Beef graphic, The Australian Source: The Australian

Former US trade representative Susan Schwab asked Trade Minister Simon Crean to cancel the ban on US beef when they met in Washington in January 2008, then again in Canberra that March and during trade talks in the US in June that year.

Canadian trade negotiators repeatedly complained about the ban, too, during meetings with Australian trade officials in Geneva in October 2008, and in a meeting between Mr Crean and Canada’s international trade minister a month later.

Mr Crean was lobbied by US and Canadian officials again in Bali last June.

In October, after more than 30 representations from the north Americans, Australia agreed to lift its ban on beef from countries with a history of mad cow disease, starting next Monday.

Australia banned imports of beef from north America – one of its biggest export markets – in 2003, when the US and Canada reported their first cases of mad cow disease.

The federal government insisted yesterday any meat imported would be “100 per cent safe”. But Mr Crean admitted Australia’s food labelling laws – which The Australian revealed will allow imported meat to be sold alongside Australian meat without consumers’ knowledge – needed to be changed.

“There will be a discussion paper produced next month that will go to the issues and we are determined to work on the basis of that . . . to address any deficiencies in the labelling laws,” he said.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has told a Senate inquiry that Australia’s trading partners were growing “increasingly critical” of the ban, because “it is inconsistent with current science”.

The ban left Australia vulnerable to “retaliatory trade action”.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade told the Senate inquiry Canada was likely to take action against Australia in the World Trade Organisation unless the ban was removed. It said higher tariffs could be slapped on Australian beef exports if the WTO ruled in Canada’s favour.

Australia sold 250,000 tonnes of beef to the US and 12,000 tonnes to Canada last year. It is one of only 10 countries recognised by the World Organisation for Animal Health as having a “negligible risk” of the brain-wasting disease, which can infect those who eat contaminated beef.

 이청솔기자 taiyang@kyunghyang.com
초국가적 기구인 국제에너지기구(IEA)가 미국의 압력으로 미래 석유 비축량 예상치를 부풀려 왔다는 주장이 IEA 내부에서 제기됐다. 실제로는 IEA의 공식 추정치보다 훨씬 빨리 석유가 고갈될 것이라고 영국 일간 가디언이 10일 보도했다.

익명의 IEA 고위 관계자는 가디언을 통해 IEA가 그동안 미국의 압력을 받아 현재 시추 중인 유전의 석유 생산 감소율은 낮춰잡고 새로운 유전을 발견할 가능성은 부풀려 계산해 왔다고 폭로했다. 석유에 대한 접근성을 통해 국제적 영향력을 행사해 온 미국이 실제 석유 생산량 추정치가 드러나는 것을 꺼렸다는 것이다. 또한 실제 수치가 공개됐을 때 불거질 수 있는 금융 시장의 투기현상에 대한 우려도 있었다. 이러한 주장이 사실로 드러날 경우 IEA의 연례보고서인 ‘세계에너지전망’의 신뢰도는 크게 떨어질 것으로 전망된다.

이 관계자는 IEA 구성원 다수가 석유 생산이 이미 정점을 지나 감소세로 접어들었다는 것을 알고 있다고 밝혔다. 그러나 2005년 IEA는 연례보고서를 통해 현재 8000만배럴 수준인 1일 평균 세계 석유 생산량이 2030년이 되면 1억2000만배럴까지 늘어날 것이라고 전망했다. 이 같은 예측에 대해 비현실적이라는 비판이 빗발치자 지난해 보고서에서 예상치는 1억500만배럴로 낮아졌다. 내부 고발자는 이에 대해 “1억2000만배럴이라는 수치는 완전히 말도 안 되는 것이지만 수정치도 근거가 없기는 마찬가지”라고 평가했다.

또 다른 IEA 전직 고위 관계자는 “IEA의 목표는 미국을 화나지 않게 하는 것”이라며 “현재 우리의 석유 상황은 아주 심각하다”고 말했다.

IEA와 달리 영국 에너지연구위원회는 지난달 “석유 생산이 2020년 이전에 정점에 달하고 감소세로 돌아설 것”이라는 보고서를 발표했다. 이 보고서의 주요 집필자인 스티브 소렐은 “2030년까지 계속 생산량이 늘어난다는 것은 가장 낙관적이지만 가장 가능성 없는 전망”이라고 말했다.

석유 생산량 관련 통계를 조작해 왔다는 의혹에 대해 IEA 측은 “올해 보고서가 나오기 전에는 입장을 말할 수 없다”고 밝혔다. ‘2009 세계에너지전망’은 10일 발간된다.


=========================

IEA calls for global push to end energy poverty

Energy watchdog says that without action at Copenhagen one in six people will still be without electricity by 2030

Tim Webb

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 10 November 2009 20.59 GMT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/10/iea-oil-forecasts-energy-poverty

Rich countries are being urged to sign up to a Make Poverty History-style pledge at the climate change summit at Copenhagen next month to bring electricity to the 1.5 billion people in the world without it.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is working with the United Nations and the World Bank on a project to electrify millions of homes and villages in Africa and south Asia.

The energy watchdog’s chief economist, Fatih Birol, told the Guardian the west was ignoring the issue of energy poverty in developing countries. The IEA also predicted that without international action by governments, there would still be 1.3 billion people – or 16% of the world’s population – with no access to electricity in their homes or villages by 2030.

Energy firms have no incentive to build power plants or connect remote areas to the grid if people are too poor to pay the bills. “It’s not likely to happen unless there’s a major international concerted effort by rich countries,” Birol said. “We will start to push it on to the main agenda at Copenhagen.”

Birol will appeal for international support on the issue ahead of the Copenhagen summit when he delivers a speech at the UN in New York on 23 November.

today, the IEA outlined its annual World Energy Outlook, which forecasts that global oil supplies could increase by more than a fifth from just under 85m barrels a day last year to 105m by 2030.

The Guardian revealed on the eve of the report’s publication that senior figures within the organisation disagreed with its forecast, believing that it would be impossible for the world to maintain oil supplies even at 90m-95m barrels. They claim that the IEA, under pressure from the US and to prevent panic on global stock markets, is deliberately exaggerating the level of accessible new supplies of oil.

The IEA responded today by publishing on its website a key chapter from last year’s outlook report detailing how it estimates the decline in the rate of production from the world’s largest oilfields. The information is normally only available to those who buy the entire report for €150 (£134). The agency, which dismissed the Guardian’s report as “groundless”, said it wanted to show the public that its research was independent. Birol said: “We are very proud of our analysis and independence. We have a lot of critics. It’s not possible to make everyone happy.”

The IEA’s forecast of global oil supplies hitting 105m barrels in 2030 represents its “doomsday” scenario, which, it said, would result in catastrophic global warming and energy supplies becoming increasingly vulnerable to terrorists or accidents. This is based on Copenhagen failing to reach a deal that ensures a higher carbon price, which would make the consumption of fossil fuels such as oil and coal more expensive and encourage the use of low-carbon forms of energy such as renewables and nuclear instead.

This business-as-usual scenario would leave the west even more dependent on oil from the Middle East, it said. Emissions would soar by more than a third from 2007 levels and global temperatures rise by up to 6C over the next two decades.

Birol said: “The reason why we showed it is to say this is the way that we are going and we should not go there otherwise there will be an accident in terms of climate change and energy security. We do not want it to happen.”

The IEA, set up to advise its 28 member countries, said that the alternative scenario would see oil consumption only increase slightly between now and 2030. This is based on countries agreeing at Copenhagen to stabilise the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million. This would give the world a 50% chance of limiting temperature increases to 2C, it said.

Birol admitted that there was “lots of resistance” to such a “450 scenario”, particularly among Opec nations which stand to lose trillions of dollars in revenue from lower consumption of oil and gas. But he said the global economic downturn provided a “window of opportunity” for the world to take tough action. Many companies and countries had shelved investment in power plants because of the fall in energy demand. “But in the absence of a signal from Copenhagen, in 2010, or 2011, they will be built,” he warned. “If a coal plant is built, it will emit for 50 years.”

He added that last summer’s record $147 a barrel oil price had “traumatised” many developing countries into looking for less volatile and costly forms of energy. Birol said oil prices, which had since fallen back to about $80, would continue to be volatile and would rise over the long term.

============================================

Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower

Exclusive: Watchdog’s estimates of reserves inflated says top official

guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 November 2009 21.30 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency

The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation’s latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.

‘There’s suspicion the IEA has been influenced by the US’ Link to this audio

In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.

Now the “peak oil” theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. “The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year,” said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. “The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today’s number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.

“Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources,” he added.

A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was “imperative not to anger the Americans” but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. “We have [already] entered the ‘peak oil’ zone. I think that the situation is really bad,” he added.

The IEA acknowledges the importance of its own figures, boasting on its website: “The IEA governments and industry from all across the globe have come to rely on the World Energy Outlook to provide a consistent basis on which they can formulate policies and design business plans.”

The British government, among others, always uses the IEA statistics rather than any of its own to argue that there is little threat to long-term oil supplies.

The IEA said tonight that peak oil critics had often wrongly questioned the accuracy of its figures. A spokesman said it was unable to comment ahead of the 2009 report being released tomorrow.

John Hemming, the MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil and gas, said the revelations confirmed his suspicions that the IEA underplayed how quickly the world was running out and this had profound implications for British government energy policy.

He said he had also been contacted by some IEA officials unhappy with its lack of independent scepticism over predictions. “Reliance on IEA reports has been used to justify claims that oil and gas supplies will not peak before 2030. It is clear now that this will not be the case and the IEA figures cannot be relied on,” said Hemming.

“This all gives an importance to the Copenhagen [climate change] talks and an urgent need for the UK to move faster towards a more sustainable [lower carbon] economy if it is to avoid severe economic dislocation,” he added.

The IEA was established in 1974 after the oil crisis in an attempt to try to safeguard energy supplies to the west. The World Energy Outlook is produced annually under the control of the IEA’s chief economist, Fatih Birol, who has defended the projections from earlier outside attack. Peak oil critics have often questioned the IEA figures.

But now IEA sources who have contacted the Guardian say that Birol has increasingly been facing questions about the figures inside the organisation.

Matt Simmons, a respected oil industry expert, has long questioned the decline rates and oil statistics provided by Saudi Arabia on its own fields. He has raised questions about whether peak oil is much closer than many have accepted.

A report by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) last month said worldwide production of conventionally extracted oil could “peak” and go into terminal decline before 2020 – but that the government was not facing up to the risk. Steve Sorrell, chief author of the report, said forecasts suggesting oil production will not peak before 2030 were “at best optimistic and at worst implausible”.

But as far back as 2004 there have been people making similar warnings. Colin Campbell, a former executive with Total of France told a conference: “If the real [oil reserve] figures were to come out there would be panic on the stock markets … in the end that would suit no one.”