[Concerned_Soldier]

This question has been lingering in my mind for a while. Why isn’t this issue being discussed on channels like CNN, BBC, or FOX News? I don’t watch too much TV news but when I do, I usually see discussions about asinine topics like the latest celebrity fashion. I only remember peak oil mentioned once on TV when I flipped to CSpan and witnessed a senator discussing the topic of peak oil and a potential oil crash. I only discovered the concept of peak oil after a random internet search.

People need to be informed about this crisis and how urgent it is. In fact daily segments focusing on peak oil should air on all major networks. They could even suggest cutting back on energy usage to help avert this crisis.

I don’t know what the situation is outside of the US but peak oil doesn’t seem to be a priority here.

[rogerhb]

Get used to reading the business sections, world sections and also follow the airline stories.

Time, National Geographic, BBC have all published articles.

Note that for mass circulation they are deliberately non-alarmist and cautiously balanced.

Senator Bartlett has made speeches to the cleaners in Washington.

[Typhoon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '
')Senator Bartlett has made speeches to the cleaners in Washington.

[MonteQuest]

It has been, but not eneough to garner attention. The hurricanes has done a lot to cover the drippings.

So, we must wait for that media event.

Waiting for Peak Oil

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Concerned_Soldier', 'I') don’t know what the situation is outside of the US but peak oil doesn’t seem to be a priority here.

[Ancien_Opus]

The reason is simple. No one wants to hear it. It's called denial.

When you take the peak oil "blue pill" you're stuck with reality.

Tell them we've got plenty of oil, the market will come up with a techno rescue, just like Mike Lynch says. Tell them you don't have to give up your suburban dream home or your car addiction because the problem is so far in the future why even worry about it, as Dan Yergin from CERA puts it. You hear what you want to in denial.

Tell them the wolf is at the door an you better do something! We've heard it all before.

Selling is what the mainstream media is about. If you can't sell people stuff then why on earth would any of them want scare folks with such a story. Only now that Time, National Geographic and Scientific American are starting to move some copy, some are showing a little interest. If they can sell a few more magazines, then maybe they'll run some peak oil stories.

Only now that the anaconda of peak oil is starting to strangle third world
countries like Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Yemen and Niceragua, does the subject even surface. It takes $3 / gallon gas to really get the sheeples attention. Now that it's down around $2.25, hey no problemo! Until, say
next month.

The chinks in the armor of denial are starting to wear thin. Hummer stealth story about a dealer hiding unsold inventory at hotels so as to not spook potential buyers. Solid fuel stoves are selling out in the upper Midwest. Hybrids selling like hotcakes, SUV's taking 45 days on the lot to move. Yeah the message is filtering out.

Connect the dots? POilers know about gas imported from Europe keeping the US afloat after our refineries got wacked. They're still less that 70% prehurricane level. POilers know Dick Cheney wired Electric workers to get those pumping stations back on line or else, to hell with those hospitals. POilers know the natural gas situation is abysmal. POilers know that all the majors oil companies with all that money, technology and high powered geologist haven't been able to reverse the depletion trend.

Unfortunately the facts speak volumes, Hubbert was right, and until we hit that wall I just don't think some sheeple are willing to listen.

[jaws]

Cyberpunk scifi author William Gibson said something really insightful in the documentary on him 'No Maps for these Territories'. He said that people cannot stand the present. It is frightening. They prefer to live ten years in the past.

Discussing peak oil means having to face a massive transformation in civilization within your lifetime. How frightening is that? Only two kinds of people can live knowing such a fact: leaders and nutjobs. You see people like Prince Charles slowly preparing his country to face the future, and you see people like Matt Savinar making a living convincing people they're all doomed.

The media used to be run by leaders, people who wanted to set the agenda, to transform society, and weren't afraid to rock people's cages if necessary. Nowadays it is run by businessmen who see only one number, ratings (or circulation). These businessmen are not leaders. They are just ordinary people, and are not interested in rocking ordinary people's cages with revolutionary information. That's why the mainstream media isn't discussing peak oil.

[gego]

Knowledge of the future is a dangerous thing and has effect that are not always what seems obvious.

Assume you knew for certainty that the price of gold would be $1,600 per oz. by next June. The current price is about $461. What would you do? If you wanted to take advantage of this foreknowledge, you would buy all the gold you could right this minute. The more people you told, the more they would go out and buy gold right now also. The more people who knew, then who would sell? If enough people had this foreknowledge, the demand for gold would increase so fast, and the supply decrease so fast, that the price would be bid up to something like $1,500 per ounce very quickly so that the only profit left would be an average rate of return. The widespread disemination of this information would alter the timing of the price increase and would you would deny yourself the ability to profit by more purchases at a cheap price over the months between now and next June.

My take on peak oil is that it is not really a resource problem; rather it is an offshoot of an overpopulation problem; 4 billion in the mid 1970's, 6+ billion now, and 8.2 billion projected for 2030 (2030 being the date where we probably will be down to insignificant yearly oil production). The sustainable population by 2030 is a lot closer to 2 billion than it is to 8.2 billion. Something is going to give.

What would happen if, instead of a small minority understood peak oil, the entire world population understood it overnight. That certainly would cause a mad scramble to position one's self to be among the 2 billion survivors. Since most would be taking similar actions, it would really accelerate the struggle to now instead of gradually over the next 25 years. You would have given up any advantage you might have had to acquire what you need to survive. Who would sell their country real estate to you? Who would buy your suburban home or your suite in the Chicago Tower? Who would sell oil for $60 a barrel?

The effect of widepread foreknowledge is to move forward in time the effect of what would have otherwise happened in the future.

Evangalism is a weakness. It is practiced by those uncertain of their belief who want the support of other believers. It is practiced by those fearful of being alone. It is practiced by those who believe that the group will take care of them. In the case of peak oil it is counterproductive.

[Flow]

Could it have anything to do with the fact that the US has heard it is running out of oil since the very early 1900s and those predictions have never come true?

http://www.condition.org/sm4602.htm


Or maybe it has something to do with there being two sides to the debate and no hard evidence one way or another to support either claim.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Flow', '
')Or maybe it has something to do with there being two sides to the debate and no hard evidence one way or another to support either claim.

[untothislast]

Mostly, it's because media outlets aren't interested in running stories about anything which hasn't (in their view) already happened, which can be shaped into a definable narrative, based on the actual and highly visible effects on people's lives (i.e. Katrina, the Pakistan earthquake).

Also, news reporting is now primarily presented as entertainment. To assuage boredom, stories have to come and go at a rapid pace to maintain the flow, and to keep up the novelty value. Topics such as peak oil, requiring in-depth analysis and some degree of continuity in the reporting, just don't fit the bill.

[bobcousins]

People are expecting too much of the media. They report news and events. True, some discussion and analysis goes on as you move further from the front page headlines.

The media is not a campaign group. It is not their job to shape public opinion. That role is for politicians.

[untothislast]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', 'P')eople are expecting too much of the media. They report news and events. True, some discussion and analysis goes on as you move further from the front page headlines.

The media is not a campaign group. It is not their job to shape public opinion. That role is for politicians.

[gg3]

Re. bobcousins item: "the media is not a campaign group. It's not their job to shape public opinion." Wrong. The media have been shaping public opinion in favor of more and more and more and more and more and more consumption until we've consumed ourselves to death.

So back to the starting point of this topic: why so little mass media attention:

Part of the answer is that the media live on advertising revenues, which are predicated on the entire worldview that encouraging people to consume more and more ad-nauseam is intrinsically good. People generally support the worldview that supports them financially. Media executives are no different.

We will see more media attention as the story becomes unavoidable, but only because it will have become unavoidable.

In the meantime, it's Celebrity Slaughter Sweepstakes, and Daughter Dies Daddy Cries, all the boo-hoos at six!

TV news is generally dumbed-down to the level of a 12-year-old or lower. Not worth your time. Best source of news is the internet. Start with BBC internet service and various liberal & conseravtive blogs and their respective links. Always good to get multiple sides of every story, even stuff you disagree with.

Also, the more you hang out on the internet, the more ahead of the news cycle you become. You'll be talking to your friends about something, and then a few weeks later they see it in the mainstream media. This will happen again and again, and next thing you know, everyone around you thinks you're the most well-informed person in town. Don't let it go to your head or anything:-)

[CARVER]

Here is my view on it. I think it is mainly about: How do you convince the public that there is a problem which requires them to start making some changes now, without causing them to abruptly make a U-turn all together, which would be devastating on its own due to the sheer size of it. If you say it is not a big deal yet, nobody will do a thing, all will wait. If you say this is a very serious problem, all will panic and start doing the same things. How do you get them to make a smooth transition (one-by-one)?

I'm wondering if the government could tell us there is a problem if that is the case? A lot of states have a significant debt. To pay it off they need tax income. Some of it is collected by taxing consuption. So if we were to lower our consumption the state would collect less tax income, so that is not an option for the government. If the government tells us there is a problem and that we will have to go through some tough years, it could trigger a massive change in our behaviour. We could suddenly cut back on consumption and start saving more (I doubt many people will invest it). Businesses probably would not be able to adapt fast enough, so it could trigger more layoffs and bankruptcies. So to prevent this the government cannot publicly admit that there is a problem on the road ahead (well, just around the corner), and thus have to publicly state that everything is going to be great, don't worry, keep spending. Are they hoping that one-by-one the consumers will change their behaviour and create a smooth transition? It has to come from the consumers. A company cannot stay in business when consumers don't buy their more expensive, but also more efficient products. Marketing can help in this area but the competition does it as well. But the consumers are being told by their government that everything is going great, and thus that there is no need to change your behaviour. If the problems however do get a lot of attention, and they cannot simply be dismissed, then it might be in their best interest to publicly state that the problem is real but that it will take a long time before it actually will be an issue (even when this might not be true). So they tell us, don't panic (don't stop consuming), but start buying the more efficient products we sell.

So I think governments and businesses are trying to influence the consumers to make a smooth transition, but they have to be very careful not to alarm us too much which could make us switch from a buying spree to a savings spree. But they are also hurried by reality because the problems are starting to show up. Doing this all while still trying to compete makes it an even more dangerous game. The early adopters (states and businesses) risk losing their competing power in the early stages if others decide to take a huge risk and wait longer, that could put the early adopters out of business. I think this makes it likely that we'll wait too long before making the transition, because they will try to delay it as long as they can. For example a country with strict environmental regulations. If other countries do not impose those regulations, then businesses in those countries will have an advantage. This is likely to attract the businesses from countries with strict regulations, especially when their products are allowed to be imported freely. It could result in high unemployment in the country with strict regulations, which could bring down the economy and leave the country in chaos. The consumer does not know how the product was produced. The consumer mainly looks just at the end product and its price. It results in a nasty side-effect of globalisation (free market): if one country/business starts disregarding the future, almost all of them will, because most consumers don't take that into consideration when they buy their products.

[ivuernis]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Flow', 'C')ould it have anything to do with the fact that the US has heard it is running out of oil since the very early 1900s and those predictions have never come true?

[untothislast]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CARVER', '
')So I think governments and businesses are trying to influence the consumers to make a smooth transition, but they have to be very careful not to alarm us too much which could make us switch from a buying spree to a savings spree. But they are also hurried by reality because the problems are starting to show up. Doing this all while still trying to compete makes it an even more dangerous game.

[Leanan]

The U.S. media is entertainment, not information. In the old days, network news divisions were considered sort of a public service. They earned the network bragging rights, but not money.

No more. Now the news divisions are held to the same standard as the rest of the programming. They are supposed to score ratings and make money.

As a result, we're stuck with a media that tells us what we want to hear, rather than what we need to know. IMO, this is the fatal flaw of capitalism. (Well, besides the infinite growth on finite resources thing.) The free market is great for responding to the current situation. It's not so great when it comes to preparing for the future.

If the worst-case scenario happens this winter, with rolling blackouts, shortages of heating oil and natural gas, and grocery store shelves bare, people are going to wish they'd gotten more info on the looming energy crisis, and less on, say, Tom Cruise's girlfriend. But by then it will be too late.

[bart]

Agree with gg3 and many other posters. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'T')V news is generally dumbed-down to the level of a 12-year-old or lower. Not worth your time. Best source of news is the internet. Start with BBC internet service and various liberal & conseravtive blogs and their respective links. Always good to get multiple sides of every story, even stuff you disagree with.

Also, the more you hang out on the internet, the more ahead of the news cycle you become. You'll be talking to your friends about something, and then a few weeks later they see it in the mainstream media. This will happen again and again, and next thing you know, everyone around you thinks you're the most well-informed person in town.

[Revi]

I find that I am interested in getting what my family needs first, then I'll tell others to get it. For example, I knew that the guys who install solar hot water would be swamped, so we got them scheduled to do ours, then I told people about them. They are a scarce resource. Why tell the rest of the world until we had secured our supply. The same with land. I found a choice woodlot. I couldn't tell anyone about it until we had bought it. What if they wanted it too? There was only one. It's just human nature. Right now there is a quiet scramble out there for the few things that actually have value. Land with farming possibilities, smaller cars, heatable houses, garden spots, efficient washing machines, woodstoves, piles of hardwood, chainsaws, heating oil, etc. All that other junk has been rendered obsolete by the new energy reality. That's why they are trying to sell it so desperately. There is somebody who will still buy it if they offer it at an attractive price. SUV's, McMansions, wave runners, snowmobiles, big screen TV's all on easy payment loans. The media is still trying to flush out the last of the cash before the heating season begins. They don't want no peak oil. It's bad for business.