Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


G8 nations focus on efficiency not supply to combat record oil prices

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 09 June 2008
ENERGY ministers from the Group of Eight (G8) industrialised nations looked inward for solutions to record oil prices yesterday, emphasising the need for domestic efficiency rather than piling pressure on a resistant Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) to pump more crude.
Oil prices posted their biggest ever one-day surge on Friday, leaping more than $10 to a record high above $139 a barrel; and yesterday, petrol prices hit a record high in the US.

Caught between mounting popular discontent at home and the need
to invest billions in greener energy to cut world carbon emissions, the G8 ministers offered few new ideas for heads of state to consider at their summit next month.

"(On] energy efficiency and energy diversification, we all recognise tremendous progress is being made but more has to be done," said Gary Lunn, Canada's natural resources minister.

In a group ranging from top oil consumer the US to the second-largest exporter Russia, few had expected the meeting to result in measures that could stem oil's six-year rally, which has gathered pace this year as investors fear the world will struggle to produce enough crude to meet future demand.

But their message appeared to reflect a growing acceptance that consumer nations must find ways to temper demand by focusing on technology, conservation and diversification.

The G8 ministers from the US, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and Japan, plus non-G8 guests from China, India and South Korea – which together consume two-thirds of the world's energy – said they shared "serious concerns" over the cost of oil.

Analysts said they were on the right track. "This is the right development and will... improve the supply and demand balance in the medium and long-term, but it won't have an immediate impact on prices," said Toshinori Ito, of UBS Securities Japan.

"Oil prices are surging not because of a supply shortage, but because of massive liquidity," he added, referring to the influx of financial funds into markets, helped by low interest rates.

The price of oil has doubled in one year and risen 44 per cent since January, forcing developing countries such as Indonesia and India into extremely unpopular fuel-price rises, while richer nations ponder how to soften the blow of soaring energy costs for the vulnerable.

The issue is certain to hang over G8 leaders when they meet in Japan early next month, a summit where host Japan hopes to win backing for a target to halve carbon emissions by 2050.

Yesterday, the energy ministers agreed on the need for more large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects that bury emissions from power plants, a cornerstone of the call by the International Energy Agency (IEA) for a $45 trillion energy "revolution". "The time for talking is over – we have to implement this," said John Hutton, the UK Business Minister, referring to the IEA's goals.

But Opec officials said yesterday that they saw no need to pump more oil in response to last week's double-digit surge in oil prices.

"I think there is enough oil in the market," Shokri Ghanem, head of Opec member Libya's National Oil Corporation, said.

Opec's stance drew an angry response from Kevin Rudd, the Australian prime minister, who called on the G8 to "apply the blowtorch" to the organisation.

Top oil exporter Saudi Arabia is the only OPEC member with capacity to boost output quickly and significantly.

But Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi and his Pakistani counterpart met yesterday and agreed that the price rise was unjustified and unrelated to market fundamentals, the official Saudi Press Agency reported.



The full article contains 615 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 June 2008 9:57 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: The G8
 
1

American,

09/06/2008 01:59:23
Pay off the tree huggers and lets start drilling & building new refineries already.
2

donald,

glasgow 09/06/2008 08:29:08
Ironic or wot, that Scotland is an oil producer that hosted a G8 summit and is not a member, or beneficiary of its own oil.
3

ThomasP,

09/06/2008 10:18:25
4.

We will also be sent the Bill for having to hire extra security etc ect for the VIP's
4

Saoghal Beag,

09/06/2008 13:03:00
American, on the basis that efficiency is really such a bad idea. SAck the profligate petrol heads and lets get some common sense into business and homes
5

,

09/06/2008 13:08:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

Alan B,

09/06/2008 13:42:46
#donald
How is it ironic?

Much as i support independence, an independent scotland would not be a member of any G8.
7

Alan B,

09/06/2008 13:50:10
We should just be moving to more efficient cars. The government should take the lead. Unfortunately all they do is use it as an excuse to tax us. If brown was to move the uk away from the petrol/desiel car he would end up with even larger deficits becuase of the huge amounts of tax on petrol.

The government should think of measure beyond tax. I would start with having a minimum 50mpg for every car.

That can then be move upwards every 4yrs.

With a 50mpg car companies would be encouraged to bring in more hybrids to boost fuel to power ratios. More hybrids would soon lead to better battery techologies. Plug in versions that do 40 miles without petrol would mean most of us would never use much petrol at all.

They should also target more efficient cars at drivers that use there car for there jobs all day long.

Sainsburies is moving it delivery vechicles to electric. All other companies should be encouraged to do the same thing.

It is really not that hard. Governments have just made themselves dependent on the cash cow of the motorist.
8

,

09/06/2008 13:50:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

Saoghal Beag,

09/06/2008 14:08:03
Harry no one needs to try to make bush llok abd he manages quite well on his own.

Your lack of foresight is breathtaking. The market is playing with the price of fuel as much is as brron is taxing it to save his bacon. neither fall into the tree hugger category.
10

,

09/06/2008 14:32:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

Saoghal Beag,

09/06/2008 14:49:03
Regina, how very grown up of you. You may be cripled with a fear of cultures other than your own, that i am not xenophobic is not a fault in my eyes. As a Scot i certainly do not hate the west, now away and translate my name. Imbicile
12

Alan B,

09/06/2008 14:52:04
#Regina

What has critism of Bush to do with hating the West?
13

Highland Mighty,

09/06/2008 15:50:36
4. Once again I have to demand proof of a nat claim that Scotland did not enjoy public spending budgets over the past decades that were in excess of all taxes and oil taxes.

Any chance of YOU doing so? (I doubt it.)

GERS has repeatedly shown that Scotland received several billion extra each year over and above tax payments (oil and non-oil) to the Treasury. And the SNP have not declared GERS to be fabricated in any way.

Do YOU have access to hidden accounts that shows otherwise?
14

Highland Mighty,

09/06/2008 15:58:42
Come on, nats! You must be basing this obsessive and fanatical belief on SOMETHING!!

I can't find anything on SNP Central's website....where do you get this from?!

(And the first idiot to quote 'The Great Deception' gets a virtual slap round the head.)
15

,

09/06/2008 16:34:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

Alan B,

09/06/2008 17:15:42
#Highland Mighty

I previously quoted to ur the £27billion figure. That was the result of an snp written question to the tory treasure at the time in the mid 90s. From the written answer it showed Scotland had subsidised the rest of the UK to the tune of £27 billion over the period if i remember correctly from 79 to 95. It was based on scotland getting a 90% share of oil revenues.

This is huge. Like england giving say the US £270billion just for a pressie.

It was like scotland giving away 1/3 of all income taxes for 17 odd yrs.

As for current figure the latest report i saw from grant thornton accountants showed that with 95% oil scotland would have a surplus of £6billion. Even with a lowly 82.5% we would still have £4.4 billion.

U want to be with the union. Fair enough but lets be honest enough to admit that u are willing to have significantly poorer scotland as a result. For u a poorer scotland is a price worth paying for the union.

While the union for scotland is far from ideal we could be richer than we are simply having fiscal autonomy.
17

,

09/06/2008 18:35:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

Jimmy the Pie,

09/06/2008 18:47:58
Highland Mighty

How are you doing???

What other monikers are you posting under these days???

Is British Pride dead???

Just to remind you of your previous 'folly'


British Pride,
11/04/2008 18:16:47
553. Whoa! Great! Such typical SNP incite. Fantastic! I only post as Highland Mighty, can you say the same you cyber-nay???
19

Alan B,

09/06/2008 19:28:57
#Regina

U are clearly losing the plot.

It is this attitude of yours that makes people anti US. There are different ways to deal with situations. Your statement that unless u support bush then u must support the terrorists is barmy.

For the record i actually supported the wars, both in Afganistan and Iraq. But ur intelligence seems so limited that u, will attack anyone without even knowing what they believe.

The fact is many believe that Bush's way of dealing with the situation was wrong. Many feel there is a better way of dealing with the problems.

It is only someone of limited intellectual capacity that will attack others as supporter of terrorist for thinking that maybe there was a better way of dealing with the problems.

Lets face the fact the Sadam had no links to terrorist involved with the Sept 11. This was simply the US wanted to rid themselves of this guy for other reasons. So please do not try to say it had anything to do with islamic terrorism directly.

The problem many have with the US policy is they believe it was the US just stealing someelses oil. I tend to give the US the benefit of the doubt on this. But the US does give out silly statements that can be construed as thinkng it is acceptable if a country will not sell u oil at a price u think is acceptable u will just invade and take it, putting a puppet government in place.

Lets also face if the US did not back Israel stealing others land much of the problems in this part of the world would not be as bad. The fact is most of the rest of the world believe the US is morally wrong over Israel.
20

Alan B,

09/06/2008 19:33:47
#Regina
U talk about the efforts of the west. Remember most of the west is against Bush's approach.
21

Saoghal Beag,

09/06/2008 19:54:40
19 Regina, just what i should expect a queenie fit from yourself.

Your posting is deeply offensive, unjustified and without substance.

You are paranoid, xenophobic and quite clearly barking at the moon along with bush, i would be suprised if your combined IQs would manage to break the 100 mark. I don't agree with Bush nor El Quaida, both for the same reason, the indiscrimante slaughter of innnocent lives that has resulted from both of their actions. You think you would have learnt after Nam.
22

Highland Mighty,

09/06/2008 20:09:27
18. £27bn over 18 years? Govt accounts show that Scotland received £4-6bn a year between 1997 and 2006, approx £38bn, which more than cancels out that amount.

Also, how about pre-1979?

That's just selective quoting again, isn't it.

(The US population is not ten times England's so where you got that bizarre £270bn from...)

20. Clearly still gullible enough to fall for a post written by a nat. You're an idiot.
23

Highland Mighty,

09/06/2008 20:11:37
18. Is that it then? Is that 11 year old stat the entire basis for this fanatical belief?

Wow!
24

Stonefield,

09/06/2008 20:31:38
#23 Saoghal Beag

You are a rude imbicile, say you are sorry to the lady.
25

Saoghal Beag,

09/06/2008 20:55:36
Stonefield, i see no lady. Just a xenophobe making unacceptable accusations, ofcourse she might retract them.
26

Alan B,

09/06/2008 21:19:34
#Highland Mighty

It is not selective quoting. It shows that scotland subsidised the rest of the uk over a long period.

What made the situation worse the problems scotland had during the 80s economically?

I am well aware the US is not 10 times the size but my anology was one of giving so much wealth to a larger neighbour.

From memory at the early 90s 2billion was equivlennt to 1p in the tax for the uk. say scotland was 200million as we are about 1/10 of the size. That shows how much we were giving away.

As for pre 79 google urself and find out. I would imagine giving oil in the 70s and the mcrone report then scotland would have been granting big subsidisies to the rest of the uk.

I notice u also ommitted to mention the latest figures of 6billion i quoted.

The big problem in working out the true figure is so much london expenditure is calculated as uk figures. As such governments own figure tend to not represent scotland in the best light. For intstance the £27 billion figure was the tory treasury figure. The snp would have put that much higher.

The advantage of using this figure is that u are using ur political opponents (unionist) figure.

Before the election last yr we were told how big the scottish deficit was. However a newsnight program for uk showed that scotland actually had a lower deficit than the rest of the uk. So i would serious question ur deficits. Does it include oil? That is generally labour trick which does not include that as scottish. Does it include london expenditure as english rather than uk?

Most of the independent economic analsys done shows scotland in a pretty good light fiscally.

27

Alan B,

09/06/2008 21:27:16
#Highland Mighty

"Govt accounts show that Scotland received £4-6bn a year between 1997 and 2006"

ur figures seem to be rubbish. scotland gets alot more from westminster as part of the block grant. it is also not comparable to the 27 billion i quoted u.

i am talking about a 27 billion surplus. even if ur figure of 4 billion deficit a yr is correct the uk also is running huge deficits thanks to browns incompetence.

u have to compare like with like.

28

Alan B,

09/06/2008 21:36:04
#Highland Mighty

Interestingly while u say labour has said there was huge deficits in 2006 the snp have said scotland are in surplus.

Only if we have fiscal autonomy or spending was clealy scottish or english with taxation assigned to would we find out the truth.

Are u disagreeing with the economic report showing 6 billion surplus.

Did u disgaree wtih labours mcrone report showing scotland would be one of the wealthies countries in the world.

Oh did i forget to mention norway has an oil fund worth about £300billion if i am not wrong. If scotland had the same getting only 5% interest would contribute 15 billion a yr to scotland spending (which is roughly have). jeezus we could have slashed taxes in half and still had the same level of services.
29

American,

09/06/2008 23:00:39
#6-no, efficiency is a wonderful idea--but not always possible. Some of us hard-working folks have many miles to drive to work because lack of industry where we live, and if there is industry-the pay if awful. We dont all drive big SUV's (although, they are alot safer if you were to get into an accident). I say payoff the treehuggers, put people to work building a few more refineries, open anwar like bush wants, keep the oil money here.
30

Saoghal Beag,

10/06/2008 12:21:07
31 not a question of not doing, it's about doing what we have to do better and more efficienctly. I've not seen any SUV come top of a car safety league.

Your proposals are based on greed, (i want and i want it now), with no consideration for future generations, nor others outwith the developed west. we have to differentiatie between wants and needs and we ahve to strive for parity over the current generations andf through the coming generations.
31

American,

10/06/2008 22:02:24
#32-saoghal-wrong. my proposals are based on survival--you know, the need to drive to work to make a good paycheck so the family can be fed, clothed, sheltered, receive medical and dental treatment when needed, and to be educated in an affordable 4 year college (and yeah, a nice vacation once a year is nice too-helps the economy at the same time). What a proud, greedy American I am for wanting that for my family!

Fact is, we have an abundance of oil in alaska and in other areas of the US.
We have not built new refineries since the 70's.
Using ethanol gas is making our food alot costlier(think about how tough that is for the lower wages families or families with 4+ kids).
Many scientists are not buying this "global warming" being caused by humans. You should have learned in school that weather has been changing over millions of years (ice age, dust bowl, droughts, floods, mini-ice ages. I dont recall learning there was industry or cars in those good ole days.

Those that are crying the loudest about global warming being caused by humans are using it as a money-making, scare-mongering scheme. Proof: al gore and his idea of buying carbon footprints. Oh Please!
32

American,

10/06/2008 22:04:20
#32-And also, the other brighter side of digging for our own oil and improving our economy-----we wont have to buy oil and make millions for opec and countries that hate and want to destroy us. Let's keep our money here.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.