For the information of foreign readers, Scottish and Southern Energy is a large UK utility and constituent member of the FTSE 100 index. Virgin, lead by Richard Branson, is an airline and Stagecoach is a global operator of busses (coaches). Both are substantial UK companies. This should attract significant MSM attention in the UK and was mentioned in our local press (Aberdeen Press and Journal) yesterday.

We all have a legitimate need to travel and transport is key to the economy and so many aspects of society and our daily lives.

This blanket statement represents a clinging to BAU. It should instead say;

"There is a continuing legitimate need for greatly reduced travel and transport of vital, non-local materials is key to the economy. Frivolous travel and long-distance product importation should be recognized for what they are - addictions to oil."

On the recommendations;

Continue measures to improve energy efficiency and wean transport from its dependence on oil. These include promoting technological developments such as hybrid engines, vehicle electrification and weight reduction, both for cars and public transport.

I was surprised not to see biofuels listed here, which is one of Branson's shining hopes for continuing air travel.

Coordinate a package of measures to deliver behavioural change and secure modal shift
from cars to sustainable public transport.

This is sounds great, but the details talk mostly about cars and;

...giving the CAA a mandate to encourage the uptake of biofuels for aviation

This is unfortunately weak, and gives the impression that BAU-lite will be sufficient.

The ‘cleantech revolution’ in the use of renewable energy for generating electrical and motive power, and heating, requires continuing support.

I helpful recommendation.

The programme to improve the energy efficiency of buildings must be accelerated...Encouraging the use of heat pumps is one solution.

Taken together, this is helpful and steers away from BAU dependency on natgas.

So overall, the recommendations are a mixed bag; some appropriate and others a clinging to BAU habits and addictions.

Who in government and industry is reading and taking action on this report?
Also helpful

Unfortunately, in spite of the prominent reporting of this by the Guardian and BBC, the response so far seems to be the usual deafening silence. A smattering of of random comments on the web site and nothing else. Leggett is seen as just another ecofascist by the BAU crowd and they don't even bother reading his pieces.

(BTW, I do not condone the term ecofascist. However, I simply expect the word to appear on the Guardian website within the hour).

Their figures for megaprojects are much larger than those in the Wiki, differing by 1307 kb/d on average. This despite the Wiki being more inclusive - ITPOES is >40 kb/d. For 2010 ITPOES has 39 projects, Wiki has 49. ITPOES is 2460 kb/d larger. Where's all this extra oil hiding?

The EIA and IEA figures for spare capacity are 4.08 mb/d and 5.35 mb/d, yet the difference from the July '08 liquids peak to Jan '09 trough is only 3475.58 kb/d. Staniford points out that demand appears to be rebounding ca. 4.4 mb/d per year, far ahead of the OMR projections this report mentions. This would be a short term effect, I think projecting past demand shortfalls onto our current situation accounts for the discrepancy; little of the pre-2008 demand is gone for good, unless we in the US want to actively move away from diesel use in shipping, say. This chart shows demand in the US in various sectors 2005-2009:

Notice how gasoline demand has barely budged. From a peak in June 1978 it fell 9.1242%; YOY July '08 to '09 it increased 150 kb/d.

One of the interesting messages that came out of the launch was the issue of balance of payments, which was mentioned a number of times, and which I suspect was intended to remind an incoming (potentially Conservative) government of the danger of moving from energy independence to energy importing from a financial perspective. Buried in the report is a claim that the marginal utility of each barrel of oil is greater to developing countries than developed countries, which suggests that countries like China and India would (counter-intuitively) be willing to pay more for oil than we in the west currently are.

All of this points, in my mind, to an interesting debate which is starting in the UK about the role of the Foreign Office in guaranteeing fossil fuel supplies. Policy Exchange and Green Alliance (both UK based think tanks, the former right-leaning; the latter mildly-left) have published material recently including comment pieces on, respectively, the role of the FCO in guaranteeing LNG imports and the importance of reducing fossil fuel use from a national security perspective.

Help us spread awareness and educate.

"How do I help" you ask?

Well, here's the digg, reddit and SU links for this post: create an account on these sites (it's really easy) and upvote these articles. The more upvotes they get, the more people see them. It's that simple.

http://digg.com/d31INqX

http://www.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/b0etf/industry_taskforce_on_pea...

http://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/b0etb/industry_taskforce_on_peak...

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/b0ett/industry_taskforce_on_p...

http://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/b0etd/industry_taskforce_on_p...

http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Feurope.theoildrum.com...

Find us on twitter:
http://twitter.com/theoildrum
http://friendfeed.com/theoildrum

Find us on facebook and linkedin as well:
http://www.facebook.com/theoildrum
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14778313964
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=138274&trk=hb_side_g

Feel free to submit things yourself using the share this button on our articles as well to places like stumbleupon, metafilter, or other link farms yourself--we appreciate it!

(we appreciate your helping us spread our work around, both in this post and any of our other work--if you want to submit something yourself to another site, etc., that isn't already here--feel free, just leave it as a reply to this comment, please so folks can find it.)

Here is the visual review of the situation from the Energy Export Databrowser:

(Note: Vertical scales differ.)

Let's state the facts that are immediately obvious from these graphs:

1. Britain's indigenous production of energy from all sources has declined by 40% in the last decade.
2. Britain's total energy consumption has remained relatively steady over the last 40 years.
3. The production trend since 2000 is down for each of the five main energy sources.
4. Britain has switched from net energy exporter in 2000 to net energy importer today.

Not visible in the graphs but obvious to anyone who pays bills is:

• The price of energy has increased since 2000.

Really, what more does one need to know? How much more obvious do things need to be?

The seemingly obvious conclusion from these simple facts taken together:

• The UK is buggerred unless they radically alter how the obtain and use energy.

Anyone who actually looks at the data doesn't need a fancy report to determine that energy supply and use is the UK's #1 issue for the next 10 years. (And for probably a lot longer.)

For policy makers I have what seems like obvious advice:

• The nation must immediately embark on a massive energy conservation campaign.

Just stating the obvious.

-- Jon

The executive summary of the report is talking all liquids - peak oil is not about all liquids, it is about the price of crude and condensate rising faster than consumers' income, making it less affordable.

The UK Government has comitted the UK to reducing CO₂ emissions in excess of 30% by 2020 so they already know we will be using much less oil,gas and coal - that isn't BAU.

The writers of this report should know that they are going to have to run their business' using much less FF not the increased use of coal or natural gas that Chris Skrebowski proposes as part of any solution ... and if the world population keeps growing at the current rate and agricultural efficiency falls due to lack of inputs like fresh water and phosphorus, in 5 or 10 years there will be little agricultural land not required for food production, so biofuel is unlikely to part of an adequate,affordable solution.

The report's basic proposals point out that we won't have BAU - drastic changes to our way of life in the UK will have to be made! Make your long range air flights now, they are proposing a tax on aviation fuel!

Firstly the UK Government has never had a 'coherent' energy policy, as it cannot offend the coal miners (Drax Power station emits 22million tons of CO2 per annum all Coal with No sign of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) that we see on the continent; This is only ~22% energy efficient and all those mining community votes to keep the MP's in expense fiddles), the gas lobby (remember that British Gas was only privatized in 1986 but has partially retained the mind-set of a nationalized industry; so the "rush to Gas" we saw in the 1990's has resulted in a future dependence on Gazprom!), North Sea Oil (just another tax collection exercise without any real thoughts of the future) or the nuclear lobby (what can anyone say about Windscale or now renamed Sellafield), I remember the message of the 1960's of free power for all.

It has also squandered all North Sea oil revenues on vote chasing. As we have "had it so easy" over the last 50 years UK never "needed" an energy policy - just bumbling along in the dark.

Whilst there are lots of alternative energy proponents in the UK, talk a great 'Carbon Talk', and plenty of energy efficiency experts, the conventional wisdom is predominantly still that of oil, coal and gas fired power stations without CHP. Now there are some exceptions but they are not Government led. And with respect to Oil and Petrol for transport, there is certainly no coherent transport policy in the UK either. Just tax revenues; thats all Government of any colour seem interested in.

So forget Peak Oil the UK it's heading for ruin on the civil service pension scheme future liabilities alone.

All this in a nation with some of the world's most beneficial wave and wind power resources. That's why I am devoting my time to the emerging nations in Africa. They can learn from the mistakes of the West, are rich in resources and are (often) willing to listen to alternative and integrated policies. So I will be leaving shortly!

Had a look in the metro. The article was a quarter page bit of text on page 20 or thereabouts. Says it all really.