The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand

I recently received an interesting e-mail:

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and Author of "Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters" will answer questions in a live discussion on washingtonpost.com today (Wednesday, Aug. 6 at 3 pm ET).

Pelosi will discuss the current political scene heading into the conventions, the message of her new book and other questions submitted by readers.

To submit questions and participate in the live discussion click here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/08/01/DI2008080102174.html

This seemed to me to be an ideal opportunity to question her on two issues that she is clearly passionate about, but seem to me to be diametrically opposed: Tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and reducing carbon emissions. So, I submitted the following question, several hours prior to the chat:

I have a friend who is addicted to nicotine. His liberal friends tell him that this addiction is bad, and point out that it is costing him too much money. Therefore, they want policies passed that ensure that he can continue to consume as much as he likes, and not hurt his budget too much. They are sure that nicotine substitutes will come along soon to save the day. For reasons I detail below, I call this the Boxer approach, but it could just as easily be the Pelosi/Democratic Party approach.

His conservative friends agree that he is addicted, but their solution is to carve out areas in the U.S. where we can grow more tobacco, and therefore his addiction can at least be homegrown. Sort of like "If you are going to smoke pot, at least smoke American pot." This is the Bush approach.

So. Here in Australia, petrol prices are going up faster than iron ore being lifted onto a Chinese freighter, and the cost of putting a roof over our head is moving as fast as natural gas shooting down the pipeline to Japan.

Headlines repeat the IEA warning of a major "Supply Crunch" in the near future (as distinct from what we have right now - which, presumably, is just a minor “Supply Crackle”). Fuel costs and climate problems have driven food prices so high that the most common holiday job for university students this Christmas is likely to be riding shotgun on the Christmas food deliveries.

Oh.... and our politicians are arguing about a five cent fuel excise. Five cents. Petrol is on track to hit $2.00 a litre before Christmas, and politicians are debating a one-off five cent cut as if it was, well, relevant.

Our politicians don’t seem to grasp the nature and magnitude of the problem. Is it a conspiracy? Or are they just stupid? I am going to argue that it is a problem with numbers.

This is a guest post from kiashu

Here in Australia Garnaut, an economist, is undertaking a study on what to do about Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. He has a website about it, and has released a draft report on it. He is in favour of strong action, though what he calls "strong action" and what you and I call "strong action" may be rather different things.

There are two basic ways people think of for dealing with emissions of unpleasant substances, aside from banning them entirely - tax them, and trade them. In taxing them we say, "emit as much as you like, but you have to pay for it." The theory is that people will reduce spending on things with that cost attached to them, thus reducing emissions of it, and that the revenue raised can be spent on dealing with the problems from it. In trading them we say, "you can only emit this much, and you must pay for it." So the government sets a target amount for emissions, creates permits for that much, and lets companies buy and sell these permits as they wish.

The government and Garnaut are in favour of an emissions trading scheme (ETS). I'm not. Remember the point of our schemes is to stop carbon emissions. We did not abolish outright slavery by setting up a slave market. That only encourages it. (Of course it's still not entirely abolished even today, but fewer people as a proportion of the world population are enslaved than ever before, and not because someone established a cap and trade system for slaves.)

This is a guest post by Alexis Ziegler. Alexis is a communitarian, builder, orchardist and environmental activist living in central Virginia. He is the author of a recently published book, Culture Change: Civil Liberty, Peak Oil, and the End of Empire. More information can be found at conev.org.

Abstract

The rapid expansion of biofuel production worldwide has paralleled a dramatic rise in food prices. The expansion of biofuels has been supported by a wide spectrum of people, from environmentalists looking for "sustainable" energy to conservatives wanting to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil. With food riots spreading, the U.S. remains committed to an expansion of biofuel.

Biofuels are part of a larger movement toward green capitalism, the idea that we can scale down our energy use through technologies that improve the efficiency of the consumer society. Biofuels are emblematic of the dark side of green capitalism, which is focused almost entirely on the well being of the global upper class. Biofuels are a form of nationalistic environmentalism that is creating a foundation on which more extreme nationalists will try to wed the racist tools of yesterday with a version of "sustainability" that will include the destruction of the global poor.

Real solutions are both impossibly difficult and simple. The cooperative societies in which most humans have always lived are capable of supporting a high standard of living with far less resources than the individualized, consumer society. Enlightened political leadership would be helpful, but we can create a sustainable society without it. Indeed, we have to.

The Rudd Government's first budget contained a number of green initiatives - subsidies for solar hot water and PV, incentives for landlords to insulate homes and more encouragement for rainwater tanks.

They also kept Howard's $500 million handout to our largest and most profitable industry, the coal industry, which might explain why Bob Brown said the "budget had nothing for renewable energy but was a boon for the coal industry". The Clean Energy Council was more enthusiastic, saying "Australia heads towards a clean energy future one budget at a time".

The budget also expects a surge in farm production and continuing growth in mineral exports.

Mr. or Madam President,

Vice President Dick Cheney once famously quipped "The American way of life is non-negotiable." I submit that while our next president might not be so brash in stating this, the root of our energy problems can be traced to this attitude. But, nature doesn't negotiate. It doesn't appear that any of the remaining presidential candidates understand the basis of the problems we face: Oil is a depleting, finite resource - albeit one crucial for the "American way of life."

Because this resource is so crucial - and obviously not just for Americans - depletion is going to drive prices up as consumers bid for dwindling supplies. Threatening to sue OPEC isn't going to change that. Threatening to tax Big Oil into submission isn't going to change that. Mandating that we will invent new technologies to meet a greatly increased Renewable Fuel Standard isn't going to change that. These are the sorts of proposals that merely demonstrate that your grasp of the problem is superficial. And you have to understand the problem in order to begin addressing it.

Mark Reynolds in NSW provided this excellent submission to the Australian Federal Government's Garnaut Climate Change Review on Issue Paper Number 5: Transport Planning and the Built Environment.

Mark's complete submission is available as a PDF.

Professor Garnaut,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission. In the following pages I set out to show that you have not included in your thinking to date the most disruptive factor affecting transport emissions. Given that oil is the lifeblood of our transport system I provide evidence that escalating oil costs and supply constraints are real and critical within short planning horizons. I then describe four linked and supportive policy thrusts to develop a low emissions transport sector in Australia, with economic, social and environmental benefits.

John McCain, who just hours earlier proposed a "tax holiday" in which the 18 cent federal tax on gasoline would be suspended during the summer driving season, has reconsidered and has instead proposed that the U.S. gallon be redefined to be equal in volume to the current U.S. quart. "This will immediately lower the price at the pump by 75%, providing visible relief to millions of Americans", quipped McCain. "I rejected the idea of setting it equal to the liter, for obvious reasons".

When questioners suggested that this move wouldn't actually change how much consumers spend to fill their tanks, McCain responded "Well, neither would my previous proposal".

In unrelated election news, the McCain campaign announced that P.T. Barnum has been posthumously appointed as their policy director. Also, Hillary Clinton has proposed a suspension of the law of gravity, at least during the summer flying season, to help the beleaguered airline industry. Barack Obama reportedly had no comment on these suggestions, other than to say that Americans are definitely "atwitter" about gas prices.

We interrupt this vacation from reality with the following observations...(under the fold...)

In Sydney today, Bruce Robinson, Convenor of the Australian Association for the Study of Peak Oil attended a news conference where Lee Rhiannon, Green MLC launched a bill for a NSW Oil Vulnerability Task Force.

ASPO Australia issued their own media release which has been picked up by the Sydney Morning Herald: SMH - Sydney must prepare now for peak oil

Sydneysiders must take serious steps to reduce their vehicle use before future global oil shortages hit, a peak oil study group says.

ASPO Australia's Bruce Robinson has called on the federal and NSW governments to get more cars off the roads before the oil shock hits.