[Culturechat] IEA Proposes Ban-Rationing-Enforced Quotas on Oil Consumption--Would Apply in US

Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:35:47 EST

--part1_1c8.256541a8.2f774bd3_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

5/6ths of the 3/25/05 New York Times OP-ED page was devoted to energy issues. 
  The lead article was a Peak Oil article by Kenneth Deffeyes: "What Happens 
When the Oil Runs Out?" http://www.energybulletin.net/4883.html

What is significant about the draconian proposals coming out of the IEA is 
that they have traditionally been in the happy face infinite energy camp.   Note 
that the U.S. is obligated by an international treaty to implement severe 
cuts in oil consumption in the event of a shortage.    Given our low density 
suburban lifestyle, the U.S. will be affected much more than European countries.   

J. Brown

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/032505_world_stories.shtml#1

>From Adam Porter at BBC -- International Energy Agency Proposes 
Ban-Rationing-Enforced Quotas on Oil Consumption -- Measures Would Apply in US
 Energy body wants brakes on fuel consumption
 by Adam Porter in Perpignan, France
Thursday 24 March 2005 1:51 PM GMT

The International Energy Agency is to propose drastic cutbacks in car use to 
halt continuing oil-supply problems. Those cutbacks include anything from 
car-pooling to outright police-enforced driving bans for citizens.

 Fuel "emergency supply disruptions and price shocks" - in other words, 
shortages - could be met by governments. Not only can governments save fuel by 
implementing some of the measures suggested, but in doing so they can also 
shortcut market economics.

An advance briefing of the report, titled Saving Oil in a Hurry: Measures for 
Rapid Demand Restraint in Transport, states this succinctly.

"Why should governments intervene to cut oil demand during a supply 
disruption or price surge? One obvious reason is to conserve fuel that might be in 
short supply. "But perhaps more importantly, a rapid demand response (especially 
if coordinated across IEA countries) can send a strong market signal."

 The report goes on to suggest a whole series of measures that could be used 
to cut back on fuel consumption. They are cutting public-transport costs by a 
certain amount to increase its usage while simultaneously dissuading car use.

 Sweeping proposals
 Then more radically the idea of going further and cutting public-transport 
costs by 100%, making them free to use. Car-pooling, telecommuting and even 
corrections to tyre pressures are also suggested.

 But the most hardline emergency proposals come in the form of drastic speed 
restrictions and compulsory driving bans. Bans could be one day in every 10 
(10%) or more stringently on cars with odd or even number plates. They would be 
banned from the roads on corresponding odd or even days of the month (50%).

The report says public transport should be made free to use
In forming its conclusions the IEA tacitly admits that extra police would be 
needed in these circumstances to stop citizens breaking the bans. Even the 
cost of those extra patrols are part of the IEA's study.

 "Policing costs are more substantial and may consist of overtime payments 
for existing police or traffic officers or increases in policing staff. We 
assume this cost at one officer per 100,000 employed people."

 As an example that means that the US workforce, currently around 138 million 
people, would need an extra 1380 officers to help enforce the bans. It may 
seem an optimistic figure. But even if this were so, the IEA is not put off.

 "If our policing cost estimates are relatively low ... results clearly show 
that even a doubling of our estimate would make (bans) a cost-effective 
policy. The more stringent odd/even (day) policy is also more cost-effective than a 
one-day-in-ten ban, as the costs are the same ... maintaining enforcement is 
critical."

 Tough love
 Yet despite these measures, that many citizens would find quite draconian, 
the IEA concludes that tough love is better than none at all.

 "Our main conclusion finds that those policies that are more restrictive 
tend to be most effective in gaining larger reductions in fuel consumption. In 
particular, driving restrictions give the largest estimated reductions in fuel 
consumption."

High oil prices are spurring talk of conservation and cutbacks in use
Here, however, they do strike a word of warning for governments and those in 
power.

 "Restrictive policies such as this can be relatively difficult to implement 
and thus may come at higher political costs."

 According to the IEA's little-known emergency treaty, the Agreement on an 
International Energy Programme (IEP), "measures to achieve demand restraint fall 
into three main classes - persuasion and public information, administrative 
and compulsory measures, and finally, allocation and rationing schemes".

 This would mean that countries who signed up to the treaty, including the 
five biggest economies of the world - US, Japan, Germany, UK and France - would 
all have to institute cuts.

 "In the event of an activation of IEP emergency response measures, each IEA 
Member country will be expected to immediately implement demand restraint 
measures sufficient to reduce oil consumption by 7% of normal demand levels. In a 
more severe disruption, this could be raised to 10%."

 Effective ban?
 There are some interesting asides in the report. As Americans have the most 
cars, the driving bans could be got around by having one car with an odd, and 
one car with an even number plate.

 Proportionately it makes the ban less effective than in other countries.

As well as this older cars may be kept in service longer if they have 
"useful" number plates which the IEA admits is "counter-productive from an 
air-pollution reduction perspective, as older vehicles would tend to pollute more".

 However, curtailing the working week and home working would be more 
effective in the US as more people travel to work alone in their cars.   As would 
correct tyre pressures. In Japan speed reductions are less effective as there are 
less motorways on which to travel fast.

 Families with only one car would also be hit harder than their richer 
friends as "bans may have some additional costs in terms of reduced accessibility 
and mobility options particularly for single-vehicle households with limited 
access to alternative modes".

 Without doubt this report signifies that the IEA is searching for new ways 
to maintain supply security in a volatile oil market. Whether it can achieve 
its aims with this radical report is another matter.

--part1_1c8.256541a8.2f774bd3_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><HTML>5/6ths of the 3/25/05 New York Times=
 OP-ED page was devoted to energy issues.&nbsp; The lead article was a Peak=
 Oil article by Kenneth Deffeyes: "What Happens When the Oil Runs Out?" =
http://www.energybulletin.net/4883.html 
 
What is significant about the draconian proposals coming out of the IEA is t=
hat they have traditionally been in the happy face infinite energy camp.&nbs=
p; Note that the U.S. is obligated by an international treaty to implement=20=
severe cuts in oil consumption in the event of a shortage.&nbsp;&nbsp; Give=
n our low density suburban lifestyle, the U.S. will be affected much more th=
an European countries.&nbsp; 
 
J. Brown 
 
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/032505_world_stories.shtml#1 
 
From Adam Porter at BBC -- International Energy Agency Proposes Ban-Ra=
tioning-Enforced Quotas on Oil Consumption -- Measures Would Apply in US=
 
 Energy body wants brakes on fuel consumption 
 by Adam Porter in Perpignan, France 
Thursday 24 March 2005 1:51 PM GMT 
 
The International Energy Agency is to propose=
 drastic cutbacks in car use to halt continuing oil-supply problems. Those c=
utbacks include anything from car-pooling to outright police-enforced drivin=
g bans for citizens. 
 
 Fuel "emergency supply disruptions and price shocks" - in other words, shor=
tages - could be met by governments. Not only can governments save fuel by i=
mplementing some of the measures suggested, but in doing so they can also sh=
ortcut market economics. 
 
An advance briefing of the report, titled Saving Oil in a Hurry: Measures fo=
r Rapid Demand Restraint in Transport, states this succinctly. 
 
"Why should governments intervene to cut oil demand during a supply disrupti=
on or price surge? One obvious reason is to conserve fuel that might be in s=
hort supply. "But perhaps more importantly, a rapid demand response (especia=
lly if coordinated across IEA countries) can send a strong market signal."<B=
R>
 
 The report goes on to suggest a whole series of measures that could be used=
 to cut back on fuel consumption. They are cutting public-transport costs by=
 a certain amount to increase its usage while simultaneously dissuading car=20=
use. 
 
 Sweeping proposals 
 Then more radically the idea of going further and cutting public-transport=20=
costs by 100%, making them free to use. Car-pooling, telecommuting and even=20=
corrections to tyre pressures are also suggested. 
 
 But the most hardline emergency proposals come in the form of drastic speed=
 restrictions and compulsory driving bans. Bans could be one day in every 10=
 (10%) or more stringently on cars with odd or even number plates. They woul=
d be banned from the roads on corresponding odd or even days of the month (5=
0%). 
 
The report says public transport should be made free to use<FONT=20=
COLOR=3D"#000000" FACE=3D"Geneva" FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" SIZE=3D"2"> 
In forming its conclusions the IEA tacitly admits that extra police would be=
 needed in these circumstances to stop citizens breaking the bans. Even the=20=
cost of those extra patrols are part of the IEA's study. 
 
 "Policing costs are more substantial and may consist of overtime payments f=
or existing police or traffic officers or increases in policing staff. We as=
sume this cost at one officer per 100,000 employed people." 
 
 As an example that means that the US workforce, currently around 138 millio=
n people, would need an extra 1380 officers to help enforce the bans. It may=
 seem an optimistic figure. But even if this were so, the IEA is not put off=
. 
 
 "If our policing cost estimates are relatively low ... results clearly show=
 that even a doubling of our estimate would make (bans) a cost-effective pol=
icy. The more stringent odd/even (day) policy is also more cost-effective th=
an a one-day-in-ten ban, as the costs are the same ... maintaining enforceme=
nt is critical." 
 
 Tough love 
 Yet despite these measures, that many citizens would find quite draconian,=20=
the IEA concludes that tough love is better than none at all. 
 
 "Our main conclusion finds that those policies that are more restrictive te=
nd to be most effective in gaining larger reductions in fuel consumption. In=
 particular, driving restrictions give the largest estimated reductions in f=
uel consumption." 
 
High oil prices are spurring talk of conservation and cutbacks in use</F=
ONT>=
 
Here, however, they do strike a word of warning for governments and those in=
 power. 
 
 "Restrictive policies such as this can be relatively difficult to implement=
 and thus may come at higher political costs." 
 
 According to the IEA's little-known emergency treaty, the Agreement on an I=
nternational Energy Programme (IEP), "measures to achieve demand restraint f=
all into three main classes - persuasion and public information, administrat=
ive and compulsory measures, and finally, allocation and rationing schemes".=
 
 
 This would mean that countries who signed up to the treaty, including the f=
ive biggest economies of the world - US, Japan, Germany, UK and France - wou=
ld all have to institute cuts. 
 
 "In the event of an activation of IEP emergency response measures, each IEA=
 Member country will be expected to immediately implement demand restraint m=
easures sufficient to reduce oil consumption by 7% of normal demand levels.=20=
In a more severe disruption, this could be raised to 10%." 
 
 Effective ban? 
 There are some interesting asides in the report. As Americans have the most=
 cars, the driving bans could be got around by having one car with an odd, a=
nd one car with an even number plate. 
 
 Proportionately it makes the ban less effective than in other countries.</F=
ONT>=
 
 
As well as this older cars may be kept in service longer if they have=
 "useful" number plates which the IEA admits is "counter-productive from an=20=
air-pollution reduction perspective, as older vehicles would tend to pollute=
 more". 
 
 However, curtailing the working week and home working would be more effecti=
ve in the US as more people travel to work alone in their cars.&nbsp; As wo=
uld correct tyre pressures. In Japan speed reductions are less effective as=20=
there are less motorways on which to travel fast. 
 
 Families with only one car would also be hit harder than their richer frien=
ds as "bans may have some additional costs in terms of reduced accessibility=
 and mobility options particularly for single-vehicle households with limite=
d access to alternative modes". 
 
 Without doubt this report signifies that the IEA is searching for new ways=20=
to maintain supply security in a volatile oil market. Whether it can achieve=
 its aims with this radical report is another matter.</HTML>

--part1_1c8.256541a8.2f774bd3_boundary--