Peak oil
The ABC had a very good documentary on the discussion about "peak oil" last night. Peak oil is the idea that at some point production peaks and then falls while demand continues to increase, driving the price of oil up beyond acceptable levels.
It's a different kind of crisis scenario, not about when we run out of oil, but when we just can't get enough of the stuff.
Now a week or three ago, and I can't remember where I saw or read this, someone made what I think is a great suggestion. That we start thinking of issues such as peak oil and climate change in risk management terms. What are the chances of this happening, what are the risks, what would the cost be if those risks eventuated and what can we reasonably do (and spend) to minimise the risks.
To my mind such an approach might take us beyond discussions about whether humans cause climate change to thinking about it in a similar way to thinking about insurance. It could lead to outcomes such as the Perth Ecobus trial.
I think if a corporate risk management model were to be adopted, you might see a gradual alignment of environmental and corporate thinking in these otherwise highly politicised debates.
It's a different kind of crisis scenario, not about when we run out of oil, but when we just can't get enough of the stuff.
Now a week or three ago, and I can't remember where I saw or read this, someone made what I think is a great suggestion. That we start thinking of issues such as peak oil and climate change in risk management terms. What are the chances of this happening, what are the risks, what would the cost be if those risks eventuated and what can we reasonably do (and spend) to minimise the risks.
To my mind such an approach might take us beyond discussions about whether humans cause climate change to thinking about it in a similar way to thinking about insurance. It could lead to outcomes such as the Perth Ecobus trial.
I think if a corporate risk management model were to be adopted, you might see a gradual alignment of environmental and corporate thinking in these otherwise highly politicised debates.
posted by Rob O'Neill at 6:09 PM
7 Comments:
This sounds a lot like what Lomborg proposed and was condemned for, eg the benefits of a stringent Kyoto protocol were miniscule and the costs enormous in comparison to doing nothing and investing instead in other things like medicine.
But it is a good idea, balancing what you can reasonably do with the resources you have against what you must forego. You need to then take a real good look at what figures are going into the risk models though...
Yup, the figures are important and people will argue over that but shit, you and me agreeing about something ... there might just be something in it.
Ah, it's just train lag from a six hour round trip to Stockholm yesterday. I'll sober up soon!
You be careful out there. They started something like this with religious practise round about 2000 years ago - the probability of hell vs the possibility of heaven and the daily penances required to shift the goals. And we still argue the cost/benefits!
Gidday Rob,
It's sort of what, locally, Alex Sundakov has been saying too. We donm't know for certain that climate change is happening, or that, if it is, it is caused by what peopel are sayign cuases it.
But it is sensible to take out some sort of insurnace policy against it.
The question is whether Kyoto is the right policy. Big quesiton mark over that.
What annoys me a little is that people assume that because the US and Australia haven't signed up to Kyoto they aren't doing anythign about climate change. The US is spending billions on reducing emissions. I know less about the Aussies, but I know our climate change office spends quite a lot of time talking to their climate change office.
Anyone watch Penn & Teller taking the piss out of the greenies last night?
I did not think they allowed such criticism of such sacred cows on New Zealand TV.
There again, they weren't on TVNZ, but Prime.
I too have some green sympathies but I find myself increasingly questioning the beliefs and motives of the Red-Greens that I am heading towards the more sceptical side of the debate.
The issues are-
How better and how worse are things getting?
What role have governments in creating solutions?
And what role have markets?
Where do property rights fit in?
To me, the 'Water Melon' Greens do not have all the answers.
I'm suprised you'd expect them to Darren, but that's not really their role in my view. small parties aren't about solutions, they are about getting their issues onto the agenda so the large parties can coopt them.
Kyoto is an attempt to turn the issue into a market. I think the stuff on the latest (and largest ever) core sample from the Antarctic is pretty compelling evidence that we should be thinking about this seriously about this. Even people who think it's a crock should be asking themselves "what if I'm wrong".
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home