I wrote about the Piebalgs reply at the time. The thing that grated was that he didn’t answer the question. Lucas had asked:

“When does the Commission anticipate that peak production will occur?”

“What is its strategy for responding to the challenges posed by peak oil?”.

The reply:

“The Commission is certainly aware of the concerns by certain analysts that the point of oil peak production is likely to occur sooner than suggested.”

“The Commission is thus reflecting on a policy framework which should lead to a sustainable and highly efficient long-term energy profile of the European Union.”

So he didn’t answer the when or the what. What does "sooner than suggested" mean? As Luís points out though, things have changed. The rhetoric is that of reduced fossil fuel reliance - for energy security as much as the more “traditional” climate change justification.

I thought my multilingual Portuguese colleague had made a typo, but:

"interpellated"

"–verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
to call formally upon (a minister or member of a government) in interpellation."

is apparently common usage across the pond when speaking of parliamentary matters.

I think that Commissioner Piebalgs is in dire need of the help of the Millennium Institute modeling !

For the USA we found that the best results, by EVERY metric (GDP, GHG, oil use) was a combination of a maximum push for renewable energy AND electrified rail AND TOD and bicycling.

I suspect the same is true for the EU.

How to contact him ?

Best Hopes,

Alan

For a while at LATOC in 2006, I had a feature called "The Pandemic of Dumbassery." When he wrote the article saying it was "just a theory", I posted that "the pandemic of dumbassery is running wild through the EU, just claimed EU's Energy Commissioner, Andris Piebalgs."

Unfortunately thoses posts are lost as I cancelled my typepad account.

I tjhink it's worth quoting some of Piebalg's speech:

The question is whether the oil production to keep pace with this growth. The International Energy Agency believes that this is uncertain.

We see before us the so-called "peak oil" problem, that is the question the world when their maximum oil production rate will reach. In a single oilfield is that the rate of oil production reaches its maximum when about half the oil has been promoted. The same is true of the global oil reserves - that is, if we look at the half of the world consumes quantities of oil, then, the annual production volume will inevitably begin to fall.

As I said, the oil is by far not all, but an increasing number of estimates say that the "peak oil" within the next 20 years will be achieved. Some experts even say it, that we are just now on the "oil peak".

This is indeed interesting, because it's clear he has grasped the concept and is treating it seriously.

Politicians should be held accountable for their beliefs -if none of them believe in Peak Oil then fine -let them say so. Only a handful of Politicians are willing to grasp the nettle as the implications are so huge its not exactly a vote winner. In addition you would only be winning a small % of votes but the necessary mitigation policies would piss off a lot of people...

In this framework the best policy for a politician who wishes to get elected is to be concerned with the issues and open to debate but not willing to commit to any hard policy that would put people off -i.e. sit on the fence- and that's exactly what we see happening.

Unfortunatley -as reported in The Hirsch Report- PO mitigation needs to start at least 10 years b4 the event in order to avoid the worst effects. In short, if CERA are wrong and PO is now 'we are stuffed' and can look forward to two decades+ of 'painful happenings'... (terms deliberatly generic as my crystal ball is a little cloudy today)

Nick.

"An energy shock is upon us and it is good to see that at least some of the stake holders are actually noticing it.

Something along this line is happening with the upcoming (Jan 23-27) Davos forum. The Global Risks 2008 Report prepared for the event lists food and energy security among the four main global risks. But the Report fails to assign those issues their real degree of severity, and perhaps more importantly, it does not seem to understand the real dynamics driving them. Which is critical because, if scaling up biofuel production is meant as one of the main mitigation measures for peak oil, then the poor of the world are screwed, and at the very least they should be made aware of that.

I posted my comments on the Report at my blog http://peaktimeviews.blogspot.com/

The text of his speech can be found at: http://www.europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/08/13...

I think that:

Klimawandel und Versorgungssicherheit. Zwei große Herausforderungen. Beide führen uns zum selben Ergebnis: Wir können nicht an unserem alten, fossilen Energiesystem hängen bleiben.

is better translated as something like:

"Climate change and security of supply. Two big challenges. Both lead us to the same result: We cannot remain dependent on our old fossil energy system."

If this guy can come around on Peak Oil as being more than just a theory, then maybe Inhofe will eventually come around to the idea of Global Warming. On 2nd thought, naw, it will take the partial collapse of Greenland or West Antarctica, and even then he'll probably say something really stupid like, "Well, it looks like Gore's wish came true!" ,or "Those darn natural fluctuations!"

The problem is that, even if the Euro commission is starting to "get" it, the EU as an instrument of strategic planning is pretty much broken. Each nation makes its own plans -- or fails to.

In the UK, they are staring at a serious energy-price crisis : big jumps in the retail cost of electricity and gas. Those who live by the sword... In recent decades, the UK didn't simply fail to plan for future energy supplies, they deliberately chose NOT to plan, because the market is smarter than the planners... well guess what... the "invisible hand" has come back to goose them.

Chickens come home to roost : http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/jan/19/householdbills.consumeraffairs

The government was coming under renewed pressure last night to launch an investigation into the home energy market after Britain's biggest supplier became the third power firm to raise prices substantially. The move, which was blamed on higher wholesale costs, prompted consumer groups to demand a Competition Commission investigation into whether the big six power firms that dominate the market were acting in "tacit collusion".

That he is from the Baltic state LAtvia is telling. Their precariosu position between the power blocs makes thm more reality based than th larger powers who can afford to ignore the situatio for longer ude to resources and politcal strength. When Sigmar Gabriel(German envrionmental minister)or the French or British energy or environemtnal ministers prclaim PO as acritical survival issue then we may have a European enrgy summit leading to a global summit like Kyoto and Bali. Anyway hey are starting to wake up in Brussels.