Submission for ACT Peak Oil
SUMMARY of ACT Peak Oil ENERGY WHITE PAPER SUBMISSION
 It is now accepted that the supply of cheap 'conventional' oil peaked about 2006,
and that global supplies have been maintained since then only by increasing
reliance on far more expensive 'unconventional' oil;
 These new sources, such as deep off-shore, tight (shale), and tar sands, are only
viable with much higher oil prices, and are only likely to continue to fill the
increasing void left by the inevitable depletion of conventional oil, by an everrising oil price.
 However, this ever-rising price of oil will tend to choke off demand for oil, and
may also contribute to financial crises, as it did in 2008. A future oil peak is
likely, therefore, to be a combination of ever-increasing cost of new oil extraction,
combined with an inability of oil prices to rise too far without crushing society.
 The claimed tight (shale) oil boom in the US is unlikely to spread to the rest of the
world, because it is based on unique and temporary US circumstances. Outside
the US, tight oil production would need a far higher price than is needed within
the US, to be significant. On present indications, it is unlikely to offset the
continued depletion of global oil reserves.
 Australia's economy and society are utterly dependent on oil, from almost all
personal and commercial transport, to industry and agricultural production. In
order to better secure Australia's energy future, policies are needed which
accommodate Australia to an ever-decreasing availability, and hence an everincreasing price, of oil.
 In this light, Australia's approach to oil should be on the basis of risk assessment
and the precautionary principle, rather than assuming that Australia can always
buy its way out of any oil supply problems.
 Policies should include strong incentives for the more efficient use of oil, such as
incentives to use more efficient cars, at the expense of inefficient vehicles, and for
alternative transport fuels.
 Policies should also include raising the price of oil, especially where low,
concessional rates of excise apply, in a way that is budget-neutral and socially
acceptable.
 Many global analysts, especially from the military, recognise the risks to
countries from relying on global oil supplies.
 Although it is not strictly a peak oil issue, ACT Peak Oil supports the idea of a
strategic oil reserve, in accordance with IEA recommendations, to safeguard
against temporary oil supply disruption.
 Climate change is an additional reason for Australia to move to a far more
efficient use of oil.
 The Energy White Paper fails to apply the concept of the triple bottom line,
environmental, economic and social, to analysing energy matters.
 It also fails to explore the implications of EROEI, or energy return on energy
invested, by which measure oil recovery is increasingly under pressure.
 Australia should explore the concept of an oil depletion protocol, an
international agreement to manage the inevitable depletion of global reserves of
affordable oil.
Introduction
This submission is made on behalf of ACT Peak Oil, a community organisation. While
some general comments are made from an integrated perspective, this submission
largely focuses on issues in the paper that are most relevant to peak oil, that is, the
inevitable decline in the availability of easy to access high quality liquid oil. There is
ample evidence that peak oil has arrived (for example Murray and King, 2012). The
Government explicitly acknowledges in its Energy White Paper that Australia has been
and increasingly will be dependent on imported oil.
ACT Peak Oil differs from the Government in our approach to the consequences of peak
oil. The Government assumes that additional imports will be both available and
affordable. We believe that at the very least, alternative approaches to securing
Australia's energy future must be explored.
The International Energy Agency acknowledged that conventional crude oil production
peaked in its 2010 World Energy Outlook. The Non-conventional sources on which the
IEA’s current forecasts rely are likely to have much shorter and sharper production
curves than conventional oil.
The best evidence available through our research indicates that conventional oil has
peaked and non-conventional sources of oil will have much shorter peak times. As the
US Department of Energy noted in the Hirsch report oil resilient infrastructure planning
for transport in particular is likely to take several decades, so it would be prudent to start
planning for this inevitability now.
The following points from ACT Peak Oil's key policy document form the context for
our evidence-based submission. Some of these points are expanded on below:
Diminishing oil production (so called peak oil scenarios) threatens our standard of
living.
Our current level of consumption of goods (including food) requires cheap oil. In
particular, the machinery on farms and the cars, trucks, ships and planes to transport
manufactured goods from factories and farms to homes all need cheap oil to continue
supplying our current lifestyle (Strahan, D,2007).
No other energy source can match oil’s combination of such high power, high
stability and transportability. As a liquid, it is particularly suitable as a transport fuel.
The world’s reserves of oil are fixed (around 1.5 trillion barrels remain) but global
consumption is ongoing (around 89 million barrels of oil every day), according to the
International Energy Agency.
While the quoted reserves change frequently, the basic pattern does not.
The oil extracted to date was easy to extract, yielding a lot of net oil. However, the
remaining oil requires much more energy to extract (Deffeyes, K.S. 2005) so the amount
of oil actually available to produce food and other goods (net oil) is much less than the
1.5 trillion barrels of oil in reserves.
The theory that rising oil prices can solve the problem by making new oil wells
economical is false, because rising oil prices are the problem. When expensive oil
makes new oil wells viable, it will have already made everything else (food, clothing
and housing etc) expensive.
Alternative energy sources are inferior to oil because of their lower energy per unit
volume (if they were superior, we would use them now).
New technology can only solve the problem if it is implemented faster than rising oil
prices damage the economy.
As oil production inevitably declines, prices will rise with the possibility of another
global financial crisis, social disruption and even war over diminishing supplies.
The threat from peak oil and rising petrol and diesel prices has been the subject of dire
forecasts from the US Department of Energy, the US Department of Defense, the
Bundeswehr and Lloyds of London, the largest insurance market in the world.
Important inclusions and omissions of the White Paper
The paper rightly acknowledges the primacy of energy to Australia's standard of living
and economic stability (page 5). It notes that ‘Securing our long-term domestic energy
needs, maintaining international competitiveness while meeting international
obligations, and growing our export base are fundamental to a strong economy’. We
object however to an export base that is predicated primarily upon continued expansion
of fossil fuel, as we believe this ignores many factors which make this strategy risky.
The emphasis on energy efficiency is also welcome (page 16). In particular, effective
information tools will empower consumers to cut their energy bills and choose the best
new services.
It is a disservice to Australia's strategic planning that this White Paper is not framed in a
balanced approach to all the 'issues relevant to the energy sector'. The absence of any
mention of either climate change or peak oil makes the terms of reference illogical and
incomplete. The terms of reference overlook these issues which form an important
context for Australia's energy future. This context is an era of declining availability of
liquid fossil fuels combined with a rapidly emerging climate crisis, along with a rapidly
changing energy sector.
Nor is there any hint of a triple bottom line approach, which would take into account
clear social and environmental goals, along with the clearly stated economic ones. This
approach recognises the interplay between factors that are often treated as externalities
that can be ignored, but can undermine a business or an economy in the longer term.
Many companies are now building triple bottom line thinking into their planning
(WorldWatch Institute 2014), yet the White Paper gives precedence to economic issues.
The list (page 6) of related policy papers reinforces this narrow approach on economic
and regulatory issues. Social and environmental issues directly related to energy include
food sovereignty, equity, urban design and land use policies. The integrated issues of
energy, food, and population are discussed for example in Lardelli (2010).
Another glaring gap in the paper is the neglect of a precautionary approach, one which
would use scientific risk assessment in the analysis of Australia's energy situation as it is
likely to be in the mid-term future. The precautionary principle is particularly apposite
to energy policy. Energy policy requires the modelling of many different variables,
which is difficult. Many of these variables have hard physical limits (quantity of
chemicals; properties of chemicals), leaving little scope to adjust to inevitable errors.
The precautionary principle is essentially a statement of value. It provides a risk
assessment perspective for dealing with scientific incompleteness. 'It is a fundamental
component of the concept of ecologically sustainable development and has been defined
in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration (1992)1:
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of
full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to
prevent environmental degradation.' (Cole, 2005)
This principle is particularly important for the Government when considering the
possible risks of uncontrolled climate change.
While acknowledging that Australia's energy sector is undergoing transformation, and
the importance of this sector to both consumers and industry, the terms of reference
(ToR) overlook the urgency of reductions in CO2 emissions or the possibility of
declining liquid fuel imports. These are discussed below. The ToR do mention
'emerging energy technologies and new energy sources'. We understand that the
emphasis on opening new fields for exploration, and streamlining environmental
approvals means the Government has embraced the promise of fracking and shale gas as
replacements for conventional liquid oil. The potential for innovative industries based
on renewable energy sources is likewise overlooked.
Although mention of the decline of traditional liquid oil, (ie 'peak oil') is studiously
avoided in the paper, it seems as though the Government intends to rely heavily upon
LPG as a transport fuel replacement. While not explicit, recognition of this decline may
be read into the line in the ToR about 'alternative transport fuel sources.'
The Australian community expects at least as much preparation, risk analysis and
truthfulness about these issues as is available already from various local councils.
Planning for peak oil and/or climate change is already included in policies from the
Sunshine Coast in Queensland, Darebin in suburban Melbourne, the city of Stirling in
Western Australia, and Meander Valley in Tasmania.
Anything less does not rise to the asserted desire of the White Paper to 'maintain
appropriate levels of disclosure and transparency in energy' (page I).
1
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio, 1992 (the "Rio Declaration").
Other risk assessment approaches to climate change, fossil fuels and energy security are
available. For example, ClimateWorks has a carbon decision making risk management
tool.
The focus on unending growth is also questionable. Economic growth of any positive
value is exponential and therefore cannot continue indefinitely in a closed system. Earth
is a closed system with respect to its physical matter. Given that many emerging nations
are scaling back their predictions of growth, while many highly developed countries
struggle to achieve any, setting up strong growth as a unitary goal seems unwise. The
leaked report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, due out in April,
cites economic growth and population growth as the two drivers of increased emissions
that lead to climate change.
Two policy positions permeate the paper. Both assume that energy policy can continue
with a more or less business as usual approach. These positions are:
fossil fuel extraction and export will continue to expand and thereby help to maintain
Australia's living standards
reforms to improve efficiency in the regulation, infrastructure, production, distribution
and use of energy will be adequate for Australia's foreseeable future energy needs.
The paper sets a very low goal for cutting emissions, only 5% on 2000 levels by 2020.
This will not contribute to slowing dangerous climate change. Before it was abolished,
the Climate Change Authority said that reductions of emissions of 15% to 25% would
be necessary by 2020. Other scientists have argued for stronger targets. For example,
Peter Christoff, has argued for 38% as a minimum reduction (Christoff, 2013)
This approach to policy is not prudent, as it offers no risk assessment for gradual (or
sudden) changes in the global and national energy landscape. Ignoring the existence of
both peak oil and climate change at this point in time is not going to protect Australia's
energy future, which is part of the paper's stated goals.
This submission comments on each of the major issues in the paper that are most
relevant to our peak oil perspective.
Security of Energy Supply
This issue is where a proper risk assessment should be offered, and our submission
focuses on this as the weakest part of the paper. The paper mostly focuses on electricity
supply, and takes a light view of liquid fuel supplies by assuming Australia can easily
import sufficient fuel for its expanding needs. The substantially different characteristics
of stationary energy and transport energy warrant different analysis and treatment. ACT
Peak Oil recommends a much clearer delineation of the two sectors in the green paper.
This complacent view is being challenged on a number of fronts, most notably by the
US military, which is aware of competing demands and what could happen if less than
ideal circumstances come into play. A report in the Guardian quotes a US Army Colonel
warning of a global energy crisis. Even in the US, where unconventional fossil fuel
sources have been touted as leading to the US becoming a net exporter of energy, the
glow has already faded. Some of the risks cited include: increasing technology costs,
growing political and environmental risk, and climate-related demand reduction (Klare,
2014).
As a major exporter of fossil fuels with limited strategic reserves, climate change poses
potentially serious consequences for Australia. If the costs of climate change increase
suddenly it is likely that international mitigation will also increase and our ability to use
oil and gas would decrease. This could turn our economic forecasts upside down quite
quickly, with no Plan B in place. ACT Peak Oil notes the current government’s position
on climate change but also notes that Australia’s ability to export fossil fuels is
predicated on the absence of aggressive climate change reduction strategies in other
countries, policies over which the Australian government has no control. A period of
sustained climatic volatility and reduced agricultural yields would rapidly alter the
cost/benefit dynamics of action on climate change.
Other international reports note that a range of scenarios are possible, but even in the
most optimistic circumstances, and taking into consideration the current shale boom,
U.S. production is still expected to peak by 2020 or so (Plumber, 2014). Pollard (2013)
(a member of Peak Oil ACT) presents the facts relating to the shale and fracking boom,
and possible motives of those who champion this much-touted abundance.
The investment costs are particularly important, as unconventional oil and gas takes
more energy and therefore money to extract, leading to an ever decreasing energy return
on energy invested (ERoEI). This concept of EROEI is well known in energy circles,
and should be considered in any national energy plan.
The paper notes that domestic production has diminished, and that approximately 80%
of refinery feedstock is imported (page 12). However, it does not question the
implications of increased dependence in the future on imports.
Ignoring peak oil and competition from other countries for availability of liquid oil
imports is a serious flaw in the paper. This aspect of energy risk is being examined
seriously by the US military.
The paper discusses the 'oversupply' of electricity, partly caused by supply from
renewables, particularly large scale wind. At the same time, it notes a 59% increase in
household prices for electricity over 4 years, which it partly attributes to feed-in tariffs
and the Renewable Energy Target (page 11).
We maintain that community expectations, which the government seeks comment on,
would be to have greater support for renewables and while also preparing for the
inevitable decline in the availability of relatively cheap liquid fuels for transport.
Regulatory Reform and Role of Government
The key issue here for the Government seems to be the review of the Renewable Energy
Target and issues where 'tariff structures do not reflect the true cost of supply' (page 15).
Electricity tariffs are a complex issue and we do not offer a full analysis of this issue.
However, the value of the RET has been described by the Clean Energy Council. These
benefits include:
Protection against the rising cost of fossil fuels
Production of renewables on our own soil helps meet our international commitments
for reducing carbon emissions without buying overseas permits
The RET helps to build an Australian industry, attracting investment and providing
employment in a global growth industry.
A proper risk assessment would include a scenario in which technological changes and
improvements to on-site energy storage would lead to increasing numbers of homes and
business going off the grid, thereby undermining the business case for electricity
suppliers and retailers.
A possible comparison might be the drop in landline telephony. The rise in mobile
phone availability and the growth of smart phones, along with improvements to internet
telephony, have seen many businesses and homes do the sums and realise that charges
for their fixed phone lines and internet connections would be better invested in more
flexible mobile capacity. In the United States, nearly half of all homes have abandoned
landlines. See, for example, Harrison, 2012.
There is a need to balance the need for a return on investment in additional electricity
infrastructure with planning for peak vs minimal loads. Likewise, electricity suppliers
reliant on large scale power plants have less flexibility than diffuse, smaller scale
renewable sources, and has to be worked into a business plan that offers a fair return for
retailers and a fair tariff for producers. Where the balance is struck may also change
over time, if extreme events and/or the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions become
a larger policy influence. Currently, infrastructure may be in excess of requirements, and
consumers should not have to guarantee the return for retailers.
We believe the role of government is to face the energy challenges and encourage, via
appropriate policy settings and regulation, an adaptive approach which will allow
Australia to continue to function without incurring enormous disadvantage, either to
consumers or businesses.
To this end ACT Peak Oil strongly recommends the creation of a strategic oil reserve.
Costs are likely to rise under all scenarios, and it would be appropriate to pay for the
strategic reserve with an indexation of the fuel excise. Similar approaches have been
advocated elsewhere, including a report by the National Roads and Motoring
Association (NRMA).
Growth and Investment
The paper has as a central policy goal 'coal and LNG sectors will experience a large
scale ramp up in production capacity' (page 19). In keeping with this unitary goal, the
section on growth and investment is largely about removing regulatory impediments to
further leases and exploration.
As discussed in the Introduction to this submission, a more prudent risk analysis
approach would examine the possibility that Australia's economy could enter a low or
no growth phase, and that fossil fuel assets could become 'stranded'.
The additional issue of climate change, which is not acknowledged in the Government
White Paper on Energy, leads to a broader risk analysis for energy and Australia's
economy. Reaching for expanded coal exports carries the high risk that these assets and
investments will become 'stranded' should a collapse in world prices and demand for
coal eventuate.
This concern has been in the public domain for some time, including reports by
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and the International Energy Agency (IEA). It is
alarming that the Government's energy White Paper fails to consider this risk. Given
that even the United Nations climate chief recommends divestment of fossil fuel backed
funds, it must be concluded that there is a significant risk that Australia's coal export
expansion could be threatened by greater action and concern about climate change.
Trade and International Relations
Australia should advocate oil depletion protocols, which essentially require that all
countries reduce consumption at the same rate as oil production declines, thereby
making the rise in oil prices steadier and more manageable as well as reducing the
possibility of conflict over declining supplies.
Driving Energy Productivity
ACT Peak Oil welcomes the recognition in the white paper that there are benefits to cost
reflective pricing. We hope that this is the first step towards the Government beginning
an honest conversation with the Australian community about the need to raise petrol
prices to drive the transition away from an oil-reliant economy. We will adapt to a world
with less petrol, the only question is whether that transition happens suddenly and
chaotically or in a steady but managed fashion. Increasing petrol excise to ensure that
its price matches its scarcity and economic primacy would be a clear act of leadership.
Alternative and Emerging Energy Sources and Technology
The paper states that the proportion of energy produced by renewables has remained
largely constant over the past decade (page 3). This contradicts what the Climate
Change Authority says: 'Since the introduction of the Mandatory Renewable Energy
Target (MRET) in 2001, Australia's renewable electricity capacity has almost doubled,
increasing from around 10,650 megawatts (MW) in 2001 to around 19,700 MW in 2012
... renewable generation from sources other than hydro now account for more than 50
per cent of total installed renewable capacity.'
The White Paper's Issues Snapshot (page 8) does include as a final item 'Encouraging
competitive renewable, low emission technologies and alternative energy sources.' In
the set of questions they are seeking comment on they include the review of 'existing
network tariff structures in the face of rapidly growing deployment of grid backed up
distributed energy systems, to ensure proper distribution of costs' (page 10). This
statement would seem to be consistent with some calls by electricity suppliers to charge
solar producers for inputting into the grid.
This is curious, as the paper has already said that electricity production from renewables
has only increased by 1% in the past decade. This small amount would seem negligible,
and contradicts other sources that say the uptake of renewables in Australian
households, particularly solar, has been substantial. The Clean Energy Council quotes
the Clean Energy Regulator's data showing that more than two million household
systems have now been installed at homes across the country, most of which are either
solar power systems or solar water heaters. As discussed above, policies which penalise
grid input from renewable energy producers could encourage them to go off-grid. This
would be an unintended consequence for electricity retailers, but could be helpful in
reducing greenhouse emissions. Such scenarios have already been suggested.
Other options for renewable energy are not fully considered in the White Paper. ACT
Peak Oil is unconvinced of the merits of biofuels sourced from arable land, which would
reduce food supply. However, there are a number of creative alternative approaches to
both growth and investment in Australia's energy future that would also achieve very
ambitious emissions targets. These include the proposals by 350.org for massive wind
and solar expansion and the work of Julian Cribb, who envisages Australia as a supplier
of electricity to South East Asia via algal energy. Other reports also emphasise this
potential. These approaches, while not yet commercially viable, offer directions which
should be carefully monitored and supported with research.
Dr Karin Geiselhart
Executive Committee member
ACT Peak Oil
References
350.org
ACT Peak Oil http://act-peakoil.org/
Ahmed, Nafeez. US Army colonel: world is sleepwalking to a global energy crisis. 17
January 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earthinsight/2014/jan/17/peak-oil-oilandgascompanies
Algal biofuels a $50bn industry 22 May 2013, Science Alert
http://www.acapma.com.au/articles/algal-biofuels-a--50bn-industry.html
Australia’s Liquid Fuel Security A Report for NRMA Motoring and Services’.
www.mynrma.com.au/media/Fuel_Security_Report.pdf
Australia's coal expansion risks stranded assets with global warming
https://indymedia.org.au/2013/12/27/australias-coal-expansion-risks-stranded-assetswith-global-warming
Central Intelligence Agency. CIA World Fact Book. Country Comparison. Oil - proved
reserves https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/rankorder/2178rank.html
Clean Energy Council press release January 2014. Two million clean energy
households. http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/media-centre/mediareleases/january-2014/140109-two-million-clean-energy-households.html
Clean Energy Council. Why we need the Renewable Energy Target.
http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/policy-advocacy/renewable-energy-target/whywe-need-the-renewable-energy-target.html
Climate Change and Peak Oil Adaptation Plan Darebin Council, Victoria, 2009
http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/Files/Adaptation_Plan_Final_November_2009.pdf
Climate Change Authority. RET Report Chapter 2: Performance of the Renewable
Energy Target 2001-2012. http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/ret/final-report/chapter2
ClimateWorks carbon decision making risk management tool
http://www.climateworksaustralia.org/project/current-project/carbon-decision-makingrisk-management-tool
Christoff, P (ed.) 2013. Four degrees of global warming – Australia in a hot world.
Earthscan from Routlege.
Cole, David. (2005) The Precautionary Principle – its Origins and Role in
EnvironmentalLaw.
http://www.edo.org.au/edosa/publications/newsletter/edo%20newsletter%20october%20
2005.htm#precprinc
Deffeyes, K.S. (2005). Beyond Oil. New York. Hill and Wang. P 27-28.
Don't delay, warns final draft of IPCC climate report. The Australian, January 17, 2014.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/dont-delay-warns-final-draft-ofipcc-climate-report/story-e6frg6xf-1226804080335
Energy returned on energy invested
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested
Get your cash out of fossil fuel backed funds says UN climate chief
http://carbonbrief.us2.listmanage1.com/track/click?u=39b25e6afa81d7ffc0e925ee9&id=2007eb4c09&e=0eb5a6d
c67
Harrison, Kate. August 8, 2012. How To Break Up With Your Landline. Forbes online.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kateharrison/2012/08/08/how-to-break-up-with-yourlandline/
Hirsch, Robert, et al. Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk
Management (February 2005) http://www.netl.doe.gov/energyanalyses/pubs/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf
International Energy Agency. Oil Market Report. 2012. http://omrpublic.iea.org/
Klare, Michael. Think “peak oil” is a discredited idea? Think again January 11, 2014.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/think-peak-oil-is-a-discredited-idea-thinkagain/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=update&utm_campaign=socialflow
Lardelli, M (2010) “Can we feed a ‘Big Australia’” originally published by Energy
Bulletin on 6 May 2010. Archived at, www.resilience.org/stories/2010-05-06/can-wefeed-“big-australia”
Meander Valley Oil Vulnerability Action Plan (October 2013)
http://www.meander.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Meander%20Valley%20Oil%20
Vulnerability%20Action%20Plan%20Final.pdf
Murray, J. and King, D. Oil's Tipping Point has Passed. Nature 26 January 2012. Vol
481. Pages 433-435.
Oil Risk Strategy. City of Stirling, WA.
http://www.stirling.wa.gov.au/Resident/Sustainability-andenvironment/Sustainability/Council%20sustainability%20initiatives/Pages/Oil-RiskStrategy.aspx
Parkinson, Giles. 16 December 2013. EnergyPost. What if one third of Australians
choose to go off-grid? http://www.energypost.eu/one-third-australians-choose-go-grid/
Plumber, Brad. How the oil boom could change U.S. foreign policy by January 16,
2014 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/16/how-the-u-s-oilboom-is-changing-the-world-in-6-charts/
Pollard, Paul (2012) The phoney boom in oil from shale. Online Opinion, 29 November
2013. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15779
Schultz, Stefan. September 1, 2010. 'Peak Oil' and the German Government: Military
Study Warns of a Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/peak-oil-and-the-german-governmentmilitary-study-warns-of-a-potentially-drastic-oil-crisis-a-715138-2.html
Strahan, D. (2007). The last oil shock. London. John Murray (Publishers). 110-129.
Sunshine Coast Climate Change and Peak Oil Strategy 2010-2020
http://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/addfiles/images/cr_ach/cc_pk_oil_strat.pdf
Triple Bottom Line: profit, people and planet. The Economist, November 17, 2009.
http://www.economist.com/node/14301663
WorldWatch Institute (2014). More Businesses Pursue Triple Bottom Line for a
Sustainable Economy. http://www.worldwatch.org/more-businesses-pursue-triplebottom-line-sustainable-economy-0