Christine Milne has another statement on peak oil at the Greens Blog and at Crikey :

I have to confess myself quite flabbergasted by the extent to which our governments, oppositions, economists, planners and media claim to have been caught unawares by the rocketing global oil price and imply that no one could have seen it coming.

Not that I am surprised by their position – after all, they rely on ABARE. I have challenged ABARE at every Estimates hearing for two years and more as to their long-term estimates of oil price, and got the same answer each time - $40-45. Even as the price hit $100 early this year, they stuck firm to their projection. And yet ABARE continues to command more respect than the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO), which has been spot on in its forecasts.

But, just as the reality of climate change is only now sinking in, years after the science was settled and the urgency unquestionable, no-one can truly claim that they weren’t warned about peak oil.

One of my first actions after being elected to the Senate was to instigate a Senate Inquiry into Australia’s Future Oil Supply and Alternative Transport Fuels. In this Inquiry, everyone from Iranian oil guru, Dr Bakhtiari, to public transport groups, to the Councils of Western Sydney, to ASPO and many more, were all calling for the same thing: a rapid shift to mass transit, higher vehicle fuel efficiency standards, an end to the Fringe Benefits tax concession on motor vehicles and accelerated R&D into second generation biofuels.

The Inquiry’s conclusion which was tabled well over a year ago, involved Liberal, Labor and Greens in a consensus report making all these key recommendations. Then the old parties buried it. But, just as geosequestered CO2 will, it is now bubbling to the surface.

A few months later, I released a major publication, Re-Energising Australia, which presented a comprehensive policy platform to deal with the twin challenges of climate change and peak oil and build a better, cleaner, cleverer Australia. The considerable discussion this report garnered means it cannot have completely passed everyone by.

During last year’s election campaign, and as oil passed $100 early this year, I and many others repeatedly called for action to deal with peak oil and climate change together. And then, in my Budget Reply last week, I started with a reference to dwindling oil supplies matching the threat of Arctic Ice melt, and repeated my calls made in the 2006 Budget Reply, to use the surplus to oil-proof Australia. ...

I suspect Bob Brown ghost writes some of Ms Milne's press releases. As some Tas Hydro workers told me we coulda used that 500MW or whatever of clean energy from the Franklin dam. It's not like many 4WDs will bash the scrub around with $1.60 fuel. On the other hand Bob Brown said something about nuclear the other day that seemed quite measured. Brown also told Queensland coal miners they should look for other jobs. I'd like to see Rudd take a position, any position, on coal.

You mean when Bob said we need to take measures to deal with the spread of nuclear technology and disease ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/05/2235664.htm?section=australia

That was quite measured...

I've scrutinised BB's recent press releases so his non-vitriolic comments on nuclear must have been off the cuff. Something about Europe not getting supplies, a rare lapse into realism perhaps. The Franklin dam was a Pyrrhic victory since we now need clean energy. I suspect history could repeat itself if Gunns' pulp mill fails to get bank support. They might turn to cellulosic biofuels instead. Whatever it is no doubt the Greens will disapprove.

There are other clean energy options besides hydro.

And he is at least trying to do something about global warming, unlike almost everyone else in parliament...

For example, forests are carbon sinks:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/24/2254452.htm

I'd like to see Rudd take a position, any position, on coal.

He has. Its the same position the Taliban have on opium poppies.

Do you mean he's fighting the americans for control of it ?

:-)

No, he's running a country whose economy is completely dependent on exporting a commodity that creates widespread misery and death ... just like the Taliban.

Except when the Taliban were in government (back 6 years ago or so) they banned opium production and caused a worldwide heroin drought.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=taliban+ban+opium

Afghan opium production didn't restart until after the Taliban were ejected from office.

Rudd doesn't appear to have banned coal mining as far as I can tell.

Rudd doesn't appear to have banned coal mining as far as I can tell.

See, Rudd can learn from the Taliban. The ban drove up the price of opium several fold. Imagine what a ban on Aussie coal exports could do to the price of coal?

I agree, Boof. Sometime in the future I think that the whole Franklin Dam issue could be revived by energy-starved Tasmanians. This raises two interesting questions. First, whether, in the circumstances of that future time, the Australian and international legal system would be able or willing to enforce the World Heritage listing? And, second, in the post-peak world would the economic resources needed to build the dam be available?

There is one thing you forgot to ask...

Would building a dam make any difference?

Also, have a look at the storage levels.

For a dam to be worthwhile, it has to rain.

(For our international readers (and others), the Gordon below Franklin Dam proposal was located in the dark pink/red area to the north of the large bay on the west coast)

My input here could lead some to think that renewables can not sate our energy appetite, and there may be something in that, but I'm reminded of the words, "all", "basket" and "eggs" in this case.

Also, interesting factoid #3, Tasmanians appear to have un-metered water... at least around Kingston!

I've somewhat changed my mind about Global Warming. I do think that putting more CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the global temperature but I'm beginning to think that the peaking of Oil and Gas production will naturally take care of the problem by pricing fossil fuels above the price of alternative energy.

A large fraction of Natural gas consumption is used for electricity production. Now there is quite a bit of daylight between new Nuclear priced electricity and Natural Gas electricity when Natural Gas is priced at European and North American prices. Even unsubsidised Wind is closing in on it.

At $120/tonne coal is now slightly more expensive than Nuclear, depending on how optimistic you are with the Capital cost of a Nuclear Plant.

Clearly this is totally not politically correct in Australia but it seems to be an increasingly likely outcome in other Countries. I read that the new Italian Government is planning a few nukes. I wonder if they can solve the siting problem that destroyed the Nuclear option is Australia?

In any case, one natural way for Australia to adopt a lower CO2 profile would be to simply price Natural Gas and Coal for internal consumption at international prices.

In Italy, the Mafia solves all siting problems! ;-)