Peak Stupidity  

Posted by Big Gav in ,

George Monbiot has a look at the inconsistencies in the UK government's attitude towards peak oil - Peak Stupidity.

A powerpoint presentation released at last by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, in response to freedom of information requests by the indefatigable Lionel Badal, shows that in 2007 the government spent six months secretly gaming the likely impacts of declining global oil supplies. The results were not pretty.

The officials who conducted the assessment found that “it is not possible to predict with any accuracy exactly when or why oil production will peak”. They believed that “a permanent decline in global oil production – i.e. peak oil – is unlikely to take place before 2020. However, if it were to happen, the consequences for economic prosperity and security are likely to be serious”. Among these consequences were:

- “Impacts on UK security of oil supply”
- “Disruption of the UK economy especially the transport sector”
- “Possible geopolitical implications”.

It peak oil hit the UK economy, the officials found, it could take “several years or even decades” for the government and the economy to adjust.

I find these revelations deeply puzzling, not least because, in 2008 and 2009 – after the officials had submitted their confidential report – I made a series of FoI requests of my own. I asked the government what contingency plans it had made for the eventuality that global supplies of crude oil might peak by 2020.

It replied that it agreed with the analysis by the International Energy Agency, that “global oil (and gas) reserves are sufficient to sustain economic growth for the foreseeable future”. As a result “the Government does not feel the need to hold contingency plans specifically for the eventuality of crude oil supplies peaking between now and 2020.” Its existing policies already put the UK “in a good position to deal with the longer-term challenge of declining global oil reserves.”

There are three inconsistencies between what the department told me and what it knew:

1. The civil servants charged with investigating this issue for the government concluded that it was “not possible to predict with any accuracy” when peak oil would occur. This statement clashes with the confident prediction – there was nothing to worry about – with which I was fobbed off.

2. That confident prediction was based on International Energy Agency (IEA) projections. But the powerpoint presentation shows that the IEA’s predictions were an extreme outlier. All the other assessments the officials examined in compiling their report were more pessimistic. So why had the government chosen – in public at any rate – to rely primarily on the IEA?

3. The government had been warned by its officials that peak oil could cause major problems for the UK, and a long and “potentially painful” period of transition. In public it maintained that the country was already in “a good position” to deal with it.

It gets worse. At the end of 2008, the IEA radically changed its own assessment. Rather than relying on guesswork, as it had done until then, it had just conducted the world’s first comprehensive study of the annual rate of decline in output from the world’s 800 largest oilfields. The results forced the agency radically to reassess its optimistic assumptions. It raised its estimate of the annual decline rate from 3.7% to 6.7%. For the first time in one of its World Energy Outlook reports, it mentioned the word “peak”.

(International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2008.)

On the day of the report’s publication, I interviewed the IEA’s chief economist, Fatih Birol, and asked him to be more specific about when the decline in global oil supplies might begin. This is what he told me:
“in terms of non-OPEC, we are expecting that in three, four years’ time the production of conventional oil will come to a plateau, and start to decline. … In terms of the global picture, assuming that OPEC will invest in a timely manner, global conventional oil can still continue, but we still expect that it will come around 2020 to a plateau as well … I think time is not on our side here.”

So I sent the government another request: in the light of what the IEA has revealed, what contingency plans has the UK now made? The response amazed me: “With sufficient investment, the government does not believe that global oil production will peak between now and 2020 and consequently we do not have any contingency plans specific to a peak in oil production.”

The organisation on which the British government claimed to be relying had now pulled the rug from under its feet. Yet still the government maintained that there was nothing to worry about, despite the fact that its own officials were telling a different story. Either their warnings had been brushed aside by ministers or the government was knowingly misleading the public.

All this is further complicated by the remarkable claim Fatih Birol made, out of the blue, a few weeks ago:

“We think that the crude oil production has already peaked, in 2006.”

This is all the more surprising in view of the fact that until 2008 (two years after the IEA now says it happened), the agency continued to dismiss the possibility that peak oil would occur before 2030, if at all.

In public, the last government claimed to be relying on assessments which, with good reason, its own officials did not trust, and which, by the end of 2008, it already knew were wrong. What on earth was going on?

1 comments

What is a date?
“it is not possible to predict with any accuracy exactly when or why oil production will peak”. - Really?

Regardless of peak in 10 ,20, 50 years:
All the peak debates are as irresponsible as the global warming/cooling ones.

Why not start transition now regardless if it could take 5-50 years?

As if all the environmental, health and security threats were not enough, we have to come up another reason to push further stress, strain and pain on our near future.

The whole idea of continuing to build societies dependent on non-renewable resources is about a self destructive to people and their economies as it is to the planet.


What is the reason we would not want to make our energy/transportation fiscally and environmentally sustainable?
The sooner we start the easier and cheaper it becomes... that is an undeniable fact.

[The reality is it could take “several years or even decades” for the government and the economy to adjust (Or even prepare).]

Do these people consider the age of trains, planes, tanks... most that were built three decades ago are in service somewhere around the world today. What of the ones we build now?

IF we started right now and ONLY focused on replacing oil in 20 years can they even "grasp" the monumental supply chain and infrastructure advances we would have to take? Or even the cost?

If I just calculate replacing planes and ships, it shadows Apollo, Sputnik and the Manhattan projects combined look insignificant.


Just words...
"If you put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand." - Milton Friedman

and

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein


Personal favorite
"If the whole world was made of oil, it would still be a finite resource" - Haase



End rant....

Post a Comment

Statistics

Locations of visitors to this page

blogspot visitor
Stat Counter

Total Pageviews

Ads

Books

Followers

Blog Archive

Labels

australia (604) global warming (381) solar power (365) peak oil (335) renewable energy (228) electric vehicles (210) wind power (181) ocean energy (160) csp (153) geothermal energy (143) solar thermal power (140) smart grids (139) tidal power (135) coal seam gas (129) nuclear power (125) oil (123) energy storage (122) solar pv (119) lng (114) geothermal power (112) china (111) iraq (111) green buildings (107) natural gas (106) agriculture (87) oil price (79) biofuel (77) smart meters (72) wave power (70) electricity grid (66) uk (66) energy efficiency (63) coal (57) google (57) internet (51) bicycle (49) shale gas (49) surveillance (49) food prices (48) big brother (47) thin film solar (42) canada (40) biomimicry (39) scotland (38) ocean power (37) politics (37) new zealand (35) shale oil (35) air transport (34) algae (34) water (34) concentrating solar power (32) queensland (32) california (31) credit crunch (31) saudi arabia (31) bioplastic (30) offshore wind power (29) population (29) tesla (29) cogeneration (28) geoengineering (28) arctic ice (26) batteries (26) drought (26) resource wars (26) woodside (26) bruce sterling (25) censorship (25) cleantech (25) ctl (23) economics (22) limits to growth (21) carbon tax (20) coal to liquids (20) distributed manufacturing (20) indonesia (20) iraq oil law (20) lithium (20) origin energy (20) brightsource (19) buckminster fuller (19) rail transport (19) ultracapacitor (19) santos (18) ausra (17) exxon (17) michael klare (17) cellulosic ethanol (16) collapse (16) electric bikes (16) mapping (16) ucg (16) atlantis (15) bees (15) concentrating solar thermal power (15) ethanol (15) geodynamics (15) iceland (15) psychology (15) brazil (14) fertiliser (14) lithium ion batteries (14) al gore (13) ambient energy (13) biodiesel (13) bucky fuller (13) carbon emissions (13) cities (13) investment (13) kenya (13) matthew simmons (13) public transport (13) biochar (12) chile (12) internet of things (12) otec (12) texas (12) victoria (12) cradle to cradle (11) desertec (11) energy policy (11) hybrid car (11) terra preta (11) amory lovins (10) fabber (10) gazprom (10) goldman sachs (10) gtl (10) severn estuary (10) tinfoil (10) toyota (10) volt (10) afghanistan (9) alaska (9) biomass (9) carbon trading (9) distributed generation (9) esolar (9) four day week (9) fuel cells (9) jeremy leggett (9) pge (9) sweden (9) antarctica (8) arrow energy (8) big oil (8) eroei (8) fish (8) floating offshore wind power (8) guerilla gardening (8) linc energy (8) methane (8) methane hydrates (8) nanosolar (8) natural gas pipelines (8) pentland firth (8) relocalisation (8) saul griffith (8) stirling engine (8) us elections (8) western australia (8) airborne wind turbines (7) bloom energy (7) boeing (7) bolivia (7) chp (7) climategate (7) copenhagen (7) vinod khosla (7) apocaphilia (6) ceramic fuel cells (6) cigs (6) futurism (6) jatropha (6) local currencies (6) nigeria (6) ocean acidification (6) scenario planning (6) somalia (6) t boone pickens (6) space based solar power (5) varanus island (5) garbage (4) global energy grid (4) kevin kelly (4) low temperature geothermal power (4) oled (4) tim flannery (4) v2g (4) club of rome (3) norman borlaug (2) peak oil portfolio (1)