Move along now... Nothing to see here.

31 against to 6 in favour of doing something about peak oil!

Nothing like Naked Numbers to drive home the extent of denial.Boy,are these retards and those who have bought them in for a rude shock.

The Hansard record on this vote is here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Hansard/senate/dailys/ds181109.pdf

on page 65, with the names of the Senators who voted against the motion:

Adams, J. Back, C.J. Barnett, G. Birmingham, S. Brown, C.L. Cash, M.C. Cormann, M.H.P. Crossin, P.M. Feeney, D. Ferguson, A.B. Fielding, S. Fisher, M.J. Forshaw, M.G. Furner, M.L. Hurley, A. Hutchins, S.P. Ludwig, J.W. Lundy, K.A. Marshall, G. McEwen, A. McGauran, J.J.J. Moore, C. Parry, S. * Polley, H. Ryan, S.M. Stephens, U. Sterle, G. Troeth, J.M. Trood, R.B. Williams, J.R. Wortley, D.

It is interesting to see Senators on the "nos" list who had participated in the Senate Inquiry on oil supplies and also those who had attended the Senate hearing in which the late Dr. Bakhtiari described transition phase T1 between growing and declining oil production, a process which we actually see happening, right now.

Hansard from 11th July 2006

Members: Senator Siewert (Chair), Senator Heffernan (Deputy Chair), Senators McEwen, Nash, O’Brien
and Sterle

Participating members: Senators Abetz, Adams, Allison, Bartlett, Bernardi, Boswell, Brandis, Bob Brown,George Campbell, Carr, Chapman, Colbeck, Coonan, Crossin, Eggleston, Chris Evans, Faulkner, Ferguson,Ferris, Fielding, Hutchins, Joyce, Ludwig, Lightfoot, Lundy, Ian Macdonald, Sandy Macdonald, Mason, McGauran, McLucas, Milne, Murray, Nettle, Payne, Polley, Ray, Santoro, Stephens, Trood, Watson and Webber

Senators in attendance: Senators Hutchins, Joyce, Milne, Siewert, Sterle and Webber

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S9515.pdf

Of course, no vote in Parliament will stop oil depletion. In particular, Australia is in the last quarter of its oil age, if one omits the tail end production after 2025.

http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/?p=182

My short report on the Guardian's whistleblower story is here:

http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/?p=564

At the end of the post there is a link to a downloadable PDF file.

The Irish oil geologist Colin Campbell has given more details about his meetings with the IEA in 1998, the last WEO in which peak oil was shown in graphs:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5970

I wonder how many MPs ever had a look at the condition of the single tracked, wooden rail bridge on the only rail line between Sydney and Canberra.

When airlines will go into receivership in the next oil price shocks or because of lack of demand, that's where MPs will travel over. Bon voyage!

As stupid as it is of the major parties to vote against this, it is a positive in one way. When TSHTF as it invariably will, their credibility will gone. Their spin machines can't weasel their way out of the fact that they were negligent in their duties.

I am convinced that the only way that there will be any response to peak oil or any of the other 'tectonic' stressors we are facing is waiting until it becomes a crisis. For those peak oilers this should be seen as an opportunity, not a threat. The key is being prepared for this time.

It is deeply distressing to watch the antics of the neanderthals in Canberra serving their own narrow interests. I voted conservative all my life until the last election when I voted Green. I saw the light around 2005 when I discovered Peak Oil and took the trouble to understand AGW. The major parties and the individuals within them, especially Rudd, Wong, Minchin, Abbot, Joyce, Fielding and many others I cannot be bothered to remember, are deeply unattractive. Their palpable lack of honour and their transparent opportunism in the face of the greatest catastrophe in our collective history is tragic; and as you can possibly guess, frustrating.

The major parties are not just ignorant of 'peak oil'. They are, with clarity of purpose, voting against any attempt to respond or even investigate further.

Crickey, 31:6 and I thought all the ostriches were in africa...

Image by cristinalo

Hey Phil

Did the senate hear any argument against peak oil? If so, what were the arguments? I am curious to know.

ShoX

Recall a few months back that Australia's Federal Minister for Energy and Resources Martin Ferguson had a busy week. He visited an outback geothermal plant, declared that it would soon produce baseload power, then next day flew to Beijing to sign a multibillion dollar LNG export deal. My take on that
1) one resource is unproven and cannot be factored into long term plans
2) the other is perhaps irreplaceable and should not be sold cheaply.

Let me put it another way; God help us because our politicians won't. In light of recent TV interviews by Ferguson's predecessor Ian Macfarlane I'd have to say that IM 'gets' a lot of things that seem to go over MF's head. However both those chaps are in the House of Reps not the Senate so perhaps that is untested. I wonder if the good Senators will suffer any reduction in their generous travel allowances as result of PO.

Even getting the notion up for a vote seems like an amazing thing to those of us on the other side of the big pond. At least a few people must have heard about it. But of course despite all our silliness about demopcracy, nature doesn't care what the majority of its subjects believe.

Eh, mate, gotta luv Awstraylya. The pollies are dumber'n a dingo's bum. Yer.

Here we can clearly see the effect of an electoral system on the types of legislation considered. The Australian Senate has a Single Transferable Vote (STV) electoral system, which is one of several flavours of voting systems that accurately reflect voter sentiment, rather than systemically skew it. While most journalist/media-types would see a 31:6 loss as being a sound thrashing, compare what would have happened in another Commonwealth Senate, let's say Canada's.

The Canadian Senate has a... well, the senators are appointed by the Prime Minister, so there is no electoral system to speak of. No such motion has yet (or would likely, IMHO) cross the minds of Canadian senators. MPs in Canada's House of Commons are elected by Single Member Plurality (SMP), derived from the traditional British parliamentary system, one of the systems which intentionally skew voter sentiment. In Parliamentary systems, Greens have a notoriously difficult time electing candidates in geography-based ridings/constituencies whereas they tend to be elected in list votes. This is largely because support for Greens is spread broadly across a population with no geographical locus (eg. regionalism). Thus in Canada, the Green Party and the Bloc Quebecois (or BQ, a quasi-separatist party that fields candidates only in the province of Quebec) exhibit widely differing fates: despite voter support of 10.5% for the BQ and 4.5% for the Greens, in Canada's 2006 election, the BQ won 51 seats and the Greens won zero, precisely because Green support was never dense enough in a given electoral district to form a relative majority in a constrained area.

Peak Oil is an idea more easily grasped by enlightened members of the public like ourselves, rather than by politicians. And PO, whether cloaked in doom-and-gloom or merely lightly peppered with cautious yet astute public policy, won't win votes, so it's difficult to see politicians flock to PO-based legislation. It's a bit easier to sell PO to politicians in easily-digested chunks shrouded in the buzzwords of the day. Take "energy independence," for instance. A strategic petroleum reserve (trumpeted with "energy independence"-based rhetoric) can be sold to the public on the grounds of making Us (target voters in the West) less dependent on Them (a loosely-federated consortium of Middle Eastern strongmen and Western petroleum companies). And to compare Australia and Canada again, Australia has a strategic petroleum reserve equal to ten days' consumption (approx 8.77 million barrels according to the wiki) compared with Canada's lack of strategic petroleum reserve. New Zealand opted to form an agreement with Japan for its strategic reserve; whereas the UK seems to have reluctantly created a reserve based on European requirements.

To conclude this portion, we observe a dichotomy between AUS-NZ (strategic petroleum reserves, proportional voting systems in some or all houses) and CAN-UK (no reserves, or reserves stood up due to external requirements, and SMP voting systems). It's not unreasonable to suggest a hypothesis that the more accurately a voting system translates votes to seats, the better a country's legislative terrain will appear vis-a-vis PO. Electoral systems aren't the be-all-and-end-all of mass human organization, so other factors will clearly come into play.

I'm less familiar with presidential systems like the US, but I will tentatively suggest that an American government more responsive to PO could be forged with larger, multi-member congressional districts elected by STV, and electoral college votes that are split based on the popular vote (with a small number of guaranteed congressional seats to parties of non-Democratic/Republican candidates who win one or more electoral-college votes'-worth in a given state).

But don't get your hopes up: if you thought explaining PO to Joe Sixpack presented difficulties, just try comparing and contrasting different electoral systems to some guy in the line-up at the beer store. Just thinking about it makes me reach for the hard liquor! :)

At least you folks down under are discussing this in public and on record. I wish here in the US we had actual multi-parties. (BTW, I'm a long time Peter Garrett and Midnight Oil fan from way back in the '80's.) Despite this outcome, it was only 5:1 against. Hell, 20% of ANY voting world Government being Peak Oil aware is a major break through in my book. Keep up the good fight, you're making progress. MLK didn't change minds overnight either.

You've got a motion in Austrialia! Wow, that's already huge progress.

Sure, it was bound to get defeated - the reasons are too many, most of them probably political, but don't take this is a a sign of despair, but as a sign of progress. Granted, you may not view it as much, but I think it shows how far Australia is in this question.

And no, I'm not joking.

Well look at it this way - at least you have a marker in the sand. Very few, if any, other nations' parliaments have even considered a vote on the issue.

Buh-bye, humanity.

Of course, part of it is that that Greens have about zero credibility anymore. Dick Taverne has done a masterful job debunking the Greens movement.

To be sure, Taverne isn't very well-informed about peak oil, either.

This is more (circumstantial) evidence one cannot count on elected "representatives" when it comes to helping out on the issue of PO.

It borders on criminal behaviour, though. Tar and feathers I would say.

I certainly appreciate Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R)--we are not on the same end of the political spectrum yet he is one brave man, bucking his conformist party to speak truth to power. There are plenty of biblical analogies. From the voice of one crying in the wilderness to a prophet being unwelcome in his own home town, many nations have only a few voices in their political apparatus willing to face the tide of denial. As the bearers of bad news, especially if our prophecies turn out to be largely correct, we are more likely to be greeted with scorn than hailed as heroes. Such is the role of the prophet in society.

A fitting way to go for the land of Mad Max.

Paul Syvret from Queensland's Courier Mail has covered this vote. Article is here:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26379109-5012475,00.html

Roland Emmerich already knew it in 2012:

http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/2012/


How would the governments of our planet
prepare six billion people
for the end of the world

They wouldn't

World Energy, Population, Economic Trends

Oil
Timing - Crude oil production peaked in May 2005 and has shown no growth since then despite dramatic surges doubling in price and in exploration activity.
Decline Rate - The US has been in decline since 1971. The giant Cantarell field in Mexico is losing production at rates approaching 20% per year.
Globally, the annual decline rate is around 5%.
The Net Export Problem – As higher Oil prices stimulate Oil Exporters economies, they are using more Oil internally, thus reducing the amount of Oil for Export.

Natural Gas
The supply situation with natural gas is very similar to that of oil. While oil and gas will both exhibit a production peak, the slope of the post-peak decline for gas will be significantly steeper. As with oil, we found and drilled the big ones first. The peak of world gas production may not occur until 2025, but two things are sure: we will have even less warning than we had for Peak Oil, and the subsequent decline rates may be shockingly high.

Coal
The ugly stepsister of fossil fuels. It has a terrible environmental reputation. Most coal today is used to generate electricity. Coal may also Peak in around 2025.

Nuclear
Given their usual lifespans, many reactors are nearing the end of their useful life. Given the likely level of decommissioning and of proposed new reactors to be built, it is likely that we have already seen the Peak of Nuclear power.

Hydro
If coal is the ugly stepsister, hydro is one of the fairy godmothers of the energy story, this form of energy production may be set to increase

Renewable Energy
While I do not subscribe to the pessimistic notion that renewables will make little significant contribution, it's equally unrealistic to expect that they will achieve a dominant position in the energy marketplace. This is primarily because of their late start relative to the imminent decline of oil, gas and nuclear power, as well as their continued economic disadvantage relative to coal.

Fossil Fuels have been by far the most important contributors to the world's current energy mix, but all three are set for rapid declines, whilst Hydro and renewables are set to make respectable contributions.

In an overall context, this shortfall contains an ominous message for our future, Energy shortages are coming!

The Effect of Energy Decline on Population
Human population growth has been enabled by the growth in our Cheap & Abundant energy supply.

The Historical and Current Situation - The world's population has increased by a similar amount in that time, from 200 million in 1 CE to 6.6 billion today. There is of course a great disparity in global energy consumption. The combined populations of China, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (2.7 billion) today use an average of just 0.8 toe (Tonnes of Oil Equivalent) per person per year, compared to the global average of 1.7 and the American consumption of about 8.0.
Long-Term and Aggregate Effects - The net oil export crisis may well be the defining geopolitical event of the next decade.

The Population Model - It is likely that things such as major regional food shortages, a spread of diseases due to a loss of urban medical and sanitation services and an increase in deaths due to exposure to heat and cold.

Effects of Ecological Damage
There are two ecological concepts that are the keys to understanding humanity's situation on our planet today. The first is Carrying Capacity, the second is Overshoot.

Carrying Capacity – The carrying capacity of an environment is established by the quantity of resources available to the population that inhabits it. The usual limiting resource is assumed to be the food supply.

Overshoot - Populations in serious overshoot always decline. This is seen in wine vats when the yeast cells die after consuming all the sugar from the grapes and bathing themselves in their own poisonous alcoholic wastes. Another example is the death of the oceans, where 90% of all large fish species are now at risk, and most fish species will be at risk within 40 years.

As our supply of energy (and especially that one-time gift of fossil fuels) begins to decline, this mask will be gradually peeled away to reveal the true extent of our ecological depredations. As we have to rely more and more on the unassisted bounty of nature, the consequences of our actions will begin to affect us all.
It is impossible to say with certainty how deep into overshoot humanity is at the moment. Some calculations point to an overshoot of 25%, others hint that it may be much greater than that.

Conclusion
All the research I have done for this paper has convinced me that the human race is now out of time. We are staring at hard limits on our activities and numbers, imposed by energy constraints and ecological damage. There is no time left to mitigate the situation, and no way to bargain or engineer our way out of it. It is what it is, and neither Mother Nature nor the Laws of Physics are open to negotiation.
We have come to this point so suddenly that most of us have not yet realized it. While it may take another twenty years for the full effects to sink in, the first impacts from oil depletion (the net oil export crisis) will be felt within five years. Given the size of our civilization and the extent to which we rely on energy in all its myriad forms, five years is far too short a time to accomplish any of the unraveling or re-engineering it would take to back away from the precipice. At this point we are committed to going over the edge into a major population reduction.

We need to start now to put systems, structures and attitudes in place that will help them cope with the difficulties, find happiness where it exists and thrive as best they can. We need to develop new ways of seeing the world, new ways of seeing each other, new values and ethics.
Link –
http://www.countercurrents.org/chefurka201109.htm
================
I have edited & abbreviated the above article to make it more readable, as it is quite long. That said, I recommend it be read fully & that the relevant graphs be examined, as it certainly provides some strong pointers for the future direction of Market segments, entire markets & beyond!

There are, of course, numerous other Factors which will impact on the future, including the relatively recent massive increases in Private & Government DEBT & the relationship of the DEBT to GDP Ratio, as well as other very significant factors!

However, some issues in the article where I am not in full disagreement, but I believe this article is fairly close to one possible reality and all that goes with it.

There may be other possible Realities!

I have heard it said that many, like these Australian Politicians, have their heads in the sand, that they do not realise what is happening. Whilst that may well be true, at some level, it is not at the level of these and other Politicians. This decision is not a lack of knowledge, it is far, far worse!

It is not possible that these and other Politicians (of all party's), the Fossil Fuel Industry & others in the Establishment are not aware of some of the possibilities involved.

Coming down a notch from federal government to Australian NSW state government, a vote on peak oil was narrowly defeated 20 votes to 19 (see http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/5168). Politicians aren't really ignorant of peak oil, but like most people it scares them. Our federal member (Mike Kelly) publicly talks about Peak Oil and the coming energy problems. He also (a part of politics) needs to "follow the party line", so what he can and will vote on is influenced by party politics - balancing one vote once (and risking removal from the party) versus making unpleasant voting decisions but remaining in the game to keep chipping away at the overall party stance. Same with Peter Garret, although I expected more "muscle" from him.

I do wish they would all just get together and work out what our future will be like if we continue business as usual, and then move away from the business as usual model. Yes, businesses will fail, yes the stock market will take a tumble, yes lots of people will be unemployed, yes there will be some "unpleasantness" - but at least we would have a future to build up, rather than a civilisation hitting a brick wall.

I started voting Green and then stopped, because Green will not get into government, and instead my votes go to Labour who I think is absolutely full of toss. The option I now use is to disqualify my vote (since you're not allowed NOT to vote), so that at least my vote doesn't go to a party I really don't want to vote for. Labour and Cons are equally bad. Having met a couple of Green Party aspiring politicians where I live, I've come to the conclusion that they too are more interested in power than in the common good for all, so as far as politicians go they're all much of the same.

Henry Louis Mencken said it in 1919:
"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are."

I have no faith whatsoever in our government, and would not believe for a second that when TSHTF people will all of a sudden wake up, or government will all of a sudden govern fairly and justly.

The best we can do is prepare for ourselves and help whoever we can (and is willing to be helped) and just hope that the world won't turn too ugly too quickly.

Anna