Introduction

An election commitment of the Rudd Labor Government was to develop an assessment of Australia’s future energy security. This resulted in the release of the National Energy Security Assessment (NESA) in March 2009. The liquid fuels section of the NESA was largely based on the findings of ACIL Tasman’s Liquid Fuel Vulnerability Assessment (LFVA).

Given the importance of liquid fuels to both the global and Australian economy, it is reasonable to expect that the Australian Government would provide a realistic appraisal of Australia’s future liquid fuels security. Both the LFVA and the NESA fail to address key questions resulting in a liquid fuels security assessment that is overly optimistic. This post will explore the key weaknesses of the NESA and LFVA and propose an alternate, more realistic assessment of Australia’s liquid fuels security.

I am a Queenslander born and bred, so I think that I am allowed to point out that it is rare for words such as “forward thinking”, “courageous”, “radical” and “revolutionary” to be used in relation to Queensland’s elected representatives, but Andrew McNamara may just be an exception. Mr. McNamara is Queensland’s Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation, and he seems to be single-handedly trying to save the entire State of Queensland from some of the uglier problems that cloud our future.

As part of this process, McNamara is addressing the issue of oil vulnerability. An introduction to the approach can be found at http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/publications/p02620aa.pdf/Towards_Oil_Resilien...

This is a guest post by Ian Dunlop, originally printed as an opinion piece in the Australian Financial Review on January 2.

Ian was formerly an international oil, gas and coal industry executive. He chaired the Australian Coal Association in 1987-88, chaired the Australian Greenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading from 1998-2000 and was CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors from 1997-2001. He is Chairman of the Australian National Wildlife Collection Foundation (CSIRO), and Deputy Convenor of the Australian Association for the Study of Peak Oil.

“ Men Argue, Nature Acts” – Voltaire

The impact of global warming is building far faster than scientists had predicted, with extreme weather events in Australia, the US, Europe, Africa, China or Bangladesh, the rapid melting of Arctic sea ice, carbon sinks turning into carbon sources etc. Recent comments from economists and industry representatives, urging a cautious, gradual response, might have been appropriate a decade ago, but no longer.

They miss two crucial points. First, the response to global warming is not primarily an economic issue; rather it is risk management. Second, the risks are escalating rapidly.

The economic case is built primarily around a middle-of-the-road view of global warming, designed to limit temperature rises to 2 degrees C above pre-industrial conditions, with extreme outcomes being downplayed. But with such a potentially catastrophic issue, risk management must address the extremes.

This is a guest post by Garry Glazebrook. Garry is a senior lecturer in Urban Planning at the University of Technology, Sydney, and has 30 years' experience in transport and urban planning consulting, and in government policy. He gets occasionally obesessed about peak oil, climate change, and sustainable transport (but then dont we all?). He is a member of ASPO Sydney and UITP (International Union of Public Transport). Professor Peter Newman heads Murdoch University's Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy and is an internationally known expert on transport and sustainability in cities.

Public Transport, Peak Oil and Global Warming

Public transport is a big issue in Australia. As a result of rising oil and petrol prices and rapidly rising road congestion, patronage has risen 20% on Melbourne's trains, 18% on Brisbane's buses, and 12% in Perth in the last two years.

Sydney's rail and bus systems are now overcrowded, as are those in Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. Adelaide is now facing a major decision about whether to electrify and extend its rail system. The quality, reliability and availability of public transport affects millions of citizens on a daily basis – as evidenced by headlines such as the Sun Herald front page in Melbourne on Monday 18 June.

Continuing population growth and a trend back to urban living make public transport vital for our future. But the likelihood of world oil production peaking makes this an issue for the present. The recent International Energy Agency Medium – Term Oil Market Report (July 2007) warned of increasing tightness in oil markets beyond 2010, as a result of strengthening demand and weakening oil supply.

Roger Bezdek, an expert on peak oil, highlighted in his recent Australian tour the need to take oil seriously in the planning of cities and regions. His key message is that there is likely to be increasing competition for oil and gasoline from China just at the time when global oil production reaches its maximum. There will also be a problem with peaking of gas production in the near future, while options like coal to liquids are not likely to be viable because of CO2 emissions.

Carbon trading is just a few years away. This will have to be extended to all fossil fuels – oil included – and will further add to oil and petrol prices. Those countries and cities without strong public transport systems will face an uncertain future.