy Watch Group (EWG), a coalition of scientists and politicians which analyses official energy industry predictions, claims that the IEA has had an institutional bias towards traditional energy sources and has been using "misleading data" to undermine the case for renewable energy, such as wind and solar. A 2008 EWG report compares IEA projections about the growth of wind power capacity and finds that it has consistently underestimated the amount of energy the wind power industry can deliver.

For example, in 1998, the IEA predicted global wind electricity generation would total 47.4 GW by 2020, but EWG's report states that this level was reached by the end of 2004. The report also said that the IEA has not learned the lesson of previous underestimates, and last year net additions of wind power globally were four times greater than the average IEA estimate from its 1995–2004 predictions. This pattern seems to have continued through 2016.

Amid discontent from across the renewables sector at the IEA's performance as a global energy watchdog, the International Renewable Energy Agency was formed on January 26, 2009. The aim is to have the agency fully operational by 2010 with an initial annual budget of €25M.

Environmental groups have become critical of the IEA's 450 Scenario (created to align with the 2009 Copenhagen Accord), contending it does not align with up-to-date climate science, nor is it consistent with the Paris climate agreement that aspires to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. In March 2017, the IEA (along with IRENA) published a report that considers a safer climate scenario than their current 450S. This scenario offers improved chances of limiting global warming to less than two degrees, but – according to research organization Oil Change International – still falls short of adequately addressing climate science and the decarbonization required to reach agreed upon global climate limits. The IEA has stopped updating this safer climate scenario.

Concerns regarding the IEA's Sustainable Development Scenario (the successor to the 450 scenario) has also been raised by climate scientists and key financial institutions, who have called for 1.5 °C scenario placed centrally in the World Energy Outlook. As of December 2019, two-thirds of IEA member states have committed to net-zero emissions by 2050; however, the IEA's Sustainable Development Scenario only gets to net-zero by 2070, two decades too late.

In 2018 the IEA was criticized in Davos by Saudi Arabia's Oil Minister Al-Falih, for hyping the US shale oil industry amid forecasts of oversupply for the oil market in their January Oil Market Report. Al-Falih was exasperated with those claims, arguing that natural depletion, and strong demand growth meant that there was plenty of room for new supplies, while the shale drillers would not crash the market. He further said that the IEA is overstating the role of shale in a global market, and how the core job of the IEA, is not to take things out of context.

The IEA's current forecasts for solar power do not accord with the exponential growth in the sector. The misleading projections have perpetuated the impression that the growth of solar power requires huge subsidies, and has the potential to discourage investment in solar energy market and consequently, hold back even faster growth.

In 2021, the IEA was publicly criticized by more than 30 international academics and researchers at Our World in Data for publishing its detailed, global energy data behind paywalls, "[making] it unusable in the public discourse and [preventing] many researchers from accessing it". The authors of the Our World in Data open letter suggested that "countries that fund the IEA drop the requirement to place data behind paywalls and increase their funding".