Skip to main content

Oil Depletion Protocol Launched

When the laws of physics come up against the laws of economics the laws of physics always win.

The Oil Depletion Protocol - see link - is designed to handle the real consequences of the limits of the availability of Oil. Conventional oil production has already peaked, but gas and other types of oil will probably peak in production in about 2010. There is no technological quick fix that resolves this issue.

Historically energy supplies came mainly from wood, charcoal, coal, oil, gas with some nuclear and hydroelectric etc. Until the point at which Hydrocarbons peak there has always been an easier to use and generally better energy source. After that point it is human behaviour that will need to consciously change to deal with the new constraints.

We are already seeing ripples in the supply chain. The issue of "Peak Oil" is now discussed more frequently. Even the IEA accept that oil production could peak by 2015 if there is "insufficient investment". The larger oil extracters' tactics are shifting gradually.

Unlike action to deal with climate change which is a self-denying ordnance, peak oil will be an external factor that will drive change. There will basically be less oil available each year - and there will be price problems.

If we do not adjust oil consumption voluntarily then price mechanisms will ratchet in the system. My big concern is for the financially weaker members of society. That is why I have sympathy with tradeable energy quotas. However, for the moment the conventional wisdom is that oil production is nowhere near peaking. That conventional wisdom will shift, but probably after it has peaked.


Tristan said…
Why does peak oil mean this big change?
Its when we have used up 50% of the (accessable) oil reserves, that means we still have 50% left, which even at our quick useage will last a fair while. Add to that new reserves being discovered and new technology to get oil from reserves we couldn't access before and peak oil could be further away than people think...

Add to that, its very very dangerous to rely on peak oil arguments to try and reduce oil consumption. We should be arguing directly with the reason we want to reduce oil consumption- to reduce harm to the environment.

Peak oil is a distraction: if oil supplies reduce then prices will rise, new alternatives will be developed, we will have to adjust, but that's the case with any change.
john said…
In essence I have dealt with that point. Previous shifts in energy source have been to better ones. Now we need to use a less convenient source of energy (or will have to do so in the coming years).

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…