[maverickdoc]

Alright people lets nail these questions down.
Do governments know about Peak OIL?
Do some people in some governments,at some levels know?
If they know would they tell us?

American

Case for govt. PO knowledge-
Aggressively securing Oil/ and gas reserves (Iraq, Iran,SA, etc.)
Drilling in ANWAR
Filling up the SPR
Aggressively stopping domestic descent
Dismantling social welfare programs
Dismantling bankrupts laws
Draft?

Case Against govt. PO knowledge
Building Massive highways
NO case of conservation
Cutting down on research of alternative energy
Cutting funding for trains

China

Case for govt. PO knowledge-
Building many nuclear plants
Alternative energy investment
Aggressively securing oil/gas
Starting a SPR

Case against
Building millions of miles of highways
Stopping some hydroelectric project
Encouraging the Growth of the Auto industry
Adapting an suburban wasteful type of living.

Europe

Case for govt. PO knowledge-
Nuclear/alternative energy
Kyoto protocol
Discourage driving (high vat tax gas)
Aggressively stopping domestic descent

Case against
Not aggressively securing energy (Iraq, Iran)

Iran
Case for govt. PO knowledge-
Developing nuclear power /alternative power

Case against
Selling of Oil and gas like there is no tomorrow

[WTV]

It's rather well possible that govt. bodies and other members of the elites know about Peak Oil AND act upon it. Bu I don't know really.

To my amazement, in my country -The Netherlands- Peak Oil has not been mentioned yet in the traditional media (newspapers, TV). And my hints to several (some leading) newspapers nearly 2 weeks ago has not yet resulted in anyone mention this topic.

Our ministry of Economic Affairs does mention Peak Oil on its website,
http://www.ez.nl/content.jsp?objectid=29230 ,
but whether this information has made its way up the hierarchy?

It's big silence here in The Netherlands...

Wijnandt.

[Doly]

I've done an intellectual exercise: assuming that all these governments know about PO, what kind of beliefs would explain their apparently contradictory measures?

America: They know about PO, but they also know that America has no hope of managing it semi-effectively. Therefore, they take short-term measures in the hope that the S won't hit the F during the current term. Building highways is a way of keeping people fooled for a bit longer.

China: They know about peak oil, but they want to develop as much as possible before the S hits the F. Highways, after all, could be used by any kind of future vehicle.

Europe: They are the ones behaving more logically as if they knew about PO. They aren't going to war for resources, but they participate in Iraq and negotiate with Russia. Letting the Americans fight for them is actually quite clever.

Iran: They know about PO, but America is pressuring them in a big way to sell all their oil, and they are trying to avoid being invaded for as long as possible.

Any other alternative explanations are welcome.

[killJOY]

You forgot to add in the "Jesus is coming soon anyhow" angle.

[smiley]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')o my amazement, in my country -The Netherlands- Peak Oil has not been mentioned yet in the traditional media (newspapers, TV). And my hints to several (some leading) newspapers nearly 2 weeks ago has not yet resulted in anyone mention this topic.

[Njegosh]

am i seeing a disproportionate amount of clogs on this board, or is it just me?
A dutch blog Sargasso mentioned peak oil and even linked to this site as well as lifeaftertheoilcrash and all of a sudden .....well you know...

[killJOY]

What's a clog?

[WTV]

Clog = wooden shoe = assumed wearer = Dutchman

Now to be serious:

Not acknowledging the existence of peak oil and yet being aware and taking alleviating measures is quite well possible.

Mike Tooke gives in his "Oil Peak – A Summary" (October 2004) a succinct resume of the reasons for govt. and business to keep silent:

"The democratic system generally ensures that those wishing to get into or remain in power avoid spreading bad news – as their opposition will only use this to undermine them.
It is not until there is a present, real and unequivocal threat that a democratic government will, or indeed can, act. However this does not mean they are unaware – nor that they actively discourage or suppress information – it is just that the system does not encourage the raising of strategic problems.
Furthermore a democratic system doesn’t support commitments that extend beyond the life of one term in office – so a long term energy strategy is very difficult to pursue without agreement between the leading political parties.

From a competitive point of view, governments cannot set policies that seriously disadvantage them in the World market. In theory it makes sense to suppress energy consumption and invest heavily in renewables.
However if this were done without considering the effects on international competitiveness, the economy would run out of steam. Such a policy would therefore run into substantial public and business opposition.

Governments also take advice from experts – but those tied to government bodies are loath to present unpalatable information, so the supposedly august International Energy Agency and the USA’s Energy Information Administration are both largely gagged by political affiliation.

Equally energy analysts linked to the oil industry are unlikely to present problems as this has a negative impact on oil company share prices.

Meanwhile OPEC countries have continued to report high oil reserves in order to maintain their production quotas and/or secure World Bank loans.

Financial institutions are also concerned about causing doubt and panic in the markets. It is simply not in any of these organisations’ interest to express doubts over oil supplies. Obfuscation of the facts actually is in their interest.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory, in fact arguably there are very good reasons why you would obscure this information as it avoids, quite possibly unnecessary, panic.

However it also prevents reasoned strategic changes in direction that would reduce the medium and long term impacts of shortages."

[oowolf]

Article in "The Wilson Quarterly" Winter 2005 entitled "The Real WW4" by Andrew J. Basevich reveals "America's political and military efforts in the middle east grow from a fateful decision made decades ago that the American way of life requires unlimited acces to foreign oil." "The real WW4 began in 1980. Jimmy Carter, of all people, started it."

You didn't know we already had WW3?

There's also a chilling article, "The Dollar's Day of Reckoning" by Robert Z. Aliber.
All the major players have known about this for deacades.

[maverickdoc]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oowolf', '
')You didn't know we already had WW3?

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('maverickdoc', '
')Aggressively stopping domestic descent

[maverickdoc]

You got me PMS LOL

But the ground has been set to take away rights in the US and UK. I think it is PO related

[oowolf]

According to Bacevich (I know nothing) quoting neocon thinker Norman Podhoretz in "Commentary" magazine: Militarism has insinuated itself into American life (enamored of military might). "During the 80's and 90's, a set of revised strategic priorities emerged, centered geographically in the energy-rich Persian Gulf but linked inextricably to the assumed prerequisites for sustaining American "freedom" <presumably freedom from oil-based foreign manipulations--NOT oil-dependency [my interjection]>at home." "THIS 4TH WORLD WAR PROMISES TO CONTINUE INDEFINITELY."
Sounds to me like they've known what was coming and have acted according since the 70's oil embargoes, at least.
I can't imagine the other major powers don't know EXACTLY what is going on!

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('maverickdoc', 'Y')ou got me PMS LOL

But the ground has been set to take away rights in the US and UK. I think it is PO related