by shortonsense » Sun 23 May 2010, 10:08:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anders', 'I') believe mainstream media and politicians are on purpose suppressing information about peak oil, because to admit it and start publishing a lot of news about peak oil could have a catastrophic effect on the economy. Not good.
After having investigated just this concept, I am forced to disagree.
Whether its called "peak oil" over the past 2 decades, or "running out" before that, the concept has been explored in books, covered by websites since the www was invented, shows up in newsgroups, and was announced by Presidents of the United States stretching back to the 70's, Interior Secretary's back in the 40's and speculated on by industry experts in the 1880's, its always the same thing. We don't have enough, its running out fast, people are wasting it, it should be left in the ground for our grandchildren, the horror the horror.
The economy didn't stop when these people announced it, no reason why it should pay much attention to the current round of Chicken Littles ( a term of endearment) either.
Now....let peak oil finally getting around to causing some decent shortages, rationing, interfere with the soccer moms and their ability to acquire or operate an SUV, and the economy might not crash but people will certainly NOTICE something.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anders', '
')Even things like the climate change debate, and the economic recession are really about peak oil I think, but that the politicians will not admit that. The climate change debate for example is an attempt to reduce oil consumption to meet the global reduction of oil production increase.
That would be one of those agendas I referred to elsewhere, but its a bit time dependent. Back in the 70's when we were supposed to be entering the new ice age the relationship wasn't there at the time...as peak oil is used as a "green" excuse they do tend to integrate more than they used to.