- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 9 May 2006
Biofuels
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 50 of 54
| Next Item »
Page: 22758
Mr IAN COHEN [10.29 p.m.]: In November last year I made a speech on peak oil. I wish to return to this issue. Honourable members should be well aware of the concept. Peak oil refers to the point at which 50 per cent of any given oil reserve has been depleted. It can refer to a single oil well or the entire planet's oil supply, but this 50 per cent figure is significant because as the amount of oil decreases, so does the rate at which the oil can be extracted. Essentially it is like scooping water out of a bucket—easier to do when it is two-thirds full than when it is one-third full. Essentially once peak oil occurs, our rate of supply gets slower. The obvious economic result is that a dwindling supply will result in significantly increased prices unless accompanied by a parallel reduction in demand. If demand increases or continues as is, the average family will soon be unable to afford to run their car on petrol, especially as increasing fuel costs will lead to price rises in other areas as well.
Oil supply is out of our control: demand is not. This requires our most urgent attention. There is conjecture as to exactly when the world's oil supply will have reached the peak oil point, but most analysts predict that it will be in the next five to 10 years, if it has not happened already. It is not a point at which a great announcement will be made, or trumpets will sound. Its effects will slowly and increasingly take hold. By the time they become dire, it will be too late to do anything about it. We should realistically have been looking at alternative sources of transport and energy at least a decade or so ago. Some areas of government have made small attempts to address this issue, but what we have done so far amounts to little more than rearranging the proverbial deckchairs on the Titanic. We have had plenty of warning and failure to act would be reprehensible.
Obviously, transport is responsible for much of society's oil consumption, but oil is far more pervasive than that. It is used in many manufacturing processes and as a raw material in many items, including pesticides and herbicides. All families will suffer financial hardship, but farming families will suffer more than most. I would especially encourage members representing rural electorates to carefully consider their response to this issue. To that end, it is crucial that the solutions we come up with are effective and long term. We must reject fossil fuels outright. We must also reject stopgap options such as ethanol. We must be wary of ethanol as a fuel in its own right. It is less energy efficient than petroleum. Also, crops that are grown to produce it could otherwise produce food.
By being primarily useful only as an additive, ethanol effectively exacerbates the problem by prolonging our dependence on oil. In addition, ethanol also has a number of negative environmental impacts in its own right. Research by Tad Patzek of the University of California clearly shows that the fossil fuel input to ethanol exceeds by a wide margin its energy content. It is false to call ethanol a renewable fuel. The crops from which it is derived are energy intensive and erode soil much faster than they can rejuvenate it. The same research shows that even inefficient solar cells produce more than 100 times the electricity produced by ethanol. We need to look at renewable sources of energy.
I therefore call on the Government to do as much as possible to encourage the use of solar power and other forms of renewable energy. If we need to use fossil fuels in the interim, we should encourage the use of compressed natural gas rather than oil or ethanol. We must implement efficient and energy friendly modes of public transport, and make them affordable. This requires a moratorium on new major road infrastructure. The Government must be especially wary of long-term commitments with private companies that involve financial responsibility for new roadways in future decades. The way things are going nobody will use them. In some cases we are not using them now. There must be a massive reassessment of transport funding in favour of public transport, especially rail options. Tax concessions and other financial incentives must be offered to individuals and corporations that attempt to wean themselves off oil. Most importantly, we must explain to the public what we are doing and why. We should make the best option, that being renewable energy, the cheapest and easiest option for people to use.
As I stated in my previous speech on this issue, we must cut down on "food miles". To that end we should promote, and encourage local councils to promote the notion of consumers purchasing goods produced in their local area. This will reduce the number of trucks on our roads, it will reduce pollution, it will reduce wear and tear on our roads and make them safer. It cuts transportation costs and it helps to build community. Where this is not possible, rail should be used to transport as much freight as possible, and the Government should be making this an easy and cheap option for companies.
Politicians around the world love to emphasise their belief in family values. This is one issue in relation to which they can show that their words are more than empty rhetoric. Act now and save our families from falling into the trap of ever-escalating oil prices, which affects not only the cost of fuel they put in their cars but also the cost of most items they purchase. Act now and help create a world with efficient and environmentally friendly transport. All parents want a decent future for their children. The world that children grow up in will be shaped by the decisions we make now. I ask the New South Wales ALP to listen to the words of the current leader of their Federal parliamentary party, who stated last October:
As Australians queue for petrol at around $4.00, $5.00 potentially up to $10.00 a litre even further down the track, the questions will be:... how had our Governments not seen the writing on the wall?... didn't our leaders foresee the soaring demand?... didn't our leaders do their sums and realise demand would outstrip supply?... couldn't they foresee the threats to supply?… and why was Australia so unprepared?
Kim Beazley has recognized the problem. However, he is in opposition, and I suspect he may be there for some time. [Time expired.]
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:33:07 : Update this page