Just found this (on one of the websites i provided a link for last
week):

Australian Government Support for renewable energy:
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/renewable/government.html

Renewable energy projects funded by the Australian Government:
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/renewable/projects/index.html





--- In ASPO_Oz_YoungProf@yahoogroups.com, "James Ward"
<james.ward@...> wrote:
>
> Richard ("rmuhlack") wrote:
> >
> >
> > does anyone know what the tax revenue from petrol is currently
> used
> > for? How much of this tax is currently used to fund research?
> >
>
>
> Well, according to Downer (in response to a letter of mine), they
> are investing $75 million in "Solar Cities". They have also set
> a "Mandatory Renewable Energy Target" that is expected to deliver
$2
> billion in investment. At 38 cents per litre, the government
> currently gets approximately $5 billion in tax from petrol cars
> alone... Plus the GST on each purchase of course!
>
> The government's attitude is that they want to make renewable
> technologies cheaper so that they can compete with non-renewables.
> What they fail to understand is that non-renewables have NOT been
> fully costed (eg free, untaxed carbon emissions) so renewables
> aren't competing on a level playing field. This means that, to be
> fair, everything actually NEEDS to be more expensive.
>
> I accept that raising the cost of fuel even further would have
> disastrous consequences on the economic situation. In defense of my
> half-baked tax scheme :-) my argument is that the cost of inaction
> would be far worse, but it would be borne by future generations.
But
> then perhaps ours is the future generation, and we are about to
bear
> the cost of the inaction of our parents' generation... After
> all, "Limits to Growth" was published in the 70s. And Malthus even
> alerted the world to the problem over 200 years ago!
>
> The issues Richard has raised (with my crazy idea) are very valid
> and clearly if implemented the "depletion tax" scheme would be far
> from simple. Perhaps (as Luke said over lunch today) the answer
will
> come from the market: the price goes sky high as the resource
starts
> to run out, and at that point the incentive will be there to invest
> any way.
>

Richard ("rmuhlack") wrote:
>
>
> does anyone know what the tax revenue from petrol is currently
used
> for? How much of this tax is currently used to fund research?
>


Well, according to Downer (in response to a letter of mine), they
are investing $75 million in "Solar Cities". They have also set
a "Mandatory Renewable Energy Target" that is expected to deliver $2
billion in investment. At 38 cents per litre, the government
currently gets approximately $5 billion in tax from petrol cars
alone... Plus the GST on each purchase of course!

The government's attitude is that they want to make renewable
technologies cheaper so that they can compete with non-renewables.
What they fail to understand is that non-renewables have NOT been
fully costed (eg free, untaxed carbon emissions) so renewables
aren't competing on a level playing field. This means that, to be
fair, everything actually NEEDS to be more expensive.

I accept that raising the cost of fuel even further would have
disastrous consequences on the economic situation. In defense of my
half-baked tax scheme :-) my argument is that the cost of inaction
would be far worse, but it would be borne by future generations. But
then perhaps ours is the future generation, and we are about to bear
the cost of the inaction of our parents' generation... After
all, "Limits to Growth" was published in the 70s. And Malthus even
alerted the world to the problem over 200 years ago!

The issues Richard has raised (with my crazy idea) are very valid
and clearly if implemented the "depletion tax" scheme would be far
from simple. Perhaps (as Luke said over lunch today) the answer will
come from the market: the price goes sky high as the resource starts
to run out, and at that point the incentive will be there to invest
any way.

It isn't easy. Right at the time when people are really feeling the
pinch due to high petrol prices and inflation, the only message of hope
is "we must lower our consumption". In other words "it's your fault for
over-consuming". Nobody wants to hear that!

But the government MUST act on this sooner or later. We can do our part
by writing to our local MP to say "uh, what are you doing about peak
oil?" with the hope that eventually they will get the message and start
to debate it publicly (you can see one of my letters to Downer in
the 'Files' section if you're interested).

The government knows about this problem. Some are in denial (eg Downer)
about how to fix it - they think that more growth is the answer. But if
we keep chipping away at them, they might start to realise that there's
a group of us in the community who would be supportive of policies that
would otherwise appear to be political suicide...

Hi All,

I am a Human Geographer with the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity
Conservation.  Human Geographers investigate the connections between people and
place, including their levels of place attachment.  I like your idea James;
however, convincing the public that a depletion tax is a  good idea requires
fundamental changes to their values, attitudes, perceptions and beliefs.  For
example, attitudes toward resource extraction and recycling.  In my opinion,
peoples' hierarchy of needs (e.g., food, shelter) need to be detrimentally
affected by resource scarcity before such a tax would even be considered by the
wider, ignorant population.

Chris Raymond


-----Original Message-----
From: ASPO_Oz_YoungProf@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:ASPO_Oz_YoungProf@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of dillusional_donna
Sent: Monday, 7 August 2006 1:43 PM
To: ASPO_Oz_YoungProf@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ASPO_Oz_YoungProf] Re: Crazy leftist idea for the day


Great in theory jim, but how on earth would you get the goverment to
act like that? And more importantly, how do you convince the public
that it's a good idea? no one wants to pay more tax, and i'd say the
majority of the public are so narrow minded and ignorant that
they're all going to think you're crazy and don't know what you're
on about.

Isn't that the whole other issue? We've got this Peak Oil stuff
(which i freely admit i don't quite understand) and this group is
coming up with some genuinely good ideas and arguments, but the
other issue is how do you go about changing the way people live and
think??

that's my two cents. over and out.

--- In ASPO_Oz_YoungProf@yahoogroups.com, "James Ward"
<james.ward@...> wrote:
>
> My crazy idea is a "Depletion tax", or alternatively titled
a "Future
> generations tax"...
>
> Say you introduce a tax on the depletion of any finite commodity.
Now,
> make the tax proportional to the cost of the equivalent renewable
> technology (that cost would otherwise be borne by future
generations)
> divided by the timeframe over which it needs to be implemented.
>
> So the closer you come to running out of a finite commodity (eg
oil),
> the more you have to pay to help facilitate the installation of
the
> renewable replacement. Companies that make the transition
themselves
> (i.e. to recycling / producing things renewably) would effectively
> be "rewarded" by simply not being taxed. And if companies choose
to
> just pay the tax and still pump oil, then at least the government
has
> enough money to invest in the future technology that will be
required,
> and will inevitably become competitive as the finite resource gets
> closer to running out, e.g. biodiesel from algae...
>
> It creates both an incentive for consumers to conserve (as the
extra
> cost would be passed on in the form of higher prices), and also an
> incentive for producers to pursue renewable technology. If
implemented
> properly, the government would actually see very little extra
money as
> the whole scheme would simply encourage businesses to make the
> transition themselves.
>
> Come on, shoot me down, people!
>







Yahoo! Groups Links

does anyone know what the tax revenue from petrol is currently used
for? How much of this tax is currently used to fund research?

--- In ASPO_Oz_YoungProf@yahoogroups.com, "James Ward"
<james.ward@...> wrote:
>
> My crazy idea is a "Depletion tax", or alternatively titled
a "Future
> generations tax"...
>
> Say you introduce a tax on the depletion of any finite commodity.
Now,
> make the tax proportional to the cost of the equivalent renewable
> technology (that cost would otherwise be borne by future
generations)
> divided by the timeframe over which it needs to be implemented.
>
> So the closer you come to running out of a finite commodity (eg
oil),
> the more you have to pay to help facilitate the installation of the
> renewable replacement. Companies that make the transition
themselves
> (i.e. to recycling / producing things renewably) would effectively
> be "rewarded" by simply not being taxed. And if companies choose to
> just pay the tax and still pump oil, then at least the government
has
> enough money to invest in the future technology that will be
required,
> and will inevitably become competitive as the finite resource gets
> closer to running out, e.g. biodiesel from algae...
>
> It creates both an incentive for consumers to conserve (as the
extra
> cost would be passed on in the form of higher prices), and also an
> incentive for producers to pursue renewable technology. If
implemented
> properly, the government would actually see very little extra money
as
> the whole scheme would simply encourage businesses to make the
> transition themselves.
>
> Come on, shoot me down, people!
>

From the preamble to this Group:

"What is Peak Oil going to do to the young professional, who has
little money but big dreams? Are they going to find themselves unable
to live out the life they had come to expect?"

As demand for oil outstrips supply, the price of oil will increase
(Eco 101). This obviously has significant and far reaching effects on
the economy - we are already starting to see this now, with petrol at
$1.50, rising inflation, higher interest rates, greater unemployment
etc. Everyone participating in the economy is affected by this, and
the "young professional" is no exception. Now, if rising oil prices
cause a weakening of the economy, then im not sure how increasing the
cost of fuel further is of benefit. If anything, it exacerbates the
economic problems.

That aside, if your scheme were to be adopted, what criteria would be
used to determine which "equivalent renewable technology" would be
chosen? How is its cost _objectively_ calculated. How is
the "timeframe" for implemententation determined. Obviously such a
tax is highly sensitive to these parameters. Who is responsible for
developing the requisite technology? If the R&D is funded by a
legislated levy as you suggest - who owns the IP?

Should all the funding from this tax be directed to alternative
renewable energy sources? Why not invest in improving the efficiency
of gas/oil/coal fired powerplants or nuclear power generation - so
that the reserves will "go further"?

--- In ASPO_Oz_YoungProf@yahoogroups.com, "James Ward"
<james.ward@...> wrote:
>
> My crazy idea is a "Depletion tax", or alternatively titled
a "Future
> generations tax"...
>
> Say you introduce a tax on the depletion of any finite commodity.
Now,
> make the tax proportional to the cost of the equivalent renewable
> technology (that cost would otherwise be borne by future
generations)
> divided by the timeframe over which it needs to be implemented.
>
> So the closer you come to running out of a finite commodity (eg
oil),
> the more you have to pay to help facilitate the installation of the
> renewable replacement. Companies that make the transition
themselves
> (i.e. to recycling / producing things renewably) would effectively
> be "rewarded" by simply not being taxed. And if companies choose to
> just pay the tax and still pump oil, then at least the government
has
> enough money to invest in the future technology that will be
required,
> and will inevitably become competitive as the finite resource gets
> closer to running out, e.g. biodiesel from algae...
>
> It creates both an incentive for consumers to conserve (as the
extra
> cost would be passed on in the form of higher prices), and also an
> incentive for producers to pursue renewable technology. If
implemented
> properly, the government would actually see very little extra money
as
> the whole scheme would simply encourage businesses to make the
> transition themselves.
>
> Come on, shoot me down, people!
>

Great in theory jim, but how on earth would you get the goverment to
act like that? And more importantly, how do you convince the public
that it's a good idea? no one wants to pay more tax, and i'd say the
majority of the public are so narrow minded and ignorant that
they're all going to think you're crazy and don't know what you're
on about.

Isn't that the whole other issue? We've got this Peak Oil stuff
(which i freely admit i don't quite understand) and this group is
coming up with some genuinely good ideas and arguments, but the
other issue is how do you go about changing the way people live and
think??

that's my two cents. over and out.

--- In ASPO_Oz_YoungProf@yahoogroups.com, "James Ward"
<james.ward@...> wrote:
>
> My crazy idea is a "Depletion tax", or alternatively titled
a "Future
> generations tax"...
>
> Say you introduce a tax on the depletion of any finite commodity.
Now,
> make the tax proportional to the cost of the equivalent renewable
> technology (that cost would otherwise be borne by future
generations)
> divided by the timeframe over which it needs to be implemented.
>
> So the closer you come to running out of a finite commodity (eg
oil),
> the more you have to pay to help facilitate the installation of
the
> renewable replacement. Companies that make the transition
themselves
> (i.e. to recycling / producing things renewably) would effectively
> be "rewarded" by simply not being taxed. And if companies choose
to
> just pay the tax and still pump oil, then at least the government
has
> enough money to invest in the future technology that will be
required,
> and will inevitably become competitive as the finite resource gets
> closer to running out, e.g. biodiesel from algae...
>
> It creates both an incentive for consumers to conserve (as the
extra
> cost would be passed on in the form of higher prices), and also an
> incentive for producers to pursue renewable technology. If
implemented
> properly, the government would actually see very little extra
money as
> the whole scheme would simply encourage businesses to make the
> transition themselves.
>
> Come on, shoot me down, people!
>

My crazy idea is a "Depletion tax", or alternatively titled a "Future
generations tax"...

Say you introduce a tax on the depletion of any finite commodity. Now,
make the tax proportional to the cost of the equivalent renewable
technology (that cost would otherwise be borne by future generations)
divided by the timeframe over which it needs to be implemented.

So the closer you come to running out of a finite commodity (eg oil),
the more you have to pay to help facilitate the installation of the
renewable replacement. Companies that make the transition themselves
(i.e. to recycling / producing things renewably) would effectively
be "rewarded" by simply not being taxed. And if companies choose to
just pay the tax and still pump oil, then at least the government has
enough money to invest in the future technology that will be required,
and will inevitably become competitive as the finite resource gets
closer to running out, e.g. biodiesel from algae...

It creates both an incentive for consumers to conserve (as the extra
cost would be passed on in the form of higher prices), and also an
incentive for producers to pursue renewable technology. If implemented
properly, the government would actually see very little extra money as
the whole scheme would simply encourage businesses to make the
transition themselves.

Come on, shoot me down, people!

--- In ASPO_Oz_YoungProf@yahoogroups.com, "James Ward" <james.ward@...>
wrote:

<snip>

> If the issues of safety, waste, environmental destruction, indigenous
> land rights and weapons proliferation can be dealt with, then YES
> there is potential that this energy source could help bridge the gap
> between fossil fuels and renewable energy (the ultimate future),

</snip>

Provided appropriate safeguards are in place, I believe nuclear power
to be a viable alternative to fossil fuels for the short to medium
term. Whilst I agree that renewable energy is "the ultimate future",
realistically I think it will be some time before these technologies
are able to meet current energy demand. Nuclear power can bridge that
gap.

Further to Beazleys comments re Labour's three mines policy, this
article appeared in today's Australian newspaper:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20040788-643,00.html

Yellowcake feeding frenzy grows
You just can't get enough exposure to uranium, Robin Bromby writes

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

August 07, 2006
FEDERAL Labor's plan to scrap its three-mines uranium policy seems to
have unleashed a new round of yellowcake frenzy.
And not just here.

Perth brokers have been approached by a large Hong Kong sharebroking
firm looking to organise a $100 million float on the Hong Kong
exchange.

The plan is to acquire uranium projects in Australia and elsewhere and,
through a Hong Kong listing, afford Chinese investors exposure to
uranium.

Back home, more initial public offerings are under way, one involving a
director who ran foul of the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission last year.

ASIC obtained a permanent injunction against David Zohar and his
company, Swancove Enterprises, from operating an unlicensed financial
services business after allegations of their involvement in spruiking
shares in Red River Resources, Corella Oil and Australian Biogen.
Swancove had used a bulk mailing company to send unsolicited letters to
more than 55,000 people offering shares in these companies.

Mr Zohar is running an $8 million IPO by Uranium Oil & Gas. He has been
involved in many floats, starting with Fortuna Gold in 1987 and several
since, including Greenstone Resources (now Red 5) and Red River. UOG's
portfolio includes the Bungalow Well uranium target, 130km from BHP
Billiton's Yeelirrie deposit, and uranium and oil projects in the
Northern Territory.

An enthusiastic Mr Zohar told The Australian: "I have never seen
anything like it."

Investors had mailed cheques even before the prospectus was released
and applications were now clogging his fax machine.

Mr Zohar said the ASIC move involved what he called a technicality, and
was absurd.

"ASIC's having a go at virtually everyone these days."

The latest IPO to hit the market is a $5 million raising by Venture
Minerals, gearing up to drill its Churchill Dam copper-gold-uranium
target located, its says, on the same corridor as Olympic Dam. Venture
also holds uranium tenements near Redport explorations in Western
Australia.

Eromanga Uranium on Friday launched a $15 million IPO, offering
exposure to projects in both South Australia and the Northern
Territory.

Next year's Australian Labor Party conference is likely to endorse a
plan by leader Kim Beazley to ditch the three-mines limit that had been
imposed by Bob Hawke's Labor government.

While the Queensland and West Australian state Labor governments remain
opposed to uranium mining in their states, investors are expecting that
resistance will be overcome within the next few years.

Drilling continues apace -- as does land acquisition, with advanced
explorer Summit Resources stitching up another 12,000sqkm of
prospective ground in Queensland.

Summit, with advanced uranium projects around Mt Isa, will manage
exploration of land between Mt Isa and the Northern Territory border.
It has brought in listed Newland Resources, which will stump up $5
million for a half share.

Last Monday, Newland was queried by the Australian Stock Exchange after
its share price jumped from 17c to 24c. Newland said it knew of nothing
to explain recent trading.

And there have been more good drilling results.

Alliance Resources, a junior partner with an arm of General Atomic of
the US -- the operator of the Beverley uranium mine in South Australia -
- reported grades as high as 1.657 per cent from the adjacent Beverley
4 Mile prospect.

Another operator, Scimitar Resources, reported grades as high as 0.13
per cent at its Yanrey deposit in Western Australia.

I went to a seminar in the south east on Friday. The title
was "Global Oil Depletion and Bio-diesel" and it attracted an
audience of about 100 locals, mostly farmers. Good stuff!

One speaker, Barry Goldstein (oil industry expert from PIRSA), said
that when the price is high enough for long enough, energy companies
will invest in things like gas-to-liquids and coal-to-liquids.
(These technologies allow other resources like natural gas and coal
to be converted into liquid fuels like what we get from oil.) They
are competitive at an oil price of about $30-40/barrel, so as the
current price is double that and doesn't look like it will ever drop
below $40 again, these alternative technologies are expected to come
online soon and will probably drive the oil price down a bit.

What does this mean? It means that, according to Barry Goldstein,
they already have something to plug the gap, at a reasonable price
(roughly half the current price) and the world isn't immediately
going to find itself short of liquid fuels. Hoorah! I can scrap the
Peugeot, buy a petrol 4WD, quit catching the bus and close down this
forum!

BUT...

Coal-to-liquids technology is worse than oil in terms of CO2
emissions. When we get serious about climate change, and start
paying the full price for our emissions, our cheap salvation (coal-
to-liquids) will become more expensive. I don't know how much more
expensive it will be, but it will be significant, and it should be
enough to drive us to drive less.

So, Barry's conclusion is that we WILL receive the signal to change
our behaviour, but not from massive oil shortages predicted by the
peak oil movement - rather, from genuine & widespread recognition of
climate change & the need to pay the full cost of things.

I don't know - I'd still bank on there being some major disruption
ahead and plan for it... Also, anyone who has seen Al Bartlett's
lecture "Arithmetic, Population & Energy" (I have legitimate DVD
copies available for $2) will know not to trust anyone who says "we
have vast reserves of coal" - it is still finite and if consumption
continues to grow exponentially, it will run out frighteningly fast.

But it's good to realise that the peak oil crisis and climate change
are both linked to similar excessive consumption patterns so the
two "movements" need not be in conflict.

I'm frustrated by the fact that the Uranium debate so often focuses on
operational safety and waste containment. This implies that, if the
public can be convinced on these two points, then there is nothing
standing in the way of a virtually unlimited nuclear energy future.

In fact Uranium is a finite resource like any other. At current
prices, there is enough economically viable Uranium to meet current
demand for less than a century. Demand is growing and if the world
ramps up production to replace oil & coal it will run out a lot
quicker. Higher prices will make currently unviable resources viable
(Luke can tell us more about the economics of the mining industry) but
it is ultimately still a finite resource.

If the issues of safety, waste, environmental destruction, indigenous
land rights and weapons proliferation can be dealt with, then YES
there is potential that this energy source could help bridge the gap
between fossil fuels and renewable energy (the ultimate future), but
this should only be considered after an absolutely exhaustive (and
public) analysis of the triple bottom line costs (social, economic and
environmental). At the end of the day, it will not pave the way to an
infinite growth future because the resource is simply too limited.

The govt makes it sound like they're branching out into brand new
territory but the manufacturers already warrant their engines for up
to 10% ethanol blended petrol any way.

I'd be impressed if they said the entire government fleet would be
aiming for a 50% reduction in vehicle kilometres by 2008, have an
average fuel efficiency of at most, say, 7L/100km by 2008, and that
they would be run on 100% renewable fuel by 2015...

Driving in 13L/100km Commodores and putting in 10% ethanol is not
going to have a tremendous impact on the peak oil problem and it sends
the "business as usual" message to the public which is counter-
productive. Behaviour change is required and that needs to be the
message.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/beazley-relaxes-uranium-
policy/2006/07/24/1153593270755.html

Beazley relaxes uranium policy
Jamie Freed and Phillip Coorey
July 25, 2006


THE prospects of uranium mining in Queensland and Western Australia
improved last night when federal Labor leader Kim Beazley signalled a
change in the party's no-new-mines policy.

Mr Beazley told the Sydney Institute a federal Labor government would
not restrict the number of uranium mines but would tighten export
safeguards.

The change would have widespread implications for the many smaller
uranium explorers in Australia and would also affect the world's top
two mining companies, BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, which hold large
deposits in Western Australia.

But even if the Labor Party follows Mr Beazley and changes its view
on uranium mining at its national conference next year, miners will
still face state bans.

Queensland's Labor Premier, Peter Beattie, has opposed uranium mining
in his state because it would compete with the coal industry. Last
night he said he remained concerned about the coal industry but
would "look forward to the debate at the national conference which
will determine the party's position".

In contrast, WA's Labor Premier, Alan Carpenter, said his state's
policy on uranium mining was "crystal clear" and in line with that of
his predecessor, Geoff Gallop.

"We do not support uranium mining because we believe it will
inevitably lead to Western Australia becoming the dumping ground for
the world's nuclear waste," he said. "We believe the majority of
Western Australians support this position."

Queensland and WA are home to some of the nation's biggest uranium
deposits and many explorers have been waiting for the mining bans to
be lifted.

John Borshoff, the managing director of Australia's biggest
independent uranium miner, Paladin Resources, said he welcomed Mr
Beazley's change of heart.

"It's a profound move," Mr Borshoff said. "I thought it would take a
little bit longer. It certainly now leaves the thing open for the
states to unravel their various positions and for the Labor Party to
look more forward."

Paladin recently made a $175 million bid for Valhalla Uranium, which
controls half of the large Valhalla/Skal uranium deposit in
Queensland.

The company also holds projects in WA but has chosen to open its
first mine in Namibia due to the state mining bans in Australia.

John Wilson, a uranium analyst with Resource Capital Research, said
he expected strong trading in shares of uranium explorers today. But
he said Queensland explorers were more likely to benefit from Labor's
policy change than those in WA.

"The market in general [has been] anticipating a change in Labor
party policy," he said.

"To some extent, the expectation of the shift is already priced into
the shares.

"I think there's still more of a discount in the Queensland shares."

Mr Borshoff warned that few Australian uranium mines would be opened
in the immediate future.

"There's a hell of a lot of work to do," he said. "It's not going to
be an immediate process by a long shot."

Two websites to check out:

http://www.npi.gov.au/
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/renewable/

ps I should add that my previous post was a "fishing expedition".
Rather, I am interested in the short- and long-term economic and
financial aspects of "Peak Oil", both positive and negative.


--- In ASPO_Oz_YoungProf@yahoogroups.com, "rmuhlack"
<richard.muhlack@...> wrote:
>
>
> With oil prices set to increase in the long term as demand
outstrips
> supply, one could argue that in the short to medium term a good
> investment/trading strategy could be to:
>
> * buy into oil/gas explorers and producers
> * (if you are very experienced in commodity trading) trade oil
futures
>
> in terms of investing in alternative energy sources to fossil
fuels,
> my guess is that companies exposed to uranium
exploration/production
> and nuclear power production will perform well over the short to
> medium term.
>
> (Note the above is for informal discussion purposes only, and does
> not constitute financial advice. Before making any financial or
> investment decisions, you should always consult your advisor(s) or
> other relevant professional experts.)
>
> --- In ASPO_Oz_YoungProf@yahoogroups.com, "James Ward"
> <james.ward@> wrote:
> >
> > I guess I ought to preface this by saying I am NOT an investment
> > expert of ANY kind and these ideas might be totally wrong. My
> > investment experience is that I got $750 worth of shares left to
me
> > in a will a few years ago, I sold the lot to finance repairs on
my
> > car, and ever since then that company has done really well :-)
> >
> > Any way, my thoughts were that a lot of superannuation companies
> > offer a selection of funds, one of which is often a "green"
> > or "sustainable" version - i.e. the investments in that fund
favour
> > environmentally responsible projects. There are also whole
> > investment companies that only favour ethically and
environmentally
> > responsible endeavours.
> >
> > Contrast this against a company (and they exist) who has invested
> > in, say, toll roads, or Holden's new V8, and you see that your
> money
> > may be more secure in the sustainable fund!
> >
> > Again, I am NOT an expert and these are only ideas - but perhaps
> > it's something worth looking into, to help "future proof" one's
> hard-
> > earned from peak oil?
> >
> > I guess if one was looking at investing spare money in the stock
> > market, there may be a good case for sniffing out the companies
> that
> > look like they'll be in high demand after the peak: people
involved
> > in biodiesel, ethanol, wind, solar, biomass... The returns may
not
> > be huge for the next few years, but the long term scenario may be
> > better.
> >
> > Again, don't take my word for it. Just the day's 2 cents' worth...
> >
>

With oil prices set to increase in the long term as demand outstrips
supply, one could argue that in the short to medium term a good
investment/trading strategy could be to:

* buy into oil/gas explorers and producers
* (if you are very experienced in commodity trading) trade oil futures

in terms of investing in alternative energy sources to fossil fuels,
my guess is that companies exposed to uranium exploration/production
and nuclear power production will perform well over the short to
medium term.

(Note the above is for informal discussion purposes only, and does
not constitute financial advice. Before making any financial or
investment decisions, you should always consult your advisor(s) or
other relevant professional experts.)

--- In ASPO_Oz_YoungProf@yahoogroups.com, "James Ward"
<james.ward@...> wrote:
>
> I guess I ought to preface this by saying I am NOT an investment
> expert of ANY kind and these ideas might be totally wrong. My
> investment experience is that I got $750 worth of shares left to me
> in a will a few years ago, I sold the lot to finance repairs on my
> car, and ever since then that company has done really well :-)
>
> Any way, my thoughts were that a lot of superannuation companies
> offer a selection of funds, one of which is often a "green"
> or "sustainable" version - i.e. the investments in that fund favour
> environmentally responsible projects. There are also whole
> investment companies that only favour ethically and environmentally
> responsible endeavours.
>
> Contrast this against a company (and they exist) who has invested
> in, say, toll roads, or Holden's new V8, and you see that your
money
> may be more secure in the sustainable fund!
>
> Again, I am NOT an expert and these are only ideas - but perhaps
> it's something worth looking into, to help "future proof" one's
hard-
> earned from peak oil?
>
> I guess if one was looking at investing spare money in the stock
> market, there may be a good case for sniffing out the companies
that
> look like they'll be in high demand after the peak: people involved
> in biodiesel, ethanol, wind, solar, biomass... The returns may not
> be huge for the next few years, but the long term scenario may be
> better.
>
> Again, don't take my word for it. Just the day's 2 cents' worth...
>

Watching Sunrise this morning (4/8/06) and noted that federal Minister
Joe Hockey stated that the entire government fleet of vehicles is
going to be running on Ethanol fuel by the end of the year (if it
isn't already). Not only is this a step in the right direction, but
perhaps a sign that the Government is beginning to take notice of
alternatives. Hockey also pointed out that the government needs to
investigate sustainable fuel supplies. I guess if you were
pessimistic, youd say that they should have started looking at this
years ago, but I guess for our politicians, anything is better than
nothing.
Another interesting note to come out of this is that opposition
minister Kevin Rudd agreed with him. So I guess bipartisan support for
this is confirmed.

I guess I ought to preface this by saying I am NOT an investment
expert of ANY kind and these ideas might be totally wrong. My
investment experience is that I got $750 worth of shares left to me
in a will a few years ago, I sold the lot to finance repairs on my
car, and ever since then that company has done really well :-)

Any way, my thoughts were that a lot of superannuation companies
offer a selection of funds, one of which is often a "green"
or "sustainable" version - i.e. the investments in that fund favour
environmentally responsible projects. There are also whole
investment companies that only favour ethically and environmentally
responsible endeavours.

Contrast this against a company (and they exist) who has invested
in, say, toll roads, or Holden's new V8, and you see that your money
may be more secure in the sustainable fund!

Again, I am NOT an expert and these are only ideas - but perhaps
it's something worth looking into, to help "future proof" one's hard-
earned from peak oil?

I guess if one was looking at investing spare money in the stock
market, there may be a good case for sniffing out the companies that
look like they'll be in high demand after the peak: people involved
in biodiesel, ethanol, wind, solar, biomass... The returns may not
be huge for the next few years, but the long term scenario may be
better.

Again, don't take my word for it. Just the day's 2 cents' worth...

UniSA, City East campus. 7PM for a 7:30 start.

More info at:

http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawke/events/2006events/Peak_Oil.asp

Cheers,
James.

My cynical view being expressed again here but....something fundamental
has to happen (e.g. an oil shock, environmental disaster etc) before a
market/economics driven government such as Howard's will act. No
government body, market or business will ever a condone zero growth
policy. Diminshing and/or more costly resources might apply the right
pressures to force action (e.g. recent SE Queensland referendum on
drinking recycled effluent) but alas that appears to happen only at a
late stage in the problem. I can only suggest increasing public
awareness of the issues and let your vote be your voice.


James Ward wrote:

> GDP growth is the Aussie government's main measure of success &
> progress. It is an indiscriminate tally of how much money is being
> spent.
>
> Now, a large part of the answer to the peak oil problem is "making do
> with less" - i.e. LESS: car travel, air travel, money, plastic, meat,
> processed food, the list goes on... Think of how people coped with the
> Great Depression, or for a more contemporary example, think of the
> family in "Charlie & The Chocolate Factory" before he wins the golden
> ticket...
>
> This concept of "tread lightly on the planet" is part of the ecological
> footprint ideology, where it is shown that Aussies and Americans use
> something like 5 times their fair share of the globe, meaning their
> lifestyle cannot be scaled up to the whole world, so the push to scale
> down is both an ethical and an ecological decision (aka common flamin'
> sense). "Live simply so that others may simply live" (Mahatma Ghandi).
>
> Now, if we Aussies adopt a "smaller" lifestyle in this way, one of the
> results will be that less goods are being bought & sold here. This will
> mean that the GDP will cease to grow, and will actually start to shrink
> (for a few years at least - eventually it would stabilise and remain
> roughly constant). I do not know the relationship between, say, GDP and
> share value - if our GDP shrinks, will everyone's shares/superannuation
> lose their value? Probably. But I don't know.
>
> The fact remains that our current way of life is unsustainable. But,
> while it may be the best thing for the viability of our society to use
> less (and shrink the GDP), as far as current government / economic
> planning is concerned, a shrinking GDP is considered to be the worst
> outcome imaginable. I cannot foresee an Australian government endorsing
> any policy that results in a constant GDP, let alone a shrinking one.
> (Unless that was what the public universally wanted, and it's hard to
> foresee THAT happening either.)
>
> So that's a dilly of a pickle. What do we do?
>
>

GDP growth is the Aussie government's main measure of success &
progress. It is an indiscriminate tally of how much money is being
spent.

Now, a large part of the answer to the peak oil problem is "making do
with less" - i.e. LESS: car travel, air travel, money, plastic, meat,
processed food, the list goes on... Think of how people coped with the
Great Depression, or for a more contemporary example, think of the
family in "Charlie & The Chocolate Factory" before he wins the golden
ticket...

This concept of "tread lightly on the planet" is part of the ecological
footprint ideology, where it is shown that Aussies and Americans use
something like 5 times their fair share of the globe, meaning their
lifestyle cannot be scaled up to the whole world, so the push to scale
down is both an ethical and an ecological decision (aka common flamin'
sense). "Live simply so that others may simply live" (Mahatma Ghandi).

Now, if we Aussies adopt a "smaller" lifestyle in this way, one of the
results will be that less goods are being bought & sold here. This will
mean that the GDP will cease to grow, and will actually start to shrink
(for a few years at least - eventually it would stabilise and remain
roughly constant). I do not know the relationship between, say, GDP and
share value - if our GDP shrinks, will everyone's shares/superannuation
lose their value? Probably. But I don't know.

The fact remains that our current way of life is unsustainable. But,
while it may be the best thing for the viability of our society to use
less (and shrink the GDP), as far as current government / economic
planning is concerned, a shrinking GDP is considered to be the worst
outcome imaginable. I cannot foresee an Australian government endorsing
any policy that results in a constant GDP, let alone a shrinking one.
(Unless that was what the public universally wanted, and it's hard to
foresee THAT happening either.)

So that's a dilly of a pickle. What do we do?

I heard in the news this morning that Senator Barnaby Joyce is
pushing the government to do more about lowering petrol prices.

On the face of it, this looks like a noble goal, "looking out for
the battlers", that sort of thing. Certainly there are many people
who are hurting pretty badly with high fuel prices.

But let's look at it objectively for a moment.

The average car in Australia consumes approximately 12L/100km and
carries an average of about 1.7 people.

There are cars that have been available (although not widely
marketed in Australia) since the 1980s that will average 6L/100km.
And almost all cars are capable of carrying at least 4 people. There
are more recent developments that have enabled 4L/100km. There is
even a company in Germany that is developing a 1.5L/100km 4-seater
(www.loremo.com).

Half the fuel consumption and double the passengers equals four
times the fuel economy per person-kilometre.

So if the efficient options are there, then why have we allowed
ourselves to become so inefficient? Cheap fuel. There has been no
incentive to conserve.

Joyce is right to suggest that the Aussie battlers will need help to
cope with high fuel prices, but simply bringing down the price of
fuel (supposing the government could somehow do that!) will only
contribute to the cause of the problem. We MUST face up to the real
problem, and that means recognising that resources need to be more
expensive. In the absence of any currently viable/scalable
alternatives to oil, the best advice is to conserve this resource.

We should all write to our local politician and tell them (to their
surprise, no doubt) that we do NOT want them to lower petrol prices,
as price is currently the only mechanism we have to ensure that the
resource is conserved!

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the ASPO_Oz_YoungProf
group.

   File        : /oil use in Australia.pdf
   Uploaded by : jimmy_w_xyz <james.ward@...>
   Description : A simple break-down of Australia's current oil use - shows how
much goes into transport, agriculture, private cars, etc

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASPO_Oz_YoungProf/files/oil%20use%20in%20Australia\
.pdf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

jimmy_w_xyz <james.ward@...>

I don't really know much about Peak Oil, so I'm here to learn. From
what I can tell, Peak Oil is going to have major effects on the way we
live, raising awareness of environmental issues above and beyond those
surrounding petroleum. This is a good thing (I hope), as God only gave
us one Earth, and I get the feeling he's not too happy with how we're
treating it. I'm hoping that I'll be able to contribute meaningfully
to the discussions, and looking forward to learning oh-so-much about
the issue.

I'm interested in Peak Oil because it will be the biggest economic
global issue that I will face in my lifetime. How this situation is
managed will greatly affect the upbringing of my children to come,
and generations to come.

In this vein, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization is
like a human being losing blood. We have around 5 pints of blood in
our bodies but if we only lose 1 pint, or 20% then we die. The same
can be said with oil, we may not run out of oil in the next 50 years
or longer, but our civilization and sustained rate of economic
growth will begin to die. Now even this is a somewhat optimistic
view, because some say that as soon as we reach a 5% shortfall in
demand the price will quadruple and the economy will fall into
chaos. This scenario may come true and the data seems to be based on
the oil shocks of the 1970's. But I think that even at a 5%
shortfall the world will still live and survive because I consider
the implementation biodiesel and ethanol coupled with new extraction
methods for refining enriched mineral deposits will be able to
bridge the gap until around the 20% mark. From this point on though,
down the back of the bell curve we may well face the "post-
industrial stone age."

The thinking we need to implement now is not one of a doom date, be
it 2010 or 2050. But to apply a change of thinking and execution
regarding the use of energy resources by all consumers around the
world and transform the global financial system, which is entirely
dependent on a constantly increasing supply of oil and natural gas.
With this view all policy makers will need to encompass a
multiplicity of programs to deliver a result.

Josh.

Hi fernby12tree (or Rodney to those of us who know you!)

I'd just clarify that I don't think we are going to see oil RUN OUT
in our lifetimes, but all data is pointing to us seeing the PEAK of
production in our lifetimes, and most likely within the next 10
years.

So looking back, we can see that we have enjoyed an exponential
growth curve (approximately), and looking forward we can no longer
expect that growth curve to continue. It will flatten off, and
eventually decline.

Initially the shortfalls will be made up by alternative fuel sources
such as biodiesel and ethanol, as well as unconventional oil and gas-
to-liquids, but the biggest gains will probably come from smarter
use of fuel (eg moving away from 1 person per Commodore towards the
Asian model of 2+ people per scooter). There are some methods
available to improve the efficiency of freight transport too.

Don't worry too much about chemicals and medical supplies - they
make up a very small fraction of our oil budget. Expect them to go
up in price substantially, but don't lose too much sleep over their
availability at this stage.

The first take-home message it that ultimately we will stabilise at
some amount of transport energy (no more growth), and that will be
substantially less than the amount we currently have. Our current
economic system will probably not survive the decline period
inbetween, but whatever sprouts up to take its place will have to be
able to cope with essentially a zero growth paradigm.

The other take-home message is that it isn't going to be a
particularly comfortable ride down the decline curve! The immediate
effects will be supply/demand disruptions that will lead to volatile
prices. This means that the price will go up until demand goes down.
There will be a lot of people hurt by this, in Australia and beyond.
Expect to see a LOT of 4WDs and commodores/falcons with "For Sale"
signs in the window.

Perhaps a good way to do it is to formulate a household budget, and
factor in fuel costing, say, $5/litre and food costing twice as much
as it does now. If you're planning to take out a loan, do the
calculations based on double what the interest rates are now. Go
conservative as much as possible and you should be well-poised to
deal with peak oil.

I join this group as a result of seeing Jimmys little video about
peak oil a few weeks ago. Quite a scary little thing.

For those who havent seen it, Jimmy can elaborate at length about
what it contains. Its a calculated, predictive, elaboration on the
key issue of just what this forum is about: the lack of oil and what
it means for the world. Using mathmatics and simple formula to
determine just how much oil we have left, and how long we are going
to have it for.

Oil will run out in our lifetimes.

Considering everything we use oil for: the production of fules to run
our transportation industries (aircraft, boat, train and road),
create chemicals, plastics and items we use for both everyday life
and those things that are important. Medical items will cease to be
made... how will you give injections, apply bandaids and other things
we not ony take for granted, but expect from our society? As a
husband, and hopefully one day a father, what kind of world will our
families be living in in the years to come as prices rise, society
begins to destabilise (aren't we seeing that already though?) and the
fabric of our world collapses under our undermining of its natural
resources.

Its a pretty simple equation. Our way of life is determined by the
amount of oil we produce and consume. Take away that oil, and you
have no way of life, or at the very least, a way of life thats
different from the one you started with.

Okay, it suddenly struck me that we should have a "Peak Oil 101" for
the uninitiated... So here goes. I'll keep it simple here but am
happy to expand on any points if asked.

Peak oil is a physical phenomenon - the point of maximum oil
production, followed by decline (think of a "bell curve" as a very
rough approximation). It occurs on the scale of an oil-producing
region, and when summing up numerous regions it also occurs on a
larger scale (ultimately globally). The term "peak oil" is now used
generally in reference to the cumulative global peak; as oil is
traded globally, its price everywhere will be significantly affected
by a decline in global supply relative to demand.

The theory is attributed to M. K. Hubbert, who was a petroleum
geologist working for Shell (and others) in the 50s. He predicted
the rise, peak, and decline of US oil production (and got the timing
of the peak correct - around 1970). About 50 other countries
including Australia have now passed their peak and are experiencing
declining production. Imagine you're out for a jog, you gradually
speed up until you're sprinting, then you run out of puff and have
to slow back down. Eventually you are so puffed that you end up
walking... And for me that about sums up a 1km run, without the
sprinting :-)

Hubbert also predicted the peak in global oil production using the
same methodology as he used for US production, but because of the
unexpected embargoes of the 70s his predictions fell short (i.e. he
predicted a global peak in '95 but since oil production slowed down
as a result of the embargoes, the peak was delayed).

The jury is out as to when the global peak will be. The more
optimistic economists suggest 2030 (some even later), whereas the
more pessimistic geologists predict it will be much sooner (even
this year), while still others suggest it won't be so much a "peak"
but more of a "bumpy plateau" from now until around 2030, followed
by declining production. It all depends how readily the big
producers can ramp up production. Speaking of which, one must ask
oneself: "if I was in charge of, say, Iran's national oil company,
then how eager would I be to invest billions of dollars in order to
ramp up production, drive down the price and shorten the life of my
country's #1 export?"

As for me.... I know very little about peak oil and only heard of it
about a year ago. My interest in it stems from my concerns about the
ever increasing "growth" and consumerism with little regard for the
environment.

I personally feel that peak oil is a necessary evil that will
hopefully lead to improved resource ultilisation and add some urgency
to the development of more environmentally friendly alternative
energy sources. My cynicism suggests that people will only learn and
act through desperation such as living through the reality of peak
oil.

Luke

--- In ASPO_Oz_YoungProf@yahoogroups.com, "James" <james.ward@...>
wrote:
>
> Let's have a bit of "Who am I and why am I interested in peak oil?"
for
> anyone joining the group.
>
> I'll start.
>
> I am concerned about peak oil because:
>
> - Having studied the debate in some detail, I think it will
probably
> happen sooner rather than later;
>
> - I don't think we are very well prepared for a post- cheap oil
> civilisation;
>
> - I think that if oil supply falls short of demand, the price will
rise
> to the point of reducing demand, in other words the price will go
up
> and up and up until someone goes without. I don't think that will
be a
> pretty situation; and
>
> - I think that peak oil is just the first of a number of warning
> signals that we really should listen to, if we want to leave a
positive
> legacy for future generations, let alone the planet, atmosphere,
etc...
>

Let's have a bit of "Who am I and why am I interested in peak oil?" for
anyone joining the group.

I'll start.

I am concerned about peak oil because:

- Having studied the debate in some detail, I think it will probably
happen sooner rather than later;

- I don't think we are very well prepared for a post- cheap oil
civilisation;

- I think that if oil supply falls short of demand, the price will rise
to the point of reducing demand, in other words the price will go up
and up and up until someone goes without. I don't think that will be a
pretty situation; and

- I think that peak oil is just the first of a number of warning
signals that we really should listen to, if we want to leave a positive
legacy for future generations, let alone the planet, atmosphere, etc...