[AirlinePilot]

Link

[davep]

Fatih Birol has been back in touch with the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/10/iea-oil-forecasts-energy-poverty

He starts off with an odd call to get electricity into those worldwide homes that don't have it.

"It's not likely to happen unless there's a major international concerted effort by rich countries," Birol said. "We will start to push it on to the main agenda at Copenhagen."

Who needs, food? Give them electricity. I had guessed that the whole Copenhagen thing seemed a little bit too well tied in.

Birol will appeal for international support on the issue ahead of the Copenhagen summit when he delivers a speech at the UN in New York on 23 November.

His remit seems to be expanding by the day.

Concerning the Guardian's story:

The IEA responded today by publishing on its website a key chapter from last year's outlook report detailing how it estimates the decline in the rate of production from the world's largest oilfields. The information is normally only available to those who buy the entire report for €150 (£134).

How would producing a historical analysis in any way validate their future predictions, which are totally out of whack with the document? I'm not complaining though, it's a good document IMO.

The IEA's forecast of global oil supplies hitting 105m barrels in 2030 represents its "doomsday" scenario, which, it said, would result in catastrophic global warming and energy supplies becoming increasingly vulnerable to terrorists or accidents. This is based on Copenhagen failing to reach a deal that ensures a higher carbon price, which would make the consumption of fossil fuels such as oil and coal more expensive and encourage the use of low-carbon forms of energy such as renewables and nuclear instead.

These chaps have been coordinating with Governments prior to Copenhagen to shoehorn this onto the agenda. I'm sure of that.

Birol said: "The reason why we showed it is to say this is the way that we are going and we should not go there otherwise there will be an accident in terms of climate change and energy security. We do not want it to happen."

Energy security, eh? You mean we may risk not getting the energy we need? That the figures may in some way be optimistic? Is this a small admission that it's not just climate change here, that it may be something to do with availability of resources, of Peak Oil?

The IEA, set up to advise its 28 member countries, said that the alternative scenario would see oil consumption only increase slightly between now and 2030. This is based on countries agreeing at Copenhagen to stabilise the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million. This would give the world a 50% chance of limiting temperature increases to 2C, it said.

It would also help energy security, right?

He added that last summer's record $147 a barrel oil price had "traumatised" many developing countries into looking for less volatile and costly forms of energy. Birol said oil prices, which had since fallen back to about $80, would continue to be volatile and would rise over the long term.

Surely if we choose the 450 path, supply will outstrip demand and prices will fall?

[davep]

The Guardian are now basically saying the same thing as us:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/10/peak-oil-fear-economic-establishment

Too fearful to publicise peak oil reality

The economic establishment accepts the world soon won't be able to meet energy demands, but wants to keep quiet about it

It is very hard for the average person in the street to come to a sensible conclusion on peak oil. It's a subject that prompts a passionate polarisation of views. The peak oilists sometimes sound like those extraordinary Christians with sandwich boards proclaiming that the end of the world is nigh. In contrast, the the international economic establishment – including the International Energy Agency (IEA) – has one very clear purpose in mind at all times: don't panic. Their mission seems to be focused on keeping jittery markets calm.

Faced with these options the majority of people shrug their shoulders in confusion and ignore the trickle of whistleblowers, industry insiders and careful analysts who have been warning of the imminent decline in oil for over a decade now.

Remember the Queen's question – that uncannily accurate and strikingly obvious question she put to economists at the London School of Economics a year ago after the financial crisis: did no one see it coming? Apply that question to peak oil and the answer is that many people did see it coming but they were marginalised, bullied into silence and the evidence was buried in the small print.

Take the 2008 edition of World Energy Outlook, the annual report on which the entire energy industry and governments depend. It included the table also published by the Guardian today, and the version I saw had shorter intervals on the horizontal axis. What it made blindingly clear was that peak oil was somewhere in 2008/9 and that production from currently producing fields was about to drop off a cliff. Fields yet to be developed and yet to be found enabled a plateau of production and it was only "non-conventional oil" which enabled a small rise. Think tar sands of Canada, think some of the most climate polluting oil extraction methods available. Think catastrophe.

What made this little graph so devastating was that it estimated energy resources by 2030 that were woefully inadequate for the energy-hungry economies of India and China. Business as usual in oil production threatens massive conflict over sharing it.

Now, this all seemed pretty gigantic news to me but guess where the World Energy Outlook chose to put this graph? Was it in the front, was it prominently discussed in the foreword? Did it cause headlines around the world. No, no, no. It was buried deep into the report and no reference was made to it in the press conference a year ago.

The fear is that panicky markets can cause enormous damage – panic-buying that prompts fights over resources, which in turn could lead to power cuts in some places and other such mayhem. But so far in facing this huge challenge, our political/economic system seems unable to cope with reality. We are forced to carry on living in an illusion that we have so much time to adapt to post-oil that we don't even need to be talking or thinking much about what a world without plentiful oil would look like. Reality has become too dangerous.

So in reply to the Queen's question of a few years hence, we did see it coming but we chose to ignore it.

[davep]

We've been discussing this in another thread since Monday!

[dukey]

The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.

it goes on

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... rgy-agency

[davep]

http://peakoil.com/peak-oil-reports/key ... 56606.html

[Quinny]

Mixed feelings on this, I think it's a cue for massive fue tax hikes which IMO are necessary, but also the rate of decline is drastic, especially if the report is over - optimistic!

[Maddog78]

Massive fuel/carbon tax hikes and a large transfer of wealth from 1st world to 2nd/3rd world countries in the form of carbon credits.
One example in a recent thread. Spain had to buy 43 million dollars worth from Poland.
Copenhagen will be interesting for Canada. Our current gov't will try very hard not to get roped in to too much of this despite what the public statements say.
Do you really think they want to send any potential profits from the Oil Sands to China, etc. in the form of buying carbon credits?
I have no predictions for how this will all shake out. Will debt laden European and N.A. countries really be willing to send all this cash out of their countries in the form of carbon offset credits? I can't see it happening.

[Revi]

I think we have to ask who is going to benefit from these carbon credits. If it could be used to stimulate small agriculture and get people out of big cars I think it's great.

If it means large payments to a bunch of corporations who don't contribute to the welfare of the whole, I say no.

[dorlomin]

The whole carbon credit thing is a con, but the greens have been protesting against them as well as the anti AGW people. They are an artificial market to generate wealth for banks and traders, they do zero (or worse in many cases) to reduce CO2 and are actualy a source of methane.

[mcgowanjm]

Because of trains? Whats wrong with a bus? I've ridden across the country on a greyhound, and its quite reasonably priced...certainly doesn't require a train to go from KC to NO.

You're serious, so I'll give you a serious reply.

A bus is more EROEI than a car, if full. A train is much
more EROEI than a bus.

Ever try sleeping on a bus? And forget any kind of meal.

The Santa Fe SuperChief as opposed to Greyhound.

Or since we're talkin' KC to NO, the KCS Southern Belle.

On an overnighter? No question. The train everytime.

[Maddog78]

Carbon offset credits are a big con. The ones supporting the idea in Canada seem to me to be "professional evironmental protestors" i.e. welfare cases because if they actually had a job they wouldn't have time to be out protesting all the time or people who's jobs are tied to this potential carbon trading system. The average people who haven't really looked into it and don't really seem to realise this calls for sending cash out of the country during a time of high debt, kind of shrug their shoulders and say, "well if it helps fight global warning I guess it's a good thing."

[shortonsense]

Because of trains? Whats wrong with a bus? I've ridden across the country on a greyhound, and its quite reasonably priced...certainly doesn't require a train to go from KC to NO.

You're serious, so I'll give you a serious reply.

A bus is more EROEI than a car, if full. A train is much
more EROEI than a bus.

EROEI doesn't have any more to do with my cost of traveling across the country than it does in oil production. What do I have to do next, round up a bus driver of Greyhound buses or trains, and get them to explain that prior to clambering up into the seat they DON'T stand around discussing the EROEI of any particular trip, and whether or not the trip should take place because of the quality of its EROEI?

Ever try sleeping on a bus? And forget any kind of meal.

So the choice is we'll all stop traveling home for the holidays because a cheaper bus is less comfortable than a train? Give me a break...people drive across the country and sleep in their cars, which is more of a pain than someone else driving me in a bus, and forget about any kind of meal while moving.

The convenience of the travel isn't the issue, some people are claiming that travel will stop...not that its a pain because you can't get a four course meal on a bus.

[Jotapay]

Mos, the issue a lot of us have with the Time article (and the several dozen other articles about the IEA whistle blower story) is that it seems contrived. Time is a corporate behemoth. Nothing escapes its walls without careful planning and input from several sources. I work for one of the largest multi-national corporations the world has ever seen, I know how we roll. The fact that this Time article (1) was released less than 24 hours after the whistleblower story first surfaced, and (2) whose tone is also a 180 degree about-face from past negative stories on peak oil, is quite notable. I find it unbelievable that Time would be able to roll out a story that so differs from their past stances on Peak Oil in just a few hours.

The problem we have with this is not the mainstream's recognition of peak oil. It's that corporate interests are going to co-opt peak oil now. When an organic movement is co-opted by corporations, the best interests of the citizenry are never served. Corporations use the movement to further their own agenda and generate more profits for themselves under the guise of being "good". It looks like this is going to be used to push treaties like the Copenhagen climate treaty which will severely limit national sovereignty and personal Liberty while increasing corporate and governmental control over our lives.

What we need is to move towards more localized, sustainable economies and communities. What will happen if peak oil is corporatized is that the decisions about human activity, energy usage and planning will be made by a handful of CEOs on a world-wide scale. Think of Mao in China during the cultural revolution as an analogy. I hate to sound like such a hippie but we need an organic movement to change our lives and deal with Peak Oil, not multinational corporations and SWAT teams using Peak Oil as another excuse to exercise more control over our lives.

[davep]

Mos, the issue a lot of us have with the Time article (and the several dozen other articles about the IEA whistle blower story) is that it seems contrived. Time is a corporate behemoth. Nothing escapes its walls without careful planning and input from several sources. I work for one of the largest multi-national corporations the world has ever seen, I know how we roll. The fact that this Time article (1) was released less than 24 hours after the whistleblower story first surfaced, and (2) whose tone is also a 180 degree about-face from past negative stories on peak oil, is quite notable. I find it unbelievable that Time would be able to roll out a story that so differs from their past stances on Peak Oil in just a few hours.

The problem we have with this is not the mainstream's recognition of peak oil. It's that corporate interests are going to co-opt peak oil now. When an organic movement is co-opted by corporations, the best interests of the citizenry are never served. Corporations use the movement to further their own agenda and generate more profits for themselves under the guise of being "good". It looks like this is going to be used to push treaties like the Copenhagen climate treaty which will severely limit national sovereignty and personal Liberty while increasing corporate and governmental control over our lives.

What we need is to move towards more localized, sustainable economies and communities. What will happen if peak oil is corporatized is that the decisions about human activity, energy usage and planning will be made by a handful of CEOs on a world-wide scale. Think of Mao in China during the cultural revolution as an analogy. I hate to sound like such a hippie but we need an organic movement to change our lives and deal with Peak Oil, not multinational corporations and SWAT teams using Peak Oil as another excuse to exercise more control over our lives.

<applauds>

[Dr. Ofellati]

I think that your post, above, was very good. I think you've got it. The faux-journalist whores at Time were given the cheat sheet well in advance.

I'm sure she'll be glad to hear about your high opinions of her, since I emailed her and she actually wrote back. Then I replied with a link to this thread.

It's funny how we can bash peak oil denialist articles and then suddenly an article comes out that raises an alarm and people want to find malice in it.

If she works for Time, then she's part of the machine and she can bite my ass.
She wrote back to you? So what? Are you flattered?

By the way, I wasn't so much bashing her, directly, as I was the propaganda rag Time, which my words make clear.

Of course, she works for Time, so when you lay down with dogs you get the fleas too.

[Dr. Ofellati]

Mos, the issue a lot of us have with the Time article (and the several dozen other articles about the IEA whistle blower story) is that it seems contrived. Time is a corporate behemoth. Nothing escapes its walls without careful planning and input from several sources. I work for one of the largest multi-national corporations the world has ever seen, I know how we roll. The fact that this Time article (1) was released less than 24 hours after the whistleblower story first surfaced, and (2) whose tone is also a 180 degree about-face from past negative stories on peak oil, is quite notable. I find it unbelievable that Time would be able to roll out a story that so differs from their past stances on Peak Oil in just a few hours.

The problem we have with this is not the mainstream's recognition of peak oil. It's that corporate interests are going to co-opt peak oil now. When an organic movement is co-opted by corporations, the best interests of the citizenry are never served. Corporations use the movement to further their own agenda and generate more profits for themselves under the guise of being "good". It looks like this is going to be used to push treaties like the Copenhagen climate treaty which will severely limit national sovereignty and personal Liberty while increasing corporate and governmental control over our lives.

What we need is to move towards more localized, sustainable economies and communities. What will happen if peak oil is corporatized is that the decisions about human activity, energy usage and planning will be made by a handful of CEOs on a world-wide scale. Think of Mao in China during the cultural revolution as an analogy. I hate to sound like such a hippie but we need an organic movement to change our lives and deal with Peak Oil, not multinational corporations and SWAT teams using Peak Oil as another excuse to exercise more control over our lives.

<applauds>

<stands and applauds>

[hardtootell-2]

OK- I'll add my cynical $0.02 on the MSM reporting peak oil. The size of the problem is probably too great for most people, including politicians, to grasp. IMHO we don't have the resources-(time, technology and money) to make a pain free transition off of oil as it declines. So, it doesn't matter that much what the media says. My personal preference is that they say as little as possible so the herd will stay in their preferred state of docility.

[mos6507]

Copenhagen climate treaty which will severely limit national sovereignty and personal Liberty

If you know of a way to reduce CO2 output that doesn't raise your libertarian hackles, let me know. Saying "What we need is to move towards more localized, sustainable economies and communities." by itself isn't going to accomplish much if nobody signs on. It's just a platitude. Otherwise I suggest you get your priorities in order regarding the gravity of climate change. Because the way we're headed, your personal liberty's not gonna last very long when the zombies come banging down the door to make you into long-pork stew.