PowerSwitch

On 16 Sept I emailed my local MP (Lorraine Fullbrook, South Ribble Borough Council, Tory ) asking her for her thoughts on Peak Oil. It was quite a general email, not laying it on too thick.


I've heard nothing.

Is this normal? I've never contacted my MP before. How long should I reasonably wait for a response?

I must add that today I realised that I hadn't included my address with the original email, so I could have been just anyone rather than one of her constituants. To give her the benefit of the doubt I have emailed her again with the original email PLUS my address hoping that she will at last acknowledge it.

Am I waiting in vain?

Anything less than a couple of weeks ought to be deemed a 'rapid response'.

Oh.

She could still be on holiday.

You have to include your postal address, as they only reply to their constituents by physical mail. There is a website where you see how well your MP performs on replying to constituents' letters etc. I think it's something like theyworkforyou.com.

I wrote to my MP in spring 2006, and spoke to her while she was canvassing opinion on a local roads issue earlier this year. She doesn't really get peak oil but she did reply to my letter and wrote to the then junior Environment Minister (Elliot Morley) on my behalf. I got a reply from him too. My MP's reply focussed on climate change rather than peak oil. The minister's letter confirmed what Powerswitch and others have identified, that the government relies entirely on the IEA's estimates for future peak. Morley quoted the IEA's then estimate that everything would be fine until 2030, as long as the oil producers invested $17 trillion in the meantime. It would be interesting to hear what the government has to say now, in the light of the this summer's comments by the IEA chief economist.

Huge Bayley is always very prompt (he's unusual though) and I seem to have been put on some kind of mailing list because I get a lot of letters from his office about Trade Justice and the like. His is a pretty bomb-proof seat, too, so kudos to him for the work.

In my experience (various UK cities. Rural bods might be different), about 3 weeks to 1 month is more like it.

Adam1 wrote:The minister's letter confirmed what Powerswitch and others have identified, that the government relies entirely on the IEA's estimates for future peak. Morley quoted the IEA's then estimate that everything would be fine until 2030, as long as the oil producers invested $17 trillion in the meantime. It would be interesting to hear what the government has to say now, in the light of the this summer's comments by the IEA chief economist.

Many people seemed to take Birol's comments as a dramatic change in the IEA's position, but they weren't - he was repeating the IEA's earlier position that investment in production facilities would be needed to deliver it to meet demand. His concern was not that the oil isn't there, it was that the investment may not be there. The outcome's likely to be the same, however - tightening supply margins leading to higher prices. Whether those higher prices will do what they should, ie reduce demand and encourage supply, remains to be seen.

Keeper of the Flame wrote:

Adam1 wrote:The minister's letter confirmed what Powerswitch and others have identified, that the government relies entirely on the IEA's estimates for future peak. Morley quoted the IEA's then estimate that everything would be fine until 2030, as long as the oil producers invested $17 trillion in the meantime. It would be interesting to hear what the government has to say now, in the light of the this summer's comments by the IEA chief economist.

Many people seemed to take Birol's comments as a dramatic change in the IEA's position, but they weren't - he was repeating the IEA's earlier position that investment in production facilities would be needed to deliver it to meet demand. His concern was not that the oil isn't there, it was that the investment may not be there. The outcome's likely to be the same, however - tightening supply margins leading to higher prices. Whether those higher prices will do what they should, ie reduce demand and encourage supply, remains to be seen.

Yes, I agree. I guess it hit the headlines because he spelled it out more directly. To me, when the IEA say we need to spend $17 trillion (then later they say $20 trillion), it's an economist's way of saying we've reached peak oil! Even if they would vehemently disagree with that interpretation.

I'm not sure that it remains to be seen (your last point in bold above). The current high price is already high enough to price poorest consumers out of the market. This will intensify as the supply continues to fall below what demand would be if prices were 'normal' (say $25 a barrel).