Visit postcarbon.org for a video clip of Al-Jazeera's interview with Richard Heinberg. Topics include ideas from Barack Obama and why the un-drilled oil won't help us in the short term.

Visit postcarbon.org for a video clip of Al-Jazeera's interview with Richard Heinberg.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 16/06/2008
Reporter: Kerry O'Brien

Kerry O’Brien interviews Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

Transcript
KERRY O'BRIEN, PRESENTER: The Prime Minister joins me now from our Canberra studio.

Kevin Rudd, if we can start with oil. You and Brendan Nelson are both arguing over very small savings at the bowser, although his small savings are bigger than your small savings, that's if you have savings in the end.

But isn't it time to look Australians in the eye and tell them the news is only going to get worse on oil?

It may get better in the short term, there may be moments where the price drops a little, but in the medium to long term, it's going to get worse and that there's nothing significant that you can do about it. Now isn't that the case?

KEVIN RUDD, PRIME MINISTER: Kerry, on global oil prices, no one that I can speak to, either within the Government, that is the Treasury who are looking at the long range forecasting here, or abroad, can give you any confidence about where global oil prices will be in three, six, nine, 12 months time.

It is a very murky future that we face. What we do know for a fact is that right now we have the greatest global oil shock in 30 years. We know for a fact that prices are up 400 per cent since the Iraq war, 100 per cent in the last 12 months alone. It's led to protests and riots in the UK, Spain, France, as well as Indonesia and our own region and South Korea.

So this is a massive shock to the global economy. It's happening across all economies at present. What we need to do is frame an intelligent, long term response to this, and Australia as of when we took over Government did not have a long term energy strategy, a fuel strategy.

We're working on that, six months into office, and we hope to have something to produce later in the year on that score. Dealing with the long term channel, as well as being mindful of the impact on people's hip pocket now.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Well, you talk about it being murky and that you don't really know where it's going to be, but there is a growing and very credible body of advice that with the odd slot going down slightly, that it's simply in the long term going to be going up and up and up.

Richard Heinberg is a highly respected world expert on the oil crisis and when the world reaches the price where known oil reserves reach their peak and irreversibly decline, he says, over the long term, nowhere for oil prices to go but up.

Now, in that context, isn't it just faintly ludicrous to be arguing over whether you can save a cent a litre here or there?

KEVIN RUDD: But Kerry, that's why my responses to many of these questions in parliaments in recent weeks have been framed in terms of one, global oil supply, what can be done to boost investment in those countries which are the principal oil exporters? There's a problem there. Two, on the demand side. Global initiatives on energy efficiencies and the huge great push countries of China and India? Three, what do you do in terms of energy efficiency in economies like our own? That goes to the whole regime of fuel efficient cars, in particular. Four, what do you do in terms of an alternative fuel strategy? And five, what do you do in terms of public transport, in order to make it accessible, particularly in our metro areas?

This is a long term strategy as well as dealing with the immediate hip pocket impact on motorists who are feeling it right now.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But what is your brief description of the underpinning philosophy that says the Rudd Government will not reduce the excise on fuel as a means of alleviating the pain at the bowser for Australians?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, our view is that we're faced with, as a government of responsible economic management, we're faced with a long term challenge here. Now, it is about global energy supply, it is about global oil supply and what you do in terms of adjustment at home. That's why the framework we adopt is the five points I've run through a minute ago.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But why can't part of that framework be - I'm just trying to hear a clear statement of philosophy here - why can't part of that framework be short, medium and long term, cutting the excise on petrol, because your revenue is going to continue to grow anyway as the price goes up. Why not try to alleviate that pain for motorists by cutting the excise?

KEVIN RUDD: What I said just before, Kerry, I think on a couple of occasions is, this is a long term strategy. The sort of global factors you
just pointed to before and you quoted some international experts. As I said, "As well as assisting motorists now". How do you assist motorists now?

A couple of things you can do practically is, what we've sought to do, mindful of what's happening, through global oil prices. The family budget at the end of the day is aided by tax measures, childcare tax rebate measures and the rest.

A typical young family as a consequence of the Budget we've introduced of a couple of kids, $52 a week better off. Mr Nelson's measure that he's announced in terms of excise, $2.50 a week better off.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But before you go any further Mr Rudd, that's not a fair comparison because, in fact, that tax cut that you're implementing is very similar to the tax cut that the Coalition would have implemented if they were going to be in government now anyway. So to line up your 50 bucks against Brendan Nelson's $2.50 is simply a false premise and secondly...

KEVIN RUDD: Not at all Kerry actually, no. Can I answer your question first? The Liberals made no promise whatsoever on child care tax rebate, no promise whatsoever on the education tax refund, and furthermore, are opposing right now our measure when it comes to the Medicare levy surcharge. All of those are unique to Labor.

Finally on the tax point, there are $4 billion worth of tax in the original Liberals' proposal which went to the Top End which, in fact, we've taken away from the Top End to give people back in those other forms of income support including the education tax refund.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But when you promised those things Mr Rudd in the election, you didn't promise them in the context of helping people with the pain at the bowser from petrol; it was in the context of other specific things you were going to provide those cuts for?

KEVIN RUDD: Yeah but, Kerry, standing back from all of that, cost of living pressures affecting families right now fall into what baskets? They fall into the cost of petrol, the cost of groceries, also rents, mortgages, as well as the cost of child care.

What we're trying to do through our family support package and the assistance we've provided pensioners and carers in the Budget is to provide some support in those areas and I'm making a clear contrast point between Dr Nelson's proposal, which is not even supported by Mr Turnbull, the alternative leader.

KERRY O'BRIEN: It is now.

KEVIN RUDD: Well, who knows where the Liberal Party are, because they are leaderless at present, and divided. And so it's $2.50 on 50 litres filled up a week as against the $52.50 proposal that we have when you aggregate all the measures.

Also, looking at the question of specific taxation treatment, we've said before that tax treatment in terms of the GST treatment of fuel is also part of the Henry Commission of Inquiry and that unfolds.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But when you say that the Liberals are leaderless at the moment, the fact is that Dr Nelson is making some headway in the polls and judging by today's poll in the Fairfax Media, he's winning the political debate on oil. At least the political debate.

Do you accept that you have to do better in explaining why it's not a good idea to cut the excise and why people would do better to work out how to consume less petrol?

KEVIN RUDD: Kerry, in all the conversations I've had with working Australians around the place in recent weeks, recent months, I know full well that motorists are suffering a lot of pain at present. I've heard that message loud and clear.

What I'm seeking to say in response to that is in helping the family budget you can do that also through the tax system, the child care system and a range of other ways. As I said, that typical family I've spoken of, that's a $52 effect.

Also, can I just say this; the Liberals have had 12 years in office. We had a 33% increase in oil prices last year when they were in. Where do we hear any measure on their part? And it seems in the last six months what we've had is suddenly, this is uniquely the responsibility of, uniquely the fault of the Labor Government. Can I just say, let's put all this into a bit of historical context.

I accept responsibility for the Government. I accept the criticism which is forthcoming. I understand that motorists are under pressure. This is a global challenge. We are trying to work through it both with a long term strategy, which did not exist as of when we took over, as well as the specific Budget measures aimed at helping with the family budget on the way through.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Okay, on industrial relations Mr Rudd, you've left it vague with the 10 basic principles of safety net in terms of working conditions that you've confirmed today. You've left it vague on how long workers might reasonably be asked to work beyond a normal 38 hour week under the new safety net.

But at the same time, it seems it'll be left to the individual worker to argue with his or her employer over what's reasonable. Now that's in the eye of the beholder isn't it, what's reasonable? What constitutes reasonable hours?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, Kerry you say it's vague-up. We've been very plain about the fact that the industrial relations system we're building is intended to be a fair and flexible one, having abolished AWAs (Australian Workplace Agreements) for the future, honouring our pre-election commitment. And the groundwork for this, the building block, is these National Employment Standards, ten of them.

We announced these prior to the election in broad outline. We spent the last three months negotiating their detail, as Julia Gillard has done an excellent job with representatives of industry and the unions in so doing, and now they are out. They are necessary to go to the second building block which is to provide advice to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on modernisation of the awards. And many of the detailed questions that you've just referred to are dealt with in that second phase of the process.

We are rebuilding an industrial relations process which the other mob after 12 years took a meat axe to, throwing people's penalty rates out that window, their overtime out that window, and then having the hide to talk to the Australian people today about cost of living pressures, when they were quite prepared to blow apart the basic conditions which people had previously in the workplace.

KERRY O'BRIEN: And how credible do you think you are on family friendly working standard after that rather unfortunate statement the other day, as the biggest employer in the country, you recently told public servants who are unhappy with working hours you're demanding of them, "Get used to it, more to come, that it was going to increase rather than decrease". It is a serious question, isn't it?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, you know Kerry, there are 20... We take our responsibilities as employers, the public service, seriously. They are first class people doing a first class job and their professionalism is right up there.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But you didn't say that the other day when you essentially eyeballed them. Look, it might not have been intended as such, but it certainly sounded nasty and that was the way a lot of people took it?

KEVIN RUDD: Oh well, things may be perceived in one way, what I know is that on multiple occasions since taking government and prior to that, I've said consistently my admiration for the professionalism of the public service.

But let me just go to one other point. There are 21 million people in Australia, 100,000 or so of them are public servants, and there are 21,900 million people on us as the Government to work really hard to deliver our program. It's a tough business being in Government. I make no apology for that. We will work hard. We will continue to work hard, and, of course, we will abide by the Industrial Relations laws of the Government in so doing.

But, you know, when I encounter senior Public Servants, they are challenged by our desire to have a real professional policy debate with them. Sometimes the odd barney and good on 'em because that's the way it should be in a normally functioning government. We don't do what Mr Howard did to Mick Keelty which was when he dared offer a different view on terrorism, he had the Foreign Minister go out and accusing Mick Keelty, the Commissioner of the AFP (Australian Federal Police) of doing the biddings of al Qaeda, virtually that's what he said.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Okay, with the time that's left, the brief time left, Belinda Neal's nightclub experience. If there happens to be an adverse police finding with regard to the integrity of her actions after that incident, what range of actions is open to you and does that include expelling Belinda Neal from the Labor Party?

KEVIN RUDD: Kerry, first things first, it's called due process. There is a police investigation under way and everyone should await its outcome. I think that's very important. And apart from the histrionics of the Opposition in Parliament today, the key thing is that this investigation is on and it should be allowed to proceed unmolested.

I noticed when one was on last year, the Liberals unleashed one of their own to rip into the police for daring to conduct such an investigation.

The second point is this, I have said very clearly both to Ms Neal and in my subsequent public remarks that nobody, repeat nobody, is guaranteed of a future in politics. We are expected to do our job properly. I've said before in the case of Ms Neal there appeared to be a pattern of unacceptable behaviour. We've agreed that she has a course of counselling to undergo. Let's wait to see what happens with the police investigation. But I repeat; none of us has a guaranteed future in politics.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Very quickly Mr Rudd, the question from Christopher Pyne of a potential Commonwealth law, criminal law being broken, is there any reason why you would not refer that to the Federal Police?

KEVIN RUDD: Kerry, my understanding of police investigations, if it's been undertaken by the NSW police, is that if they in the process of their investigations discover any other matter, automatically this flows to other police jurisdictions. Once again, we have a political Opposition posturing on these questions and I just go back to this point. Mr Howard said last year when the current Member for Bowman was under investigation himself through the AFP, that he Mr Howard, was ensuring that his colleagues made no statements in the Parliament on these matters while an investigation was under way. That was the rule then for the Liberals. It seems to be a different rule now.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Mr Rudd, we're out of time, thanks for talking with us.

KEVIN RUDD: Thanks very much, Kerry.

On Tuesday, Senate Democrats introduced legislation that would halt a US arms sale to Saudi Arabia worth $1.4 billion. The implication is clear: no more war toys for the Saudis unless they agree to up their oil output.

The same day, the House approved a Senate plan to suspend oil deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in hopes of diverting that oil to the market, thus lowering the pump price a tiny amount.

A week earlier, a handful of senators proposed a bill threatening a trade dispute with members of OPEC if the organization doesn't stop its "anti-competitive practices and illegal export quotas on oil."

It's understandable that our elected leaders would want to do something about the meteoric rise of gasoline, diesel and heating oil prices that are now bankrupting independent truckers and forcing many folks in colder states to choose between being able to stay warm and being able to drive to work. Yet, efforts like the ones just mentioned are based on a profound misperception of why oil prices are rising.

The real problem is summed up in the phrase Peak Oil. Petroleum is a finite substance and we have reached the inevitable point at which it simply isn't possible to increase the rate at which we extract it from the ground. Most oil-producing countries, including the US, have already seen their glory days and are now watching output from their wells gradually dwindle. Only a few nations are early in the production cycle and able to ramp up the rate of flow.

Here is a concise definition of Peak Oil from my colleague Chris Skrebowsi, the editor of Petroleum Review in London. He says: "Global oil production falls when loss of output from countries in decline exceeds gains in output from those that are expanding."

Well, how are we doing? Who's winning: decliners or expanders?

According to last year's scorecard, the decliners won. The same happened in 2006. And that's with oil prices at record highs, presumably offering every incentive for nations that can produce more oil to do so.

Does this mean we are at the all-time peak of global oil flow rates now? Not necessarily. There are large new production projects coming on line this year and next, including one in Saudi Arabia that will add several hundred thousand barrels a day to that nation's productive capacity.

However, on the other side of the balance there is some very bad news. Russia, the world's leading oil-producing nation and the country that has been responsible for the lion's share of the world's production growth over the past decade, has gone into decline. Optimistic analysts hope Russia will be able to keep production more or less flat for a few years, but that may not be possible. The past few months have seen reductions in output. Other important exporting nations, such as Nigeria and Mexico, are also in trouble.

The timing of the global peak may still be unclear. But surely we can't afford, as a matter of national policy, to assume that it will be decades in the future - given that all of the symptoms are staring us in the face now.

Some economists say that current high oil prices are largely due to the falling value of the dollar, or to speculation. Simple arithmetic tells us that dollar depreciation has added only ten or fifteen percent to oil's cost over the past two to three years. As for speculation, one has to ask why investors are choosing to park their money in oil contracts. It must be because they see the fundamentals supporting rising prices. In a situation where demand is headed higher but supply isn't, speculation is inevitable. So speculation is a symptom; it isn't the cause of the problem.

Given all this, how much sense does it make to spend our time and effort blaming OPEC for not producing more, or to neglect saving some petroleum for the inevitable point in the future when our problem isn't just high oil prices, but actual shortages of fuel for emergency vehicles and food delivery trucks?

If I were a Saudi or a Kuwaiti, I would be advising my government not to pump more oil. After all, these countries earn nearly all of their income from selling the stuff; once the oil's gone, what can they do for an encore? No, it makes more sense for them to husband the resource, sell it for higher prices and invest in renewable energy sources at home in preparation for the day when nature's patrimony is gone.

In fact, however, in recent years most OPEC countries have been pumping flat out; only the Saudis claim to have any spare production capacity to speak of. But isn't it a good idea for some country somewhere to keep some capacity in reserve in case of a real emergency - a major pipeline outage, another hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, or a revolution in one of the other main producing countries? Should efforts at responsible resource management make these people our enemies?

The blame game makes for good sound bites on the floor of Congress. It plays well with folks back home who are struggling to find the money to fill up their SUVs but can't find Saudi Arabia on a map. All they have been taught to know is that Arabs have lots of oil and they are bad people.

But think where this might lead: suppose we get tough with the Saudis and end up destabilizing the kingdom so that forces unfriendly to us take over. Then we will feel more or less forced to invade in order to maintain access to our national drug of choice. Where would it end? Does any of this help?

Rather than looking for villains, we should be exploring how we can adapt to having less oil next year, and even less the year after that. Rebuilding our oil-dependent transport, agricultural and manufacturing infrastructure is going to be a big job, and it's going to take time. So the sooner we start, the better.

The real problem is that we use too much oil. It's that simple and that difficult. If we truly want to reduce our vulnerability to high prices, the best way to do so is to reduce consumption.

One way or another, we will adapt. We will drive less, we will fly less and we will grow our food more locally with fewer inputs. But these changes will go far more smoothly if we plan for them, rather than being forced into them at the nozzle of an empty gas pump.

There is a cliche in action films: "We can do this the hard way, or we can do it the easy way." Blaming OPEC while doing nothing to rein in our domestic demand for petroleum only ensures that we will be adapting to Peak Oil the hard way.

Wednesday 14 May 2008
by: Richard Heinberg, t r u t h o u t | Perspective View original article

Lateline, a television program on Australian Broadcasting Corporation, posted an interview with Richard broadcast 13 May, 2008.

ABC News posted an article on THQ's upcoming video game; Frontlines: Fuel Of War, a game based on Richard's book: The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies. Click Read More for the link.

"Richard Heinberg has a question for the world: "What will we eat when the oil runs out?" As a leading academic and oil analyst he does not deal in doom - only fact." Read the article here.

"Author Richard Heinberg gives us reasons to be concerned, if not to be scared, about the future of our civilization in his acclaimed books Powerdown and The Party's Over. If we continue to ignore the following four factors, a dreadful ending marked by destructive war, economic collapse and environmental catastrophe is a likely consequence." - Reagan Parlan, the California Aggie Online. Read the entire article here.

What Happens When Demand for Oil Outstrips Supply?
…and There’s No ‘Plan B’

OIL APOCALYPSE
A New Documentary from Filmmaker Martin Kent

For Immediate Release

November 7, 2007 -- This week, the price of crude oil is trading at a shocking $96 a barrel.
By year’s end, analysts predict petroleum will reach $100. And it’s not going to stop there. The world we’ve created runs on oil. But energy experts say the world is running out of oil. Much faster than previously thought. Demand will continue to outpace supplies, shortages are inevitable, and the price will only continue to rise dramatically -- causing a ripple effect of disastrous economic, social and political consequences.

On Tuesday night, November 13th, (at 9 p.m. EST/PST – 8 p.m. C), the History Channel will present Megadisasters: Oil Apocalypse, a documentary that Los Angeles-based filmmaker Martin Kent is calling “a wake up call,” about the world’s energy crisis. “We can no longer count on getting all the gasoline we need – and there’s no plan B.”

By “plan B,” Kent is referring to a coordinated system of alternative energies laid out in his film, that could replace our addiction and dependence on oil, if society mobilizes quickly to make it happen. It’s long been known that oil is a finite, non-renewable resource, that pollutes the environment, and now mankind is coming to realize that it is also most likely causing climate change. With China and India rapidly industrializing, creating an energy-hungry middle class, demand for oil will increase from the world’s current consumption of 84 million barrels a day, to 100 million barrels within the next 5 years. Unfortunately, while oil producers and refiners are scrambling to develop new techniques and sources of production, as yet there are no sure means to meet the growing demand.

Oil Apocalypse presents a terrifying set of scenarios. True to the laws of supply and demand, we are fast approaching the breaking point, when the imbalance could destabilize the economies and infrastructures of virtually every nation on the planet. The worst-case scenario, say experts in the film, is a worldwide depression, which could lead to a world war. Still, they say it’s not too late. But we have to act fast. Says Kent: “My hope is that upon seeing this film, everyone will be inspired to become an energy activist -- instead of sitting back and hoping that the scientists and leaders will somehow pull everything together and fix this in the eleventh hour. The time to act is now.”

Energy experts appearing on camera in Oil Apocalypse include authors Richard Heinberg, Matthew Simmons, David Goodstein, Kenneth Deffeyes, Michael Economides and Christine Woodside; Oppenheimer energy analyst Fadel Gheit, PFC Energy chairman J. Robinson West, RAND Corp.’s James Bartis and U.S. Congressman Roscoe Bartlett. Megadisasters: Oil Apocalypse is a Creative Differences, Inc. production.

Martin Kent is available for interviews and public speaking engagements accompanying a screening of this film. Please contact: Martin Kent Productions, Inc. - 818-917-0891 or email: martin@martinkenttv.com website: www.martinkentproductions.com

A trailer for The 11th Hour, a new movie featuring Richard Heinberg, is now available on YouTube.

"The 11th Hour" is the last moment when change is possible. The film explores how we've arrived at this moment -- how we live, how we impact the earth's ecosystems, and what we can do to change our course. Featuring ongoing dialogues of experts from all over the world, including former Soviet Prime Minister Mikhail Gorbachev, renowned scientist Stephen Hawking, former head of the CIA R. James Woolsey and sustainable design experts William McDonough and Bruce Mau in addition to over 50 leading scientists, thinkers and leaders who discuss the most important issues that face our planet and people.

Produced and narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio, directed by Leila Conners Petersen and Nadia Conners and co-written by DiCaprio, Conners Petersen and Conners, "The 11th Hour" is produced by Chuck Castleberry, Brian Gerber, Conners Petersen and DiCaprio.