IEA Proposes
Brakes On Fuel Consumption
By Adam Porter
31 March, 2005
Aljazeera
The International Energy Agency is to
propose drastic cutbacks in car use to halt continuing oil-supply problems.
Those cutbacks include anything from car-pooling to outright police-enforced
driving bans for citizens.
Fuel "emergency
supply disruptions and price shocks" - in other words, shortages
- could be met by governments. Not only can governments save fuel by
implementing some of the measures suggested, but in doing so they can
also shortcut market economics.
An advance briefing
of the report, titled Saving Oil in a Hurry: Measures for Rapid Demand
Restraint in Transport, states this succinctly.
"Why should governments intervene to cut oil demand during a supply
disruption or price surge? One obvious reason is to conserve fuel that
might be in short supply.
"But perhaps
more importantly, a rapid demand response (especially if coordinated
across IEA countries) can send a strong market signal."
The report goes
on to suggest a whole series of measures that could be used to cut back
on fuel consumption. They are cutting public-transport costs by a certain
amount to increase its usage while simultaneously dissuading car use.
Then more radically
the idea of going further and cutting public-transport costs by 100%,
making them free to use. Car-pooling, telecommuting and even corrections
to tyre pressures are also suggested.
But the most hardline
emergency proposals come in the form of drastic speed restrictions and
compulsory driving bans. Bans could be one day in every 10 (10%) or
more stringently on cars with odd or even number plates. They would
be banned from the roads on corresponding odd or even days of the month
(50%).
In forming its conclusions the IEA tacitly admits that extra police
would be needed in these circumstances to stop citizens breaking the
bans. Even the cost of those extra patrols are part of the IEA's study.
"Policing costs
are more substantial and may consist of overtime payments for existing
police or traffic officers or increases in policing staff. We assume
this cost at one officer per 100 000 employed people."
As an example that
means that the US workforce, currently around 138 million people, would
need an extra 1380 officers to help enforce the bans. It may seem an
optimistic figure. But even if this were so, the IEA is not put off.
"If our policing
cost estimates are relatively low ... results clearly show that even
a doubling of our estimate would make (bans) a cost-effective policy.
The more stringent odd/even (day) policy is also more cost-effective
than a one-day-in-ten ban, as the costs are the same ... maintaining
enforcement is critical."
Yet despite these
measures, that many citizens would find quite draconian, the IEA concludes
that tough love is better than none at all.
"Our main conclusion
finds that those policies that are more restrictive tend to be most
effective in gaining larger reductions in fuel consumption. In particular,
driving restrictions give the largest estimated reductions in fuel consumption."
Here, however, they
do strike a word of warning for governments and those in power.
"Restrictive
policies such as this can be relatively difficult to implement and thus
may come at higher political costs."
According to the
IEA's little-known emergency treaty, the Agreement on an International
Energy Programme (IEP), "measures to achieve demand restraint fall
into three main classes - persuasion and public information, administrative
and compulsory measures, and finally, allocation and rationing schemes".
This would mean
that countries who signed up to the treaty, including the five biggest
economies of the world - US, Japan, Germany, UK and France - would all
have to institute cuts.
"In the event
of an activation of IEP emergency response measures, each IEA Member
country will be expected to immediately implement demand restraint measures
sufficient to reduce oil consumption by 7% of normal demand levels.
In a more severe disruption, this could be raised to 10%."
There are some interesting
asides in the report. As Americans have the most cars, the driving bans
could be got around by having one car with an odd, and one car with
an even number plate.
Proportionately
it makes the ban less effective than in other countries.
As well as this
older cars may be kept in service longer if they have "useful"
number plates which the IEA admits is "counter-productive from
an air-pollution reduction perspective, as older vehicles would tend
to pollute more".
However, curtailing
the working week and home working would be more effective in the US
as more people travel to work alone in their cars.
As would correct
tyre pressures. In Japan speed reductions are less effective as there
are less motorways on which to travel fast.
Families with only
one car would also be hit harder than their richer friends as "bans
may have some additional costs in terms of reduced accessibility and
mobility options particularly for single-vehicle households with limited
access to alternative modes".
Without doubt this
report signifies that the IEA is searching for new ways to maintain
supply security in a volatile oil market. Whether it can achieve its
aims with this radical report is another matter.
© 2003 - 2005
Aljazeera.Net