PowerSwitch

Dear Dr Cable,

I am sorry if you felt that I was ascribing stupidity to yourself. That is far from my intention.

You make several interesting points:

First of all I am really glad that you have taken the time to study the papers, even though you are not yet persuaded of the truth and accuracy of the Peak Oil predictions.

30 years ago, that is in the 70s, the world was only just getting over the Peak of Discoveries of oil. That was a time of plenty when energy and oil in particular seemed quite inexhaustible. But even then, voices of people such Dr Hubbard could be heard, if only we listened. I have not heard them either.

Dr Hubbard correctly predicted the US Peak Oil and many other local peaks of production. Although originally 'discredited', his method is now used universally in the oil industry to predict extraction curves for individual wells and fields. However, his method applies equally well to larger structures, such as countries, continents and the world. And on that scientific basis world Peak Oil is predicted as falling somewhere between 2005 and 2010.

However, the precise date is not that important, What is more important is that Hubbard's 'law' indicates that once a peak is reached, no amount of investment will increase production beyond the peak. Attempts to do so only result in a slower decline initially, followed by a steeper decline a few years later.

So,
a) we are discovering just 1 barrel of oil for every six barrels being consumed,
b) post peak no amount of investment will increase the flow of oil,
c) peak is imminent (I know you disagree on this, but just consider how oil has tripled in price over the past 18 months, not due to crises, but due to supply and demand being finely balanced), and
d) world demand for oil keeps on increasing by around 3% per year.

We are about to hit the buffers. Now even Gordon Brown recognizes that the end of cheap oil has arrived.

We can of course assume that some new technology will save us from the coming crisis, be it clean energy from tar sands or coal, or nuclear fusion. But would that be wise? Do we really want to just hope that something will turn up? The consequences of an alternative not turning up are truly dreadful (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/) and would include a deep depression, stock markets collapses, pensions/ insurance companies going bust, and eventually perhaps even breakdown of law and order (and maybe earlier than we think, judging by the New Orleans tragedy).

On the other hand, if we force the issue now, at worst we would simply develop additional clean energy sources, which for other reasons would be a good idea anyway.

How can there be any argument? I do not understand the logic of resisting actions necessary in the event of Peak Oil occurring shortly.

Anyway, I am satisfied that you and therefore your party, are now informed of the phenomenon, and thus cannot deny knowledge of it in the near future, when Peak Oil occurs and UK society starts collapsing

Sleep well

Paul Sousek
concerned citizen

(BTW, I have already taken steps to protect myself and my family in various ways, such as moving to a farm and becoming independent of utilities and oil where possible, so I am talking to you from personal conviction and experience, not just passing on opinions)

-----Original Message-----
From: PRIESTLEY, Shona [mailto:PRIESTLEYS@parliament.uk]
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 04:30
To: PS@UltexMR.com
Subject: Message from Dr Vincent Cable MP


Please find following a message from Dr Vincent Cable MP:





Dear Mr Sousek

I think it might help our dialogue if you did not ascribe stupidity and illogicality to everyone who does not share your views.

Interestingly I had another equally vehement response from another reader who shared your board approach but quotes various estimate that Peak Oil could happen in the period 2010 to 2030.

I have looked at the Tooke and Campbell papers. I would be more easily persuaded if I had not heard exactly the same arguments about supply advanced 30 years ago by the Club of Rome and others and which became discredited in the following decades.

The pessimistic argument hinges critically on there being no technological advance in the way non-conventional crudes are developed. We do not know, at this stage, one way or the other.

As it happens, I believe we might arrive at the same policy conclusion albeit for different reasons. I support a strongly conservationist approach to demand management (as do the Lib Dems as a party. I do so for environmental reasons (CO2) not because of supply constraints but I guess it does not matter if we come out at the same place. Why I worry about your doomsday approach is that if ever rising prices are assumed this will force a demand response without governments needing to do anything. I fear that prices will fall back and that governments will fall asleep and do nothing to curb consumption growth and emissions.

Yours sincerely

Dr Vincent Cable MP







Shona Priestley

Constituency Office of Dr Vincent Cable MP

2a Lion Road

TWICKENHAM

TW1 4JQ

Tel: 020 8892 0215

Fax: 020 8892 0218

PaulS wrote:Anyway, I am satisfied that you and therefore your party, are now informed of the phenomenon, and thus cannot deny knowledge of it in the near future, when Peak Oil occurs and UK society starts collapsing

Sleep well

Do not assume that just because you have told Vince Cable something all members of the Lib Dems also know it.

Incidentally I think the Club of Rome were essentially right, but got the timescales wrong. It was this issue of timescales that causes today's real problem the "crying wolf" problem. (see my blog for pictures of my own wolf).

If you wish to lobby MPs about peak oil try to get them to sign the EDM (Early Day Motion) that I sponsored in conjunction with powerswitch.

Councillor John A. M. Hemming MP, MA (Oxon), FRSA
Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament Birmingham (Yardley)
Councillor South Yardley Ward
Group Chair Birmingham Liberal Democrat Group
Chair Birmingham Strategic Partnership

blog at
http://johnhemming.blogspot.com

I quite agree John and I should have mentioned it. Maybe you could have a word with Vince in the House.

I originally wrote to Vince after his recent speech in which he suggested that oil prices will come down soon again, which they may do a little, but I was concerned he did not see the bigger picture, which he confirmed he did not.

But the more people write to him on this subject, the more he may find in necessary to re-think his own opinion. And then there is a chance he may start hinting at oil depletion in public. That's about as much as I would expect.

I am getting further with the Veritas party! I suppose they have nothing to lose!

Vince Cable wrote: I have looked at the Tooke and Campbell papers. I would be more easily persuaded if I had not heard exactly the same arguments about supply advanced 30 years ago by the Club of Rome and others and which became discredited in the following decades.

I'm not old enough to remember how the original Club of Rome stuff was viewed, discussed, publicised etc, but over recent years I have seen many MANY times essentially the same statement that VinceC makes above - that "we heard all this from the Club of Rome and they went on to be discredited".

However, I personally have seen nothing thats indicates they WERE discredited. Furthermore, like John Hemming, it seems to me that they were essentially right.

Since I missed all of the original Club of Rome output and the bulk of the "discrediting" I wonder if someone can summarise exactly what they said that has now been discredited ?

As I understanding it, they essentially produced a model that suggested significant problems with resource depletion and environmental impact arriving around the year 2000.

I also understand that they did NOT say "it'll all have gone into metldown on 1st Jan 2000", they said "here's a model and some approximate dates".

As JohnH says, they appear to be essentially right and that even though the PERCIEVED timing (since I can't find where they said X will happen by date Y) may have been slightly wide, they were (and still are) essentially correct.

Not wishing to go too off-topic, but can anyone cast any more light on this subject for those of us too old to remember and stuck with a zillion current statements in the public domain the same as Vince makes

PaulS, whilst I thought the tone of both your emails was a little harsh , fair play to you for both having a go in the first place and succeeding in getting a reasonable reply.

Interesting that Vince's emphasis seems different in his reply to you than it appears in his biz-as-usual public pronouncements.....

fishertrop wrote:
Since I missed all of the original Club of Rome output and the bulk of the "discrediting" I wonder if someone can summarise exactly what they said that has now been discredited ?

Um... I dont see how it can have been discredited. From what I (very vaguely!) remember of reading the book 30 years ago (yes I was at university 75 -77) The authors attempted to make a 'world model' on computer then ran various assumptions through it to see what would happen. Overshoot and collapse sometime in the middle to latter half of the 21st century invariably happenned in their model.

I dont recall that they made any specific predictions about the start of the 21st century.

Last year I read an article by Mathew Simmons which reviewed the book, and suggested that maybe Meadows et al had got it more or less right after all. (sorry no URL - it must be out there somewhere)

I dont think its ever been discredited, simply ignored by economists on the grounds that it didnt make any sense - the markets would take care of things and it could never happen. Ecologists who understand the cycling and crashes which occur in nature have I think always taken it seriously, but they dont have the ear of policymakers in the same way that economic gurus do.

I think it's the bet between Ehrlich and Julian Simon that gets brought up.

I still have a copy of the original Club of Rome projections bought from a second hand shop in the early eighties when I was a student. I had a quick look through recently and it all makes sense - it had a timescale of fossil fuel depletion of 30 years or so (and various other timescales for metals etc) so I reckon they have done pretty well.


Well done Paul S for trying to stir the politocos up. I dont think the use of the word stupid was inappropriate, particularly considering Gordon Brown's comments in the last few days - so he's going to have a word with the men from OPEC and sort it all out is he? and its OPECs fault is it? Jees he must be aware of the depletion figures from the North Sea, and he must be aware of what is going on elsewhere but he still spouts this rubbish.....

It is so easy to criticise...

Bandidoz wrote:I think it's the bet between Ehrlich and Julian Simon that gets brought up.

True, it's not a good advert is it?

I wonder if he had set 2005 as the target-date for the bet if he'd have been in a better position?

Timing is everything....

skeptik wrote:Um... I dont see how it can have been discredited.

Me neither, yet everyone seems to say just that

beev wrote:It is so easy to criticise...

How do you mean?

I have had a communcation with Vince about this issue.

It is important to remember that most politicians have a short timescale and also are not scientifically qualified.

That means that they rely on what they are told by the conventional wisdom.

Being rude to politicians is either counterproductive or has no impact. (as with most people)

Gordon Brown was quoted in The Observer today as talking about Peak Oil. I think that does help.

I have asked one of my researchers to find the number of mentions of "peak oil" in the UK media for each of the past 5 years.

Found it...

Mathew Simmons recent review of "Limits to Growth", 1972, Meadows et al. pub. Club of Rome.

http://greatchange.org/ov-simmons,club_ ... visted.pdf

johnhemming wrote: I have asked one of my researchers to find the number of mentions of "peak oil" in the UK media for each of the past 5 years.

Ive been keeping a very vague eye on that since 2001 via number of pages found by Google. I think you'll find an exponential curve. The doubling time will be interesting.