Peak Oil Committee (POC)

 

“But now, in the twentieth century, the impacts of human populations and technology have begun to approach the parameters of natural systems of the Earth. Not for much longer can the finite nature of the Earth be ignored in practice, even when conceded in theory. A major restructuring of man’s assumptions regarding his relations to nature has become an unavoidable condition for human survival. This restructuring of perceptions implies a corresponding restructuring of institutions. This reorientation of society is the principal task of environmental policy and administration and the principal theme and subject matter of this book.”

 

---Lynton K. Caldwell

Man and His Environment: Policy and Administration

 

 

MISSION STATEMENT

The Peak Oil Committee (POC) is an interdisciplinary group of experienced environmental professionals that reports to the NAEP Board of Directors. The mission of this committee is to study Peak Oil issues, educate the NAEP membership and public, and analyze alternatives to objectively evaluate and compare strategic environmental implications of various strategies.

 

The US Department of Energy (DOE) requested Dr. Robert L. Hirsch et. al. to prepare a report on the potential impacts of a geological phenomena known as Peak Oil (or Hubbert’s Peak). The report, Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (also widely known as the Hirsch Report - click here for a copy of the report) was issued by DOE in February 2005. The report’s authors surveyed a range of forecasts from optimists and pessimists alike, which project a global peaking date ranging anywhere from 2005 to 2037.

 

The report’s Executive Summary begins with the following paragraph:

 The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an
unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking.

 

The report examined three scenarios (each scenario assumed a “crash” program rate of implementation). These scenarios involved:

  1. Waiting until global oil production peaks before taking crash action: this scenario would leave the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for more than two decades that “will almost certainly cause major economic upheaval”.
  2. Launching a crash program 10 years before world oil peaking: this scenario would help considerably but still leaves a liquid fuels shortfall roughly a decade after the time that oil would have peaked.
  3. Launching a mitigation crash program 20 years before peaking: this scenario appears to offer the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

The report notes that “the world has never faced a problem like this.” It emphasizes that both supply- and demand-side measures will take many years to implement and will cost “literally trillions of dollars”. The report also points out that “The problems associated with world oil production peaking will not be temporary, and past ‘energy crisis’ experience will provide relatively little guidance.”

 

The following link provides an introduction to the issue of Peak Oil and its socioeconomic ramifications on modern society. This is a preprint of an article published in by Charles Eccleston in the journal of Environmental Quality Management, Spring, located Wiley URL: http://www.interscience.Wiley.com/. Please click here to access the article.

 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

 

The objectives of the POC are to:

  1. Draw on all available expertise of NAEP practitioners in analyzing Peak Oil policy issues to identify and recommend methods and approaches for addressing direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of Peak Oil.
  2. Educate environmental professionals and members of the public about the ramifications of peak oil.
  3. Update the NAEP membership on a regular basis on significant changes in ….
  4. Establish or reinforce technical channels with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, non-governmental organizations, and institutions of higher learning to aid in information sharing concerning Peak Oil strategies.

COMMITTEE CHAIRS:

Charles H. Eccleston, Chairman

[email protected]

 

David L. Keys, CEP, Vice Chairman

[email protected]