This is a guest post by Cameron Leckie of ASPO Australia. The post is a copy of a letter which has been sent to the Australian Investments and Security Commission. The media discussion on the BrisConnections fiasco has not as yet covered the traffic forecast for the project. This will no doubt change as events unfold.

The current situation that has arisen with BrisConnections and the Airport Link project should never have occurred. If the projects proponents and BrisConnection’s had conducted an Oil Vulnerability Assessment, this project, at least in its current form, would never have been commenced. That in turn would have meant that investors did not lose significant amounts of money, or be in the situation where they could lose their homes and/or become bankrupt. There also would have been no requirement for the current round of legal cases.

This letter will explain why Oil Vulnerability Assessments should be mandatory for all transportation and related investments.

This article is one of a series of articles, offering energy advice to President Obama and his administration.

The incoming Obama administration has promised a much-needed change in the direction of US energy policy (or non-policy, as some see the current situation).  However, some of those changes appear to be campaign gimmicks or aimed at satisfying special interests rather than solving our various problems.  (The heavy-for-light crude swap in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve proposed in the Obama-Biden energy proposal appears to be one such gimmick.)

For much too long, US energy legislation (I hesitate to call it policy, because it lacks the coherence to justify the label) has been aimed at short-term patches on problems which have only gotten worse.  CAFE regulations have barely held fuel economy steady, while low fuel prices caused consumption to skyrocket.  "Free trade" allowed cheap oil imports to kill movement toward efficiency and substitutes.  The auto industry lobbied against fuel taxes to promote its short-term interest in selling profitable trucks, with the long-term result that all 3 US automakers will go bankrupt in the next year if nothing is done.

We've had change before, but the results put us where we are now.  It's time for the right change. 

Well they say that “the Times they are a changin’ ” and with the impending change in the Administration and its approach to energy , and the change in the leadership of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House, I suspect that change is what we are going to get. One indicator of a possible path forward comes from the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, where General James Jones, anticipated to be the next National Security Advisor, has been heading a panel that has just issued A Transition Plan for Securing America’s Energy Future. So I thought we might take a quick look at what it says. To quote the preamble

Global demand (for energy) will increase by more than 50% between now and 2030 – and perhaps by as much as 30% here in the United States. We must develop new, affordable, diverse, and clean sources of energy that will underpin our nation’s economy and keep us strong both at home and abroad. Our energy future must address growing shortfalls in infrastructure capacity and emerging environmental issues. . . . .And looking ahead, even the most optimistic among us must conclude that we are not well positioned to anticipate nor prepared to meet tomorrow’s energy needs.

This is a guest post from Garry Glazebrook of UTS (the University of Technology, Sydney).

After listening to Al Gore, Nicholas Stern, Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery, it is now obvious to most thinking people that we have to address climate change, and soon. It is becoming equally clear that the fall in oil prices over the last few months is only a temporary respite, brought on by a faltering world economy, and that oil prices will likely surge again as soon as the economy recovers. The implication is a need for massive investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency and sustainable transport. But how to fund such investment without sacrificing our economy, jobs or lifestyles?