Mary Honeyball MEP’s response to my letter highlighting the urgency of preparing for the impact of oil shortages

Dear Mr Mowshowitz,

Thank you for taking the time to write to Mary Honeyball MEP.
The issue of Peak Oil is one which rightly will affect the future of the
developed and industrialised nations of the world.
It is part of the debate on the climate changes that are increasingly seen
to be the result of usage of fossil fuels.
We are seeing a series of engagements at national and international level
and increasing commitments to deal with the results of expanding
industrialisation.
Your MEP will be alert to the proposals and developments in this area and
thanks you again for sharing your views with her.

Yours truly

Colin Ellar
Casework assistant

Charles Tannock MEP’s response to my letter highlighting the urgency of preparing for the impact of oil shortages

Having corresponded largely with my MP Sarah Teather of Brent East for the last year and with Glenda Jackson before that it seems I’ve become a bit spoiled in terms of government representation. Not only did Charles Tannock MEP not respond directly to my letter (please see my previous post of 16.11.2009), his PA has done nothing but limply regurgitate the Conservative party line. A disappointing response.

Dear Mr Mowshowitz

Dr Tannock is a foreign affairs specialist nevertheless takes a keen intersts in energy policy and is well aware of the peak oil arguments though as of yet the case for it to be an immediate concern is not proven and in the next few years it is posiible that large new gas finds will be made through shale, biofuels will be a significant source to replace oil use, clean coal technology will kick in along with more nuclear, and renewables (wind, tidal, wave, geothermal etc)so the amount of oil use is very unclear. The Conservatives are committed to Kyoto plus targets and are well aware of the impact of climate change on the globe and that oil is a finite resource even if the time frame for global reserves and peak production is far from clear. We will follow these mattesr very carefully and David Cameron as probable next PM of the UK is as you probably know particularly keen on the green agenda and conserving the environment.

Kind regards

Dr Silvia Janicinova

PA

The urgency of preparing for the impact of oil shortages | a letter to Sarah Teather MP and other elected representatives

I sent the letter below to Sarah Teather MP and a slightly reworded version to the following elected representatives of my constituency, Brent East

London Assembly Members

• Navin Shah (my London Assembly Member, Labour)
• Murad Qureshi (list member, Labour)
• Dee Doocey (list member, Liberal Democrat)
• Victoria Borwick (list member, Conservative)
• Mike Tuffrey (list member, Liberal Democrat)
• Caroline Pidgeon (list member, Liberal Democrat)
• Nicky Gavron (list member, Labour)
• Jenny Jones (list member, Green)
• Darren Johnson (list member, Green)
• Richard Barnbrook (list member, BNP)
• Andrew Boff ( list member, Conservative)
• Gareth Bacon (list member, Conservative)

Members of the European Parliament

• Gerard Batten (UK Independence)
• Marina Yannakoudakis (Conservative)
• Mary Honeyball (Labour)
• Syed Kamall (Conservative)
• Charles Tannock (Conservative)
• Claude Moraes (Labour)
• Jean Lambert (Green)
• Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrat)

Last of all I sent the same letter to Lord McKenzie of Luton who seems to have spoken often about oil related issues. I will post each and every response that I receive (if I receive any) on this blog as they arrive.

Dear Sarah Teather,

First of all thank you again for all of your support and continued correspondence,  for dilligently and faithfully answering each of my letters.

I must now bring your attention full circle to the first letter I sent you some 16 months ago with a particular emphasis on peak oil. I said then that time is already short to prepare adequately for the impact of a decline in oil production. In the year that’s followed I can safely say that not nearly enough has happened in the UK neither to make the public aware of the realities of peak oil nor to make real provisions in anticipation of imminent energy shortages and a transition away from hydrocarbon dependency. I do not hold you responsible for this nor am I writing merely to winge about it. You are my only approachable representative within the UK government and it is all I can do to place as great an emphasis on these matters as I possibly can speaking not just for the sake of your constituents but for the entire UK and mankind as a whole.

Figures published in the latest IEA World Energy Outlook have reportedly been distorted in order to massage US interests and keep global markets calm. I have corresponded with the head of energy diversification regarding this matter and he has not engaged with the allegations other than to say that they have been warning for years that projected demand will not be met with current investment levels in exploration and development. The point is that peak oil is a reality and it is merely a question of when the decline will begin – at what point will the supply fail to keep up with the demand. According to the more pessimistic accounts it will begin in 2013 (Uppsala University’s study entitled The Peak of the Oil Age), and the optimistic accounts put the date back to between 2020-2030 (International Energy Agency). This doesn’t leave us much time in any case.

We are now deep into a recession. As a nation we have already spent our future under the assumption that the economy will continue to grow and we will be able to pay it all back over the next x decades. What will happen when the price of oil begins its permanent escalation? The financial system will collapse. Furthermore it isn’t only transportation that runs on oil but the entire food industry (10 calories of hydrocarbon energy per calorie of food produced), the pharmaceutical industry, all plastics, etc. The implications are staggering. Without proper oil conservation in the wake of the decline not only would few commodities including food be affordable to anybody but we would no longer be able to make or distribute sufficient quantities of medicine or vaccinations for instance. Most medicines are made possible by petrochemicals. The healthcare industry relies massively on disposable plastics. Another outbreak of a swine-flu like virus could quickly decimate the population under those conditions. If there is any risk of this scenario being as close as 4 years away then surely we should be doing everything possible to insure erring on the side of caution?

I am aware that the UK government has over the past few years continued to be dismissive of the fact that oil production is peaking imminently or has already peaked. I continue to be shocked at this attitude. At a certain point this will be construed as criminal negligence on an unprecedented level. Concealing the true motives behind our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan or trying to prevent panic on the stock markets are not good enough reasons for withholding information from the British public that is directly pertinent to its survival. These are also not good enough reasons to neglect preparing for what is to come, whether in 4 years or two decades.

There is much that can and should be done now. I refer you to Mike Ruppert’s work – particularly his book A Presidential Energy Policy. Visit http://www.mikeruppert.blogspot.com/ for more information on Mike and one of the best collections of independent research on peak oil.

What worries me most is that our economic system is the greatest obstacle to a smooth peak oil transition. Required investment is stagnant when there is no profit to be made. In order to facilitate sufficient investment in renewables, demand destruction and improved public infrastructure the government will need to take extreme measures such as redistributing wealth by capping profits and levying severe penalties on polluting industries et al.

It is the overriding authority of profit that needs to be addressed immediately and the survival of our people and planet made the highest priority. I have no doubt that this will be a painful and arduous process with huge resistance from monied interests.

In short I urge you to raise your voice on preparing for oil shortages now. I urge you to continue demanding transparency along with uncompromising and swift energy reforms. I urge you to push for corporations to be made financially and legally accountable for their impact on the environment and cease to externalize their costs on the public.

The place to start is the call on the government from the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security ‘to reassess its dismissive views about the potential threat and impact of oil shortages.’ (The Guardian)

Yours sincerely,
Seth Mowshowitz

Second response to whistleblower allegations from Ian Cronshaw, head of the IEA energy diversification division

As you can see in my previous post below, I specifically asked Mr Cronshaw if the IEA would provide some clarification on the alleged differences of opinion regarding achievable oil production targets within the organization. This was his reply:

Again all I can say is we continue to note that to achieve the output levels needed to meet the demand projected we need considerable investment in exploration and development, investment which we see as essential to energy security, and affordable energy, and investment that we are worried is not happening at the pace needed. This has of course got worse since the global recession. We have said this loudly and often, I don’t know how often we can say this. This is not about peak oil, but about investment. We also note that under almost any forseeable scenario, OPEC increases market share and absolute oil output, with consequences for energy security. The reference scenario is unsustainable, in the truest sense of that word.

Ian’s response does not directly address the main issue that I raised. However, reading between the lines he is clearly saying – with an undertone of frustration – that any bickering within the IEA is irrelevant because we are heading for a global crisis of epic magnitude by 2030 as long as investment in exploration and development fails to reach adequate levels. If I understand correctly his emphasis in this context does seem to be on meeting the demand projected rather than a policy of demand destruction, but perhaps that isn’t even relevant here.

Ian’s point that more investment is an absolute requirement and is not happening at the pace needed is absolutely crucial. Why the lack of investment? Investment will only happen if it is profitable to do so. As oil becomes more scarce the price goes up but it also becomes more expensive to recover. The figure to watch out for is the cost of bringing a barrel of oil out of the earth in any specific location. The ratio of the cost of a barrel of oil and the cost of extracting a barrel of oil keeps shifting and investment shifts along with it.

What’s becoming more and more obvious is that our way of life, the economic system, is being exposed at last for what it is – a pyramid scheme. The economic system places the accumulation of private wealth above all other priorities and considerations. This is the glorification and institutionalization of Greed. It has facilitated the vast accumulation of our collective wealth into a small number of hands in no small part through the mass exploitation of fossil fuels and through institutions such as corporations and banks over a relatively short period of time.

In the long run it is profitability that we must question as a form of overriding authority. We do need investment, particularly in development of alternative energies, and it will not in all likelihood be profitable. That which benefits us collectively is seldom profitable. Take the example of schools, national health care and public transportation. If these services are managed properly and treated as services to people rather than businesses for profit then they tend not to profitable. Profit from business benefits the few, public services benefit the many. They are not compatible so long as profit is accumulated privately.

Herein lies the clash between the need to preserve and protect our world – the real world of mankind and the planet we depend on for life – and the need to protect this artificial world of self-motivated proftiteering. This in my opinion is the essence of our time.

Counter-response to Ian Cronshaw, head of the IEA energy diversification division

Dear Ian,

Thank you for responding. I have read last year’s World Energy Outlook and of course we all agree that drastic action is required across the board both to meet increased fuel consumption and to simultaneously make efforts to reduce it. Your report was not regarded as alarmist by the same media, specifically the Guardian, when it came out last year:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/nov/12/oil-gas-companies-credit-crunch

The whistleblowers and other independent researchers (and now a number of MPs here in the UK) are questioning whether the figure of 104 mb/d by 2030, the result of an increase of at least 40-45 mb/d that you cited, is attainable.

The whistleblowers suggest that many inside the IEA believe that we can only feasibly achieve an absolute maximum of 90-95 mb/d. If there is any reasonable doubt about achieving 105 mb/d by 2030 then we need to collectively revise our targets and policies immediately.

Surely of all the decisions in human history this is the one in which we would be wisest to err on the side of caution?

Forgive me for stating the obvious but you are the energy watchdog and your role is extraordinarily pivotal in the world political theatre. My government relies on your assessment to create or adjust energy policy. As a concerned constituent and as a human being I have cause to sound an alarm when I read in a trusted publication that there is disagreement within your organization as to the reliability of your own assessment.

I believe I speak for many when I ask that the IEA publicly address these suspicions as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
Seth Mowshowitz

As far as I can tell there hasn’t yet been any public address by the IEA to shed light on the suspected internal disagreement.

Response from Ian Cronshaw, head of the IEA energy diversification division

I can only assume you have not read last year’s World Energy Outlook. In it we thoroughly analysed depletion rates at existing oil fields, concluding that at least 40-45 mb/d new oil output was needed to 2030, just to offset depletion from existing fields, let alone allow for increasing demand from non OECD countries.  This is four times the output of Saudi Arabia.  At the time we were criticised for being too alarmist, by the same press who write this.

The era of cheap oil is over, we have been saying this for some time.

An email to the International Energy Agency demanding transparency

I’ve just sent this message to the following email addresses. I urge anybody reading this to do similar.

ieapressoffice@iea.org; energyindicators@iea.org; energymarketsinfo@iea.org; energypolicyinfo@iea.org; weo@iea.org; epd@iea.org; stats@iea.org

(or you can decide on your own list of IEA contacts)

To Whom It May Concern:

I refer you to a recent report on the Guardian UK website:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency

If these facts are shown to be true then the IEA is an accomplice in the most irresponsible act of withholding information ever recorded in human history. In terms of food production alone, given that roughly 10 calories of hydrocarbon energy go into every calorie of food produced and that the vast majority of that hydrocarbon energy comes from oil, being caught unprepared for a decrease in oil production would be catastrophic to the human race resulting in the annual starvation and eventual deaths of hundreds of millions of people. That is but one severe consequence among many severe consequences.

As Martin Luther King Jr once said ‘a time comes when silence is betrayal.’ If the figures you have been providing are indeed distorted I urge you to consider the outcomes stated above and understand that you yourselves will also have to live in the world that you have helped create. Do not bow to pressure from the US at the great expense of us all.

You can start by halting and revising the new World Energy Outlook publication.

I have posted this message on my blog just to make sure that it is public.

Yours sincerely,
Seth Mowshowitz
London
UK

Peak oil has already begun. Demand accountability and transparency from IEA, the US & UK government NOW

Many respected critics have long speculated that official projections from the International Energy Agency, major world governments and the oil industry of how long oil production can be sustained for are exaggerated. Today this was substantiated:

Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower

Most people haven’t even gotten their heads around the fact that oil will run out. It will certainly run out, very few people are denying that any longer and they are rapidly losing any credibility. We’re now at the stage of bickering about how many decades of increased oil production we have left. As it turns out, we may have less than one.

Just to recap, our economic system relies on infinite growth in order to be able to sustain itself. When we are reasonably certain that the economy is going to grow it means we can borrow against future income – we can be reasonably certain that there will be increased income in the future. Our entire financial system is based on the ability to borrow against future earnings.

Infinite growth is made possible by fossil fuels, chiefly oil – the energy source behind the vast majority of worldwide manufacturing and transportation of all products – including food. As long as we can keep increasing oil production at fairly predictable rates, we can have infinite growth – we know that our consumer distribution networks will function etc. Once oil production begins to decline the economy will begin to shrink. Banks will stop lending. In case you haven’t noticed, we are already in a deep recession. The recent financial meltdown is not unrelated to peak oil. I believe that the key figures at the helm of the financial system are privvy to the actual projections of oil production. If that is the case these figures have been wilfully negligent at our greatest expense.

If we do not deal with our dependency on fossil fuels before oil production begins to decline, we will no longer be able to afford to do so. Replacing the fossil fuel infrastructure will be extraordinarily expensive, but the cost must be measured in terms of energy. We may not have enough energy to meet that cost. For example, 12-15% of the gasoline a car uses in its lifetime goes into its own manufacturing. How much would it cost to replace the majority of the 750 million+ cars in the world in terms of energy? That is just one example.

Of far greater importance than cars, roughly 10 calories of hydrocarbon energy are used to make 1 calorie of food across the globe. In industrial agriculture oil powered machines are used to till the land, plant the seeds, harvest the crops, transport the raw produce, transport the final products and in all likelihood to transport the consumer to to the supermarket to buy the product. Natural gas, coal or oil are used to make the electricity that powers the irrigation systems, food processing plants and microwaves. Commercial fertilizers largely rely on natural gas to produce a synthetic nitrogen component. Commercial pesticides are also made from oil. Any plastic involved in the process is of course also made from oil.

Feeding a growing world population is therefore also directly dependent on a steady increase in oil production. We are already failing to do that adequately. The result of being caught unprepared for a decrease in oil production would be catastrophic. Many hundreds of millions of people would starve to death.

It turns out that the US is at least partially responsible for these exaggerated figures by putting pressure on the IEA to distort figures. Somewhat ironically, the stated reasons for doing so are to avoid a situation of panic buying of oil and to avoid general panic on the stock market. There will certainly be panic when the public realizes that the negligence of the powers that be will imminently result in the total collapse of the civilized world.

You can bet that a small amount of priveledged and wealthy individuals have been exploiting this situation for some time. Of course these private interests don’t want to cause panic on the stock market – they are raking in a fortune every second that this system is maintained. Today these interests – consisting at least to some extent of figures within the US government – have been publicly caught out displaying a distinct absence of intent to remedy this situation for the greater good. This is irresponsible on an unprecedented scale.

We need to wake up and demand immediate transparency and accountability from our representatives. Any further waffling about reducing fossil fuel dependency must cease. We need swift, decisive and comprehensive action.

We all need to demand this from our governments immediately.

For those in the UK, I refer you again to the incredibly convenient Write to Them website.

For those in the US you will have to make do with the Contact Elected Officials page on usa.gov.

Response from Sarah Teather MP to letter concerning changes to the UK Mental Health Act

Dear Mr Mowshowitz,

Thank you for your letter raising concerns about temporary changes proposed to the Mental Health Act in relation to A swine flu outbreak, which I received on 29 September 2009.

I share your views on this matter. The Liberal Democrats would completely reject any calls for compulsory vaccination. We believe that where scientists recommend vaccination, the public should be advised to receive it, but we feel that it would be unacceptable for people to be vaccinated against their will.

I have written today to Andy Burnham, Health Secretary, to raise this issue and to ask for further clarification, and will be sure to send on to you any reply that I receive. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me again should you have further concerns.

Yours sincerely,
Sarah Teather MP

Letter to Sarah Teather MP of 29 September 2009 | Changes to UK Mental Health Act

Dear Sarah Teather,

I have recently been made aware of proposed temporary changes to the UK Mental Health Act that will allow people ‘with suspected mental health issues to be quickly detained because of fears over staff shortages in any forthcoming swine flu outbreak.’ This includes reducing the number of doctors giving the required psychiatric assessment from two to one. One of the possibilities this opens up is the ability to easily detain or section and subsequently forcibly drug people who refuse to take the swine flu vaccine.

In my opinion these changes smack of Orwellian control tactics and are a very dangerous precedent to set with only one month’s consultation being undertaken. The author of the article from which this news was sourced posed the question ‘Is it right that swine flu should affect health regulations?’ To which a member of the public responded: ‘Absolutely not, especially if these authorities redefine mental illness to include being opposed to the government’s official stories about the swine flu. When governments remove civil rights and arbitrarily change laws so as to deny due process of law, we are automatically living under a dictatorship. Citizens of any nation which allow such nefarious back-door assaults on their freedoms will have their indifference rewarded with tyranny.’

I strongly request that you do whatever you can to prevent these changes from taking place in this manner, even if they are temporary. As of my writing this letter there is not sufficient information available to say how long these measures would be enacted for and what the full extent of the legislation will be.

Yours sincerely,

Seth Mowshowitz