Whither peak oil at Rudd's 2020 Summit?

It is only about five months since Australians elected Kevin Rudd's Labor party to lead the nation. I remember well the first working day after the victory. My colleagues all seemed to be in a good mood (Australia's universities had suffered a demoralising decade under the previous conservative government) and a weight of shame seemed to have been lifted from our collective shoulders. Australia would now ratify the Kyoto treaty, withdraw troops from Iraq and be rid of the very unpopular, anti-union and salary-suppressing "WorkChoices" legislation.

Australia has elected a nerd with verve to be its new leader. Devoutly Christian, Kevin Rudd is portrayed as "Tin-Tin" by one prominent cartoonist but speaks fluent Mandarin. And he set a cracking pace for his newly-elected federal Labor politicians by insisting they visit homeless shelters before showing their faces in parliament.

One early action that has captured the public's imagination is Rudd's call for a two-day summit in April of 1000 leading Australians to, "… bring together some of the best and brightest brains from across the country to tackle the long term challenges confronting Australia's future - challenges which require long-term responses from the nation beyond the usual three year electoral cycle."

For a person (such as yours truly) concerned with the imminent decline of world oil production ("peak oil") and the inability of Australia's political leadership to openly discuss this issue, Rudd's 2020 Summit seemed like a wonderful opportunity. Peak oil impinges on any topic that could possibly be discussed at the summit. Since cheap and abundant energy (mainly from oil) is what allows our globalised economy to tick along, an imminent decline of oil threatens every aspect of Australia's existence - from provision of health care to the availability of computers and our ability to adapt to climate change.

Of course, Australia's current pattern of settlement is impossible to maintain without cheap oil - it is essential for providing barely affordable food to remote aboriginal communities and for the operation of our car-dependent outer suburbs where young families on lower incomes try to afford record-high mortgages while trying to avoid "travel poverty".

When my university's Vice-Chancellor offered to pay airfare and accommodation costs for any employees accepted as delegates to the Summit I seriously considered applying and so I looked more closely at the Summit details. I was disappointed (but not surprised) to see that, despite the Summit's declared intention, "To provide a forum for free and open public debate in which there are no predetermined right or wrong answers" the framing of the topics was such that the assumptions of economic and population growth were not to be challenged.

Some might say that a talkfest where 1,000 people will assemble for only two days must be more about appearance than substance, but the media coverage of the event will be an important avenue for future issues to penetrate the awareness of Australians. (Anyway, rather than applying to attend I decided that I might have a more certain impact on the event by publicly criticising its assumptions before it takes place.)

The 1,000 delegates to the 2020 Summit have now been announced and the prospects for honest discussion of peak oil issues seem more remote than even a pessimist like myself could have imagined. Most noticeable was an alteration to the list of the 10 topics to be discussed. The topic, "Economic infrastructure, the digital economy and the future of our cities" which would have been most relevant to peak oil has been replaced (somewhat mysteriously) with, "The Productivity Agenda (education, skills, training, science and innovation)" even though those areas were previously to have been discussed under, "Future directions for the Australian economy".

"The future of our cities" now appears to have been tacked onto the end of the topic,"Population, sustainability, climate change and water" somewhat as an afterthought. (As I write this, the revised topic title exists on only one page of the 2020 Summit site.) The brief explanation of that topic area suggests only that there might be too much transport happening in 2020 rather than too little:

Will efficient and affordable public transport and road systems be easing travel around our cities? Or will they be choked with cars and trucks?

Dire language is permitted for describing a possible climate-changed future:

… will [our cities] be huge, hot, polluted and hostile?

But there is not the faintest mention of the inevitable limitations imposed by declining oil production, even in the background paper which will, presumably, structure the debate.

At least they are still going to discuss the all important population issue under, "Population, sustainability, climate change and water" (although it will be fascinating to see whether they actually discuss what a sustainable population might be for Australia rather that simply the best way to cope with the never-ending increase in numbers as promoted by housing industry lobbyists).

The delegate list seems surprisingly devoid of people who are aware (at least publicly) of peak oil issues. I spotted Ian Lowe (Emeritus Professor of Science, Technology and Society at Griffith University) on the list and one glimmer of hope might be the inclusion of Greg Bourne, the former CEO of BP Australasia who tossed in that job to head the Australian arm of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-Australia) although his views on future oil availability may be too optimistic. However, nobody I can identify as a peak oil "activist" is present. I can see none from ASPO-Australia, although I know some applied to attend. (The Australian Medical Association also failed to get a delegate - one might have thought they could contribute to the topic, "A long-term national health strategy".) As a transport engineer with whom I have contact commented:

I find the list of attendees frustrating in several respects. There are some very good economists (e.g. Garnaut and Quiggan) and some genuine climate experts (eg Pearman) but a lot of political figures … and virtually nobody with a technical background in transport. I'm not saying the world should be run by engineers and scientists but this is a technically complex problem and yet there are virtually NO technical experts on infrastructure in that whole group in my opinion. They seem to assume that the only possible solutions will be economic policies which achieve political support.

What are we to make of this?

Is the exclusion of peak oil a reflection of the ignorance of our political leaders or an intentional decision? One thing we can be certain of is that the Australian Labor Party is keenly aware of the issue. Andrew McNamara, who is currently Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation for the Queensland state Labor government and who headed their Oil Vulnerability Taskforce has been enlightening the rest of the Labor party for years now.

When I asked my local federal Labor member whether she was aware of the peak oil issue she told me how Andrew had been keeping her well informed. For what it is worth I have also heard third-hand rumours of confidential preparations for a liquid fuels crisis here in Labor-run South Australia (where we only have an average of 10 days fuel in reserve and thus rely on "just-in-time" deliveries by ship from Singapore).

So it seems that the current federal Labor government has, unsurprisingly, placed political popularity before the good of the nation and has decided to ignore this issue publicly for as long as possible. The 2020 Summit is all about a bright and optimistic future for Australia under the visionary leadership of Kevin Rudd. Peak oil is an exceedingly nasty spanner in the works of that sunny future and allowing it to raise its voice at the summit is something that the Ruddites, with their "economic conservative" image, must be keen to avoid.

I believe it is time for peak oil activists to stop waiting for the politicians to openly address this issue. The best way to get the Australian Labor Party to talk energy decline is to force them to - let's get out and demonstrate on the steps of state and federal parliaments and demand to know what their plans are to handle the decline of oil! (And this time we will not accept answers like compact fluorescent lightbulbs, subsidised oil exploration or geothermal electricity that we so often receive in form-letter replies to our correspondence with our parliamentary representatives.) Even just a few people with some media contacts could have a surprising effect - let's try it and see!