The author has not given any reason for a policy response.

The original problem is supposed to be that there is a scarcity of a certain resource. From that premise he jumps to the conclusion that government should take action to rationalise the use of it. But he doesn't seem to understand that that conclusion needs justifying.

At the same time as he presumes the superiority of government at the function of rationalising the use of scarce resources, he then points out the uselesness of the appointed government department at carrying out its intended function.

Underlying all is a belief that government would be better at knowing, and at satisfying the human wants whose priority must be rationalised owing to the supposed scarcity of oil. There is no evidence or reason for this belief.

It is not just that, through oil, the Australian population of 22 million has relations with billions of other people outside Australia; and that all of their subjective values in relation to oil are changing every day.

The problem is, *how* is government going to know a) what the relevant subjective wants are, b) which should have priority, and c) how best to satisfy them with the least waste of resources?

Without realising it, the author has recapitulated all the errors and presumptions of state-worship that gave rise to the socialist dictatorships in the twentieth century.

Any action the government takes to address the issues of peak oil will only make matters worse, because they are incapable of the knowledge that would be required to make them better.

Assuming that anthropogenic global warming is a genuine threat, shouldn't an imminent peak in oil production be a good thing? Oil will not suddenly run out, but will become progressively more expensive to extract, leading to a significant rise in the long-term average price, thereby encouraging a switch to alternatives with or without carbon taxes or an ETS. As Peter suggests, any government intervention is most likely to result in misallocation of resources, doing more harm than good.

Peter, I find your response strange to say the least.
I don't suggest that the government knows better, what I am suggesting is that the Government should know that there is a growing volume of credible information to suggest that peak oil will occur much sooner than what the forecasts of "official agencies" suggests. The problem then of course is that businesses, individuals and the government itself relies upon this information in determining investments, whether that be a new road or what sort of vehicle to buy. You seem to suggest that market forces should be allowed to address this, but for this approach to be effective requires the market to have the requisite information. In this instance the market has worse than no information, it has misleading information. So it is not about the government knowing better, it is about the government providing a forthright assessment rather than a politically correct assessment.

Cameron Leckie

How can we be sure the Government of this country and indeed the world, don't know about the looming spectre of peak oil? What politician has the courage to stand in front of the people and tell them that their way of life is about to be completely altered? Can they look the people in the eye and tell them that they, their children and their grandchildren have no future? Do the have to guts to inform us that the world population of close to 7 billion people will soon rapidly fall to 3-4 billion and probably further? That there will soon be resource wars and an influx of displaced people?

No. They don't! More likely they'll use taxation and charges (congestion taxes, rising charges & regos anyone?) to limit the use of oil for working families so that farming and industry can be subsidised to survive. The trouble is, that will in turn cause people in outer suburbs to loose their jobs since they can no longer afford to travel to a workplace miles away from their home. The economy will then collapse making subsidisation of industry harder to implement. It will be all down hill from there.

One of the biggest problems we face is that so many people refuse to consider the possibility of peak oil. They continue merrily with heads buried in the sand while continuing to buy bigger cars, build bigger homes and generally live a lifestyle that consumes more and more oil, oil that is fast depleting. It will come as a rude shock when they discover it's too late to plan for a world of depleting energy.

The reason why governments do not and will not do anything is that they are tied to growth and more importantly big business will not let them consider worst case scenarios or even peak oil.

Peak oil will or has happened, it does not matter the date, it is a finite resource and will cost even more to get the last dregs out.

We should be planning now as any changes decided upon will take years to implement.

K. Rudd cannot promote population expansion to 35 million and hope that we can continue our usage of oil with an increased consumption to maintain our life style.

It is interesting to see that the oil is much closer to running out than we have been told to believe.

Colin Campbell, a oil expert, says that if the world was aware of the real situation there would be panic on all stock exchanges.

As this article says the reported figures have been distorted for political reasons and not based on facts.

It has also been suggested that the top 5 producing countries are now in decline with a new field opened in Saudi Arabia already having salt water injected to produce oil. Which is not normal at this early stage.

A new report is due in next few days according to:-

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