Australian
Thursday 9th Nov, 2006
Transport
Fuels: Future Prices & Supply Security Risks
NOTES
James Ward
Convenor, ASPO-Australia
Young-Professionals Working Group
www.groups.yahoo.com/groups/aspo_oz_youngprof
Summary
The conference was attended by about 40-50 people,
mostly suits. I was doing my best to look the part in my op-shop suit pants and
my only tie. I think I pulled it off okay.
There were seven speakers plus the guest speaker. Of
these, only one (guess who? Yep, the ExxonMobil guy) attempted to tell the
audience that everything was okay – that is, there’ll be plenty of oil (but he
did concede that from now on it won’t be cheap). Another speaker (an economist)
sidestepped the possibility of energy shocks and showed what would happen if
So the rest of the speakers, including the guest
speaker (Senator Rachel Siewert) all acknowledged the
danger of peak oil, and the words “prudent
risk assessment” can be used to summarise their recommendations. The
speaker who followed the ExxonMobil guy convincingly argued the case for
caution and risk management and this was echoed by other speakers.
Two speakers convincingly argued the case for better
city planning, especially promoting “sustainable transport” (walking and
cycling) and heavily promoting public transport, especially in the outer
suburbs where there is compounding vulnerability due to heavy car-dependence,
relatively low household incomes and high levels of household debt.
Nobody in the audience publicly disagreed with the
peak oil concept during question time. This may imply that either these energy
professionals are largely in agreement with the peak oil theory, or else they
were too scared / embarrassed to put up their hand to say they disagreed with
it!
Senator Rachel Siewert
presented the findings of the Senate Inquiry into Future Oil Supply and
Alternative Transport Fuels, and concluded that peak oil is an issue that
requires an enormous amount of attention as the risk and implications are huge.
Presentations (see below for speaker affiliations):
Energy Insecurity and the
Great Convergence, Mark Thirlwell
World Oil Reserves – Are we
running out?, Doug Schwebel
Peak Oil – Myth or Risk?, Lloyd Taylor
Responding to the Challenge, Eriks Velins
Australian Transport Fuel Supply
Security – South Australia’s Risks and Options, Andy Fischer
Suburban Shocks: Urban
location, housing debt and oil vulnerability in Australian cities, Jago Dodson
Oil Prices and Technological
Change, Dan Atkins
The Senate’s Future Oil
Supply and Alternative Transport Fuels Inquiry, Senator Rachel Siewert
Energy Insecurity and the Great Convergence
Mark Thirlwell
Program Director of International Economy, Lowy
Institute
Summary
Thirlwell began by discussing energy insecurity, in
that he talked about the recent constraint in oil supply (i.e. supply being
unable to rise to meet growing demand as easily as it had in the past, hence
the high prices), as well as the shock of Hurricane Katrina and ongoing
instability in the
He then went on to discuss “the great convergence”.
He talked about the divergence between, say,
Thirlwell admitted that the analysis he presented was naïve,
in that it assumed no energy shocks or crises in the future. In other words, he
was presenting the case of “what if the growth rates continue like they are at
present?” without actually believing that they would continue like they are at present. When he admitted this, I
couldn’t help but feel the presentation was a little pointless. But he is an
economist, after all.
Points
of interest
-
In
1993,
-
The
Communist Party needs economic growth in order to stay in power and keep its
country stable (implying that if the growth stops, the people will revolt)
-
Energy
security involves diversification in supply and bilateral ties (i.e. mutual
dependence between an energy exporter and an energy importer)
o
There
is the potential for
-
Middle
East is thought to have 60% of the world’s remaining oil reserves, so it
remains a key place and
-
Q & A
Q: Environmental factors appear to have been
overlooked in the analysis – what about
A: The environment is a major constraint.
The Chinese government is saying a lot about environmental consideration, but
we don’t know if it is following up on what it’s
saying. Moving towards natural gas and cleaner technologies may play a role
here. Re-iterate that the trends shown assume no shocks – this is unlikely. It
is more likely that
Q: What about the strong population growth
in
A:
World Oil Reserves – Are we running out?
Doug Schwebel
Former Exploration Director, Esso
(now ExxonMobil)
(speaking
as a private individual but also on behalf of ExxonMobil)
Summary
Schwebel began by mentioning that the recent
growth in public interest on peak oil is really nothing new – doomsday warnings
have been talked about since the early 1900s. His talk was aimed at squashing
the rumours of peak oil by suggesting that global oil reserves are sufficient
to cope with future growth (to 2030).
He stated that the global economy is linked to cheap
energy, therefore irrespective of climate change concerns, we will continue to
burn fossil fuels because they are cheap. To his credit, Schwebel
admitted that oil is a finite resource and that growth in consumption can
therefore not continue forever (although, he didn’t say what that would mean
for the global economy). His analysis only stretched out to 2030, in which time
he predicts energy use will have grown by 50% and oil will still be a major
player. He then suggests there will be a “gentle decline” from 2030. He quoted
3 trillion barrels of oil recoverable out of a total reserve of 6-8 trillion
barrels. Just under 1 trillion barrels would be enough
to get us to 2030 based on his projected growth.
His presentation included a lot of flashy 3D images
showing how technologically advanced the oil industry has become,
implying that the 3 trillion barrels figure is very reliable.
He also said that oil reserves have historically been
underestimated, implying that there might still be more oil than he has
predicted. This could be achieved through advances in recovery technology, and
that the 3 trillion barrels figure assumes 35% recovery (he seemed to indicate
that it could potentially go higher than this).
In his summary he mentioned (almost in passing) that
to achieve the predicted growth in production required to
satisfy demand, $200 billion in annual investment would be required
(over $2 million per hour for the
next 25 years). The only way to facilitate this investment is to continue
having high prices.
Points
of interest
-
Expected
growth rates in energy production to 2030:
o
Oil
1.4%
o
Gas
1.8%
o
Coal
1.8%
o
Wind & solar 11%
o
Other
1.8%
o
Total
energy growth 1.6%
-
Fossil
fuels expected to make up ~75% of total energy by 2030
-
Wind
& solar expected to make up ~1% of total energy by 2030 (despite 11%
growth!)
-
He
expects 40% of vehicles in the
-
All
growth from ~2015 will have to be undertaken by OPEC (i.e. non-OPEC will peak
by 2015)
Q & A
Q:
With climate change being
increasingly recognised as a serious issue, how long will it take to make the
necessary changes?
A: The global economy is linked to cheap
energy. And for instance,
(I presume
he means dealing with the climate change that results
from the emissions, not capturing the emissions themselves.)
Q: Peak oil was largely dismissed in this
forecast – so why do we need such high prices? Given that commentators like
Matthew Simmons have suggested that the Energy Return On
Energy Invested (EROEI) is decreasing, notably in
A: Firstly, current oil prices are not simply
a product of supply and demand. For instance, when Chevron announced their
But, yes, the “low-hanging fruit” has largely been
picked and therefore the future is one of high fuel cost.
(I’m not sure how this fits in with his previous
statement that the world economy is linked to cheap energy and therefore we
can’t afford to bother about climate change!)
Peak Oil – Myth or Risk?
Lloyd Taylor
Chairman, Core Collaborative
Director, Petratherm
Former Chairman and Managing Director, Shell NZ
Summary
Taylor presented an objective analysis of
the peak oil debate, beginning by highlighting the fact that there is a lot of
talk about peak oil (both for and against the theory) and that most of the
information currently available is based on assumptions, carries great
uncertainty and is generally unreliable. Huge numbers of people have apparently
become experts overnight, on both sides of the debate. He went on to examine
the theory from a risk assessment perspective.
The first part of the risk assessment looked at the
fact that the question of continuing availability of oil is central to all business
models. He went on to say that historically, supply capacity has been in
abundance and supply could always be increased to cope with growth in demand,
without significant price rises. However, with very modest demand growth in the
past few years we’ve seen a trebling of price as supply has been unable to
increase. This is real experience, so it should form part of the risk
assessment.
The North Sea and
He went through the historical case of the
Points
of interest
-
The
peak oil phenomenon is documented on the country level and many countries are
post-peak
-
Based
on the various so-called “expert opinions” we can say that the global peak will
occur sometime between yesterday and never!
-
Of
total oil production (84-85 million barrels per day), about 87% of this is
“crude oil” plus “condensate”, and the remaining portion is things like heavy
oil, natural gas liquids etc
o
Most
condensate is locked into long-term constant production contracts and therefore
can’t be increased
-
-
The
giant Cantarell field in
-
Production
increase and demand destruction both occurred in response to high prices in
past oil shocks, but it took a 15-fold increase in price to make significant
changes (recently we’ve only had about a 3-fold price rise)
-
There
have been massive technology advances since the 60s, including huge advances in
predictive capability, and the uptake of this new technology has been immediate. Still, this did not
ameliorate the
-
“Enhanced
oil recovery” (as espoused by ExxonMobil) only lifts the tail – it doesn’t
affect the peak
-
The
alternatives currently available are not readily or cheaply scalable
-
Statistically,
there is only a 40% chance that the USGS “mean estimate” of ultimately
recoverable reserves will be achieved. Therefore to base future decisions on
their mean estimate, you are gambling on worse than even odds!
Q & A
Q:
Was there significant
investment in
A: Yes, the rig-count doubled and drilling
activity went into overload, due to the very high return (high prices). It
still didn’t do any more than slow the rate of decline.
Responding to the Challenge
Eriks
Velins
Former VP, Planning and Marketing, BHP Petroleum
Former GM, Corporate Planning & Economics, Shell
Summary
Velins started off talking about the nature of
the current crisis. It differs from past crises, in that right now the oil
crisis is a result of systematic under-investment by industry and lack of
government action (presumably he means the government needs to regulate the
industry to make sure it invests for the future). A long term agenda needs to
be set that includes the development of new engine and fuel technologies.
The responses to the current crisis from the oil
industry are basically to keep supply and demand tight – OPEC producers don’t
need any more money so it makes more sense to constrain supply rather than
invest huge amounts of money and reduce the price. Another theory is that oil
producers are anticipating a reduction in demand as cars become more efficient
(eg hybrids).
Velins mentioned that OPEC quoted oil reserves have
remained constant for some years despite continuing consumption (OPEC has a
reserve-based quota system so a country has an incentive to overstate their
reserve figures, the true values of which are generally kept a national
secret). Also, different countries quote different figures for their oil
reserves – some use the 10% confidence figure, others use the 90% one.
In the
Velins mentioned that the timing of peak oil is now
irrelevant as all predictions fall within the planning horizon of the majors.
Because of the limited potential for alternatives,
oil and gas will remain the dominant transport fuels for some time, but the
price will continue to increase. Governments must act now to prepare for a
future of high transport fuel costs. We need “a good decade” to prepare, in
terms of establishing the necessary skills and labour, and ensuring mobility. A
great quote was that “the greatest skills shortage is leadership!”
Velins have a chilling view of the
His final comments related to market failure, which
he said CAN happen. Taxation is an effective tool, eg in Europe where diesel
was favoured due to fuel taxes and this encouraged more people to buy diesel
cars (which are more efficient than petrol ones). Demand management like this
is necessary. We need substantial investment in skills, supply security and
most of all, education of the public as to the nature of energy supply &
cost.
Points
of interest
-
Because
of an upsurge in resource nationalism (eg
-
The
government response of subsidising LPG and ethanol is not useful because it
doesn’t help alleviate demand, forces increased reliance on imports and is
therefore bad for fuel security.
-
In
response to the recent price hike, in
-
There
have been large ($billions) cost overruns on high-tech ventures (presumably he
means enhanced oil recovery and similar) that have caused a reversion to older,
proven technology.
-
No questions were asked
Australian Transport Fuel Supply Security – South Australia’s
Risks and Options
Andy Fischer
MD, Australian Farmers Fuel Pty Ltd (aka SAFF)
Summary
Like most of his talks that I’ve heard, Fischer began
by saying that he believes “farmers are the future oil barons of
Fisher spoke mostly about his difficulties as an
independent fuel supplier competing in the SA market, which has traditionally
been regulated to favour the majors (especially ExxonMobil). In 1995 SA’s fuel market was deregulated and independents were
allowed in. Fisher talked a lot about the Port Stanvac
import facility, which has 500,000 tonnes of storage but was mothballed in
2003. Since then, there has been an increased risk of fuel shortages due to the
tiny amount of storage available outside Port Stanvac.
Petrol stations have actually run out of fuel on occasion. There are import
facilities (like Port Stanvac) in every other state.
Also, without a large storage facility, one cannot
take advantage of an economy-of-scale with shipping (larger deliveries are
cheaper, but they require large storage). Fisher’s company is planning a new
site in SA that will be for large-scale diesel storage and biodiesel
manufacturing.
Q & A
Q:
What is the consumer
acceptance of ethanol in your ethanol-blended petrol?
A: SAFF has deliberately steered clear of the
word “ethanol” due to negative press (hence the term “bio-unleaded petrol”).
They have also found that with the proprietary additive they put in (as well as
the ethanol), it outperforms equivalent unleaded from other suppliers. They
have increased their market share since offering bio-unleaded.
Q:
How are engine
manufacturers responding to biofuels?
A: The market has not been interested enough
to invest in the concept – they liked the idea but didn’t trust it in their
engines. SAFF’s solution has been to offer a
biodiesel blend called B20 that actually varies from 8% to 23% biodiesel (the
rest diesel) that meets the full standard for fuel diesel. As a side-note,
Fischer said, every engine manufacturer has received funding from an oil major.
Suburban Shocks: Urban location, housing debt and oil
vulnerability in Australian cities
Jago
Dodson
(Somehow Dodson managed to appear on “Today Tonight”
at the exact same time as he was delivering his talk to us!)
Summary
Unlike the other speakers, Dodson comes
from a social science background. His interest has been looking at how the use
of energy corresponds to the function of cities. The nature of transport use
changes across cities – different people use different transport and therefore
there is a range of risks (eg bicycles are not at risk to oil shortages).
Different people have different financial circumstances such as mortgages,
credit card debt and so on. Dodson has investigated the combination of
transport (energy) risk and debt risk.
Car dependence is a big problem in Australian cities;
like Americans, Australians tend to be highly dependent on cars. However, the
degree to which we depend on cars depends on location – the outer suburbs tend
to be more car-dependent.
Household debt has tripled in the past decade and is
increasing. This needs to be dealt with! The boom in debt has been largely due
to strong economic growth and low interest rates, and has been coupled to
increasing house sizes. Like transport, debt is not distributed evenly across
cities. People with less money tend to find themselves limited to buying
property in outer suburbs. They tend to have a high amount of debt due to their
lower income, so greater financial difficulty tends to be found in the outer
suburbs.
This leads to a double vulnerability in the outer
suburbs – high car-dependence (meaning high vulnerability to fuel prices)
coupled with high debt risk. Already we are seeing rising levels of mortgagee
default and decreasing house sale prices. Yet, despite the widespread knowledge
of
Dodson’s research (with Neil Sipe)
has involved vulnerability assessment right down to the level of a census
collector’s district (which can be smaller than a single suburb). By combining
the dependence on transport fuel with household financial risk, they can map
the overall vulnerability of each of these districts. They show a common
pattern, with the highest vulnerability in the outer suburbs. The map of
In terms of solutions, tax cuts and mortgage relief
are not location-specific (i.e. a tax cut would affect people across the whole
city) and Dodson suggested such solutions were not good. Instead, spatially
targeted public transport investment would be a far better solution. Also,
there is a need for investment in further research to look at household
budgeting and the relative cost of fuel in household budgets. Above all, the
government needs to articulate this issue to the public: how would our cities
fare in a constrained energy situation? The debate is essential if we are to
continue to live easily in cities.
Points
of interest
-
Energy
growth drives economic growth, which leads to high vulnerability (i.e. your
economy is as vulnerable as your energy source).
-
In
-
People
have been driving less in response to recent high fuel prices.
-
The
interest rate rises are largely predictable by people observing the condition
of the economy, however energy security is much less predictable (hurricanes,
wars, terrorist attacks, etc).
-
Although
the general trend is that the most vulnerable suburbs are the outer ones, there
are some patchy areas where a good public transport route might reduce the
vulnerability of one suburb but the neighbouring suburb is not well serviced. I
was interested to note that in some cases, there are visible thin lines of
“security” stretching way out into the outer suburbs, which correspond to train
lines!
-
Although
transport energy use is greater in the outer suburbs, the inner suburbs consume
more energy overall. Therefore, if a greenhouse strategy was to come into
action, the inner suburbs perhaps should be targeted harder than the outer
ones.
Q & A
Q:
Should we be moving away
from the quarter-acre block and increase the density of housing?
A: This debate has been taking place for 20+
years. The fact is that new stock is a very small percentage of the total
housing market, therefore consolidating (so that all new housing is high
density) will not have a very large effect on the whole of the market. A better
solution is to simply improve public transport to outer suburbs!
Q:
Authors such as
A: The city size is somewhat market-limited,
as indicated by the exodus from
Oil Prices and Technological Change
Dan Atkins
Sustainable Business Practices Pty Ltd
Summary
Atkins began by showing the graph made
famous by Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient
Truth, showing historical CO2 levels never going above 300ppm and today’s at 380ppm. He
then mentioned the recent Stern Report, and the acknowledgement by Rupert
Murdoch that climate change needs action now. However, much of the debate has
focused on stationary energy, as evident by the focus on clean coal and nuclear
power, whereas nearly a sixth (14.5%) of CO2 emissions in
In
In terms of fuel options for vehicles, there is a
range of options. One such option is hydrogen, which has generally been
considered the “holy grail”, with zero emissions and so on. Hydrogen faces
numerous challenges. Energy is required to separate hydrogen and oxygen out of
water, then storage and distribution infrastructure (including fuelling
stations) all needs to be engineered and built.
Other fuels more immediately within reach include LPG
(lower CO2 emissions) and diesel (15-25% better fuel efficiency).
Biofuels can potentially reduce overall CO2 emissions but should be
limited to recycling waste products (not growing plants especially for fuel).
Atkins said there needs to be more debate about biofuels.
Having spent time in
In his recommendations, Atkins said that the
solutions will come not only from better technology, but also from better planning, especially planning that recognises the long-term
interconnectedness of waste, energy and transport.
Points of interest
-
One
interesting concept is that unpredictable renewable technology such as wind and
solar energy could be used to generate hydrogen, which can then be stored and
used for base-load power generation (which is something that those renewables
traditionally cannot provide) and transport fuel.
-
“The
cleanest energy is the energy you don’t have to use!”
Q & A
Q: With SA’s
apparently rich endowment of geothermal energy, can SA become the leader in
generating hydrogen from geothermal?
A:
Lloyd Taylor (Petratherm
director, and a previous speaker) then responded to the question: in
Q:
John Howard doesn’t seem
to think carbon trading is the answer, yet they seem to be doing it in
A:
Carbon trading adds costs
and the detail becomes difficult to comprehend. In terms of setting targets,
many businesses simply don’t know what their emissions were in 1990 so it is
near impossible to set targets.
The Senate’s Future Oil Supply and Alternative
Transport Fuels Inquiry
Senator Rachel Siewert
Deputy Chair, Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and
Transport Committee
Australian Greens
Summary
The government has recently amalgamated
the Senate Committees. (Siewert was previously the
Chair of the committee but is now Deputy Chair.) At the time of the
amalgamation, so much work had been done by the committee that they decided to
give an interim report. The interim report is basically a summary of opinions,
while the final report (due 30/11/2006) will be more a list of recommendations.
The inquiry was inspired by Senator Christine Milne, who has a keen interest in
climate change and peak oil within the Greens, but the committee included
representatives from the ALP, Liberals and Nationals (as well as the Greens).
The committee received an incredible 192 submissions,
including many from local government offices, as well as peak oil groups,
industry associations and so on. The full list of submissions (and the interim
report itself) is available online at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/index.htm
Most submissions agreed that peak oil is an issue,
but there was widespread disagreement on the date of the peak. The submissions
from peak oil “activists” were generally very detailed and thoroughly argued,
whereas the submissions from “denialists” were
generally weaker in their arguments. The committee concluded that there was
insufficient evidence to suggest things will be okay beyond 2030. If peak oil
occurs before 2030 it is a matter for concern, therefore
On the supply side, Geoscience
Biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) are potentially
carbon neutral, however they compete with textile and
food production for land. The energy return on energy invested (EROEI) is
critical as feedstock crop production requires substantial energy inputs. The WA Farmers submission presented their strategy to roll out
biodiesel co-ops in order to become “fuel self-sufficient”.
Palm oil (a
feedstock for biodiesel) is also displacing rainforests in
There were conflicting opinions on the validity of
hydrogen as a future energy, however Siewert said
that a submission from a Tasmanian company was very convincing and gave her a
sense of hope for the future of hydrogen.
Demand-side strategies were also addressed by the
committee. Efficiency and public transport were common themes among
submissions, along with better urban planning and increased use of rail for
long-distance freight (except the submission from the truck transport lobby,
which argued for no rail!). It was recommended that the Commonwealth government
make more funds available for public transport, as well as grants for fuel
efficiency projects and a re-assessment of the Fringe Benefits Tax to change
the use of incentives/disincentives.
Risk management is essential as we look at peak oil.
The Hirsch Report (commissioned by the
Points
of Interest
-
High
petrol prices conveniently generated a lot of interest in the inquiry
-
The
committee looked at the vulnerability in cities and agriculture. The latter is
thought to be highly vulnerable.
-
There
was a convergence of the twin issues of peak oil and climate change, so it was
agreed that any solution to peak oil must consider greenhouse gas emissions.
-
Gas
is thought to be the most significant “transition fuel” for
-
According
to ABARE, some non-conventional petroleum becomes
cost-effective at about $40/barrel, however this does not consider the carbon
cost
-
Mallee
trees are being grown in WA for oil and fuel-wood,
and have potential for lignocellulose ethanol production (2nd
generation biofuel) whilst also offering some biodiversity advantages
-
A
company called Microbiogen made a submission
suggesting that with second-generation biofuel technology, the Australian sugar
industry could easily provide 10% of
-
The
committee heard from Dr Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, who told them that “air travel is
on borrowed time”
-
The
government’s Energy White Paper is outdated, however the committee will probably not be able to
state this in the report!
-
Will
Australian alternatives be traded globally if the global market price goes up?
Q & A
Q:
(Nicholas Mumford,
A: Security means ensuring domestic supply, so we should be hanging onto our
gas rather than flogging it off cheaply.
Q:
(Malcolm Messenger, AIE) How did the committee actually get up and running?
A: The Greens recommended it to the
government regarding climate change and peak oil, and surprisingly the
government accepted! The acceptance of the inquiry was probably largely due to
the Nationals’ support for biofuels via the farmer connection. All senators on
the committee found it to be a fascinating experience.
Q: (Mr Shearer, Dept of Transport, Energy
& Infrastructure) Will globalisation survive peak
oil?
A: The committee didn’t study it much,
except that air travel appears to be headed for downsizing whilst there may be
more sea trade and more localisation. The suspicion is that globalisation will
suffer, but this is hard to predict due to the high level of communications
technology that is now available (perhaps such services will soften the blow).
Q:
(Hamilton Calder, RAA) The general theme is that
there is no “silver bullet” and that our future needs will be met by many
solutions. What about the role of automotive manufacturers?
A: Auto makers were most disappointing in
their response and in their expectations. There will be many solutions, and one
of the most exciting is second-generation biofuels and fuels from algae (first
generation biofuels may provide a useful transition). Coal-to-liquids is not a
great option due to the CO2 so why not step past it and go straight
to second-generation biofuels?
Q:
(Andy Fischer, SAFF) Can we remove things like the 10% ethanol cap to help
stimulate investment in biofuels?
A: The industry wants better fuel standards
before it will begin to accept biofuels for use in standard engines.
Q:
(Barbara Hardie) Have you
compared biosequestration (i.e. planting trees) to geosequestration (locking CO2 underground)?
A: The concern with these “carbon-neutral” technologies
is that they are not aimed at creating a significant cut in emissions. These
technologies have potential but they are not the full answer. The priority is
that we need to get our policy settings right (I presume she means a carbon
tax, that will encourage people to burn less fuel, and neutralise whatever they
do burn).
Final thoughts
At our dinner table we had an interesting
guy from Business SA. He was very agitated, not by the nature of the conference
or because of any disagreement with peak oil, but because he is constantly
faced with the fact that small innovators are being shut out of the market
because nobody is willing to invest. When it comes to investing the money
necessary to roll out a good piece of technology, the government generally
doesn’t come to the party. For instance, Origin Energy is ready for a roll-out
of their new solar technology. That roll-out will cost ~ $100 million. The SA
government could apply a 2c/kWh tax on power to raise the revenue and put
Origin in business, creating jobs for South Australians, etc etc – but they won’t do it.
I feel that we face a similar challenge with petrol
taxes. The best thing we could do would be to increase
the fuel excise to provide the funding necessary to roll out more public transport
and educate the public to buy more efficient cars (and perhaps some of that
money could be made available to get companies like Holden and Mistubishi to start building smaller cars too!).
Who will provide the brave leadership we need?