[malcomatic_51]

I certainly don't think they are engaged in resource wars. They are bound to be manoeuvring to get their hamds on energy supplies just as everybody else is, but they know they can't just declare war on the world and get away with it. Yes, they did invade Iraq, but I am sceptical that was about oil - they would far more cheaply have got Iraq's oil by allowing it to be sold openly and hardened control on Saddam's regime. The guy is nearly 70, he just wouldn't have been a factor for much longer anyway.

The most likely action they are taking is teenage contraception - crossing their fingers and hoping for the best. Or ignoring it because they don't want to believe it. Their reaction to the absence of evidence over WMD in Iraq looked to me like people who had geniunely convinced themselves of something and were abashed when lo and behold it turned out they were wrong. I am not sure all these people are cynics. Capable of groupthink more likely.

There is very little they can do about Peak Oil. Commercial VIs and public ignorance/complacency paralyse them. What would you do if told your lungs were contaminated with blue asbestos and you were going to die of lung cancer in ten years' time? You'd get over the shock and keep going. Probably there is informal diplomacy going on amongst the diplomatic corps to build links with oil producers. Probably the military are preparing for emergency food and fuel distribution contingencies. What have they done about Global Warming? Nothing. They have just been more honest about it than other governments.

Democracy is being disgraced by the current political class and it is opening the ground for "strong men" to come to power.

[MonteQuest]

I have waited for everyone to weigh in on this before I addressed it further. Here is some documented evidence that supports my contention.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('malcomatic_51', 'I') certainly don't think they are engaged in resource wars. They are bound to be manoeuvring to get their hamds on energy supplies just as everybody else is, but they know they can't just declare war on the world and get away with it.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
Still think we are not engaging in and planning for resource wars?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', ' ')It is only in the past 4 years that our government has taken it a step further in practically officially declaring it for what it is.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Who could disagree? But that hasn't stopped people from waging war in the past. Why will the future be any different?

Logic and reality didn't keep Japan from attacking Pearl to get Indonesian oil nor Hitler from trying to get to the oil in the Caspian Sea.

And who says they don't think they can win a war over resources?

The reality is that the only observable actions to mitigate peak oil point to miltary action and nothing else. If the Hirsch Report is anywhere close, then why aren't we seeing more action with regard to conservation, efficiency, and alternatives?

Is the 2032 USGS peak prediction the more accurate one, rather than the "by the end of this decade"?

[JustinFrankl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'I')f you synthesize all that is happening there is this nagging unease in the culture at large that is working its way from our collective unconscious and slowly surfacing. This is highly subjective of course but at the same time quite palpable. Or am I just projecting this on to our culture from my own bias?

[creg]

The neo cons. stradegy is failing; and an seemingly endless supply of suicide bombers is defeating it's might and ideology.
As Monte said," The reality is that the only observable actions to mitigate peak oil point to miltary action and nothing else. If the Hirsch Report is anywhere close, then why aren't we seeing more action with regard to conservation, efficiency, and alternatives? "
There is essentially none. I think this is due to the disarray the neo cons. and Republican Party are in. I don't think Pres. Bush was in the neo con. loop in the first place. And now he gets most of the blame for Iraq so is sore with the ideologues. As Ibon has said the debt and go it alone approach has also meant a huge loss in their power.
As far as peak I think they are in denial most of the time. I bet they all would say technofixes will work- if forced to focus on this.Or we are not quite there yet. I think it is so much easier for many of us to begin to comprehend peak because it fits within our beliefs and probably less to lose. But even then I am not sure I/we are real most of the time about peak. Denial is pretty natural response to fear and powerlessness. They think more about the next election and the knee jerk of the day.
The image that I think of is a chess stalemate. The neo con. are there but denial of peak blocks knowing the coming desperation. When they get in a bind that really hurts my only hope is that the rift in the adminstration might thwart the next military maneuver. An oil field in South America might now look more doable.
Is there a new consciousness forming, as Ibon wonders. I think so like the stalemate- a sense of powerlessness and fear with some bewilderment. I'm not sure it is formed thoughts yet, so a vulnerable to influence place.
The loss of credibility by US&UK I would guess takes takes out some of the power central banks would have? I would guess any war makes them nervous, especially a more obviously resource one.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')The reality is that the only observable actions to mitigate peak oil point to miltary action and nothing else.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'M')aybe this applies to the US, but not to Europe. Most European countries are promoting energy efficiency and alternative energies. You can say it's too little, too late, but you can't say they aren't doing anything at all.

[pedalling_faster]

america's reponse to peak oil

stolen Y2K election
cheney energy task force
9-11
so called war on terror, including the occupation of iraq
stolen 2004 election

america is responding to peak oil. just not as neighborly about it as sweden.

[smiley]

This tread starts out on the basic presumption that politics has a goal. IMO the goal of politics is politics itself. To politics, society is just collateral damage.

You have one leader. And a few hundred people who want to be this person. All the political actions can be reduced to this desire.

The reason why politics has not done anything about peakoil is simple. If you are talking about peakoil, you are talking about very unpopular and drastic measures. At the moment there is no political gain in pressing for peakoil related reforms. You would loose voters, you would loose party support and you would make yourself a sitting duck for the opposition.

Oh sure you can ask for the formation of a commission. Commissions (in Europe) are relatively harmless. They take so long to derive a conclusion that everybody has forgotten what the question was. At least it gives you the chance to tell everybody "I told ya so" when TSHTF. You could even write in your memoirs about your heroic battle with the political windmills to stop peakoil.

But there are only two kind of people who could really afford to argue for changes, that is a president in his last term or a very senior politician with nothing to loose.

All the other plans that might be out there are concerned with how to avoid becoming the scapegoat when TSHF.

[creg]

Pres. Carter '79 " Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on our economy and our people.... This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation. The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them.


Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never.... the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.

Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow.
Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun”.

President Carter made blunders, but what rare honesty( some would say stupidity) for a politician as he called the energy problems, “the moral equivalent of war”. I'm not sure about all his motives, but he sure was prophetic. I didn't realize his ideas were so radical, and as Monte says" we shot the messenger".

[CARVER]

Nobody knows exactly when global oil production will peak and what the decline will be like, so that means that we also don't know for sure if it is absolutely necessary to take (radical) action now. I think most people have a tendency to 'believe' that the positive case scenario will become reality, not because it is most likely, but because it is most desirable. So far we have not found a price competitive alternative, which to me means that if one would switch to an alternative you run the risk of losing your competitiveness on the global market (and you free up supply for others, reducing the price for them, the oil price can drop a lot because production is still relatively cheap). So I think 'TPTB' are 'waiting' for improvements in technology that will provide a price competitive alternative.

In the meantime they need to make sure that they do not suffer from supply disruptions. SPRs can provide short term stability. However most of the oil is not produced in stable regions. TPTB need to make sure that oil will be sold on the global market, then they can simply outbid the less wealthy countries. I'm not sure if we should call this resource wars, they don't steal the resources, but they do want to have control over the flow, to make sure that it will reach the global market. For now that is, once they lose that ability to outbid others they might just take it by force instead of buying it. I'm sure they won't rule out the option of taking it by force.

That however doesn't explain why they don't stimulate improved efficiency and conservation more actively. I think they don't do that because it is difficult to sell to the public without making them aware of the situation of peak oil, which I think they don't want to do, because it might cause them to panic en masse. I don't think the economy can cope with a sudden shift or reduction in consumer spending. So I think with this they are relying on the public to slowly become more aware of the situation and hope they will make a smooth transition. I think they want to stave off economic crisis as long as possible, which means they can't cry havoc in public. And when they are confronted with it in public, they would make it appear as if it is a non-issue at the moment and that it will not be a problem in the near future, like the big oil companies have been doing. Peak Oil got more and more media attention and the oil companies responded with media campaigns in which they presented a more rosy picture than those that had been circulating in the media. My impression was that those campaigns were meant to reassure the public that they are aware of the situation and that we don't have to worry about it much, they are working on it. Whether they will be right or not, I can't say, but neither can they I think. I would be willing to make some sacrifices to reduce the risk of acting too late, but I doubt those unaware of the possible outcome will be willing to make these sacrifices without being told why.

Which is why I think it is important that 'we' inform the public, because we haven't got a lot of credibility, which is good I think. We can inform people about the uncertain situation, without causing them to panic. If they don't believe it, at least they have heard about it and they might be more sensitive to other signals, like rapidly rising energy prices. When more and more people become willing to make some sacrifices, the government and businesses can get the support to take action. That will take time though, but the more people support it the more they can do. Don't wait for the governments to solve everything for us, they are likely to shift the pain to those who don't have a vote.

[pup55]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')resident Carter made blunders

[deconstructionist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peripato', 'I')t might start out more as the West against the Rest, otherwise how do you explain the behaviour of loyal allies like Great Britain, Japan and Australia in the war on terror?

[coyote]

I voted for 'resource wars,' although 'don't know what to do' gave me long pause, partly because I believe that's the boat they're in at the moment. I think the oil wars are pretty clearly visible at this point to those who understand oil depletion... but I think TPTB are only just now starting to figure out that all might not go as planned. And if it doesn't, then the U.S. will have vainly expended a huge amount of its remaining resources in a failed attempt to secure more.

The people of the Middle East and Persia are hard and dirty fighters, they don't mind dying, and they don't like us all that much -- and nothing seems to piss them off quite like a foreign boot on their soil. They seem to have a differing opinion about us 'securing' their resources. Bombing the crap out of a nation with inadequate defenses is the kind of warfare we prefer. Invasions -- sending in troops, taking ground from the enemy, holding it, standing on it -- followed by reforming government and populace into a pro-Western and pro-capitalism model -- that is something we're proving to be not so good at, and the public is quickly losing the stomach for it.

(Mind, nothing at all against the troops themselves. As much as I like to ridicule Governor Arnold, I agree with him that they are 'the real action heroes.' The politicians who sent them to war, on the other hand... well, my feelings for them are a bit less warm.)

The other reason the 'don't know' option gave me pause is Congress. If you include them in TPTB, well, I think most of them probably heard about the issue for the first time last year, just as many of us did. Those paying attention and not fooled by the hydrogen mirage must be pretty freaked, about their careers, their shirts and their necks. I doubt most of them have much of a clue.

[deafskeptic]

I think TPTB is planning and waging a resource war and I also think they greatly underestimated the scope of the wars and that they misread the mood of the people in the Middle East and Perisa. It is clear to me that the whole thing was poorly thought out. I also think the USA may lose this war for much the same reason that the Germans and the Japanese lost WWII. They ran out of fuel. Unfortnatly [sic] that has not stopped the Neo-cons. They seem to think logic and reality is optional.

I think that the reason why not much is being done is that we're really deep into denial and the politicans have not forgotten what happend to Jimmy Carter when he told us about our sitiuation. I lalso think many of our politicans are into denial as well.

Last week I tried to tell my sign language interpterer about Oil Peak. She told me flatly that she didn't believe it and she thought it was a conspiracy of the oil companies to jack up the prices. Of course our geniuses will think up something in time. Uh-huh. Maybe. This was after I told her this stuff is finite and non rewnewable - and that there is no known energy substitutes that will match oil's properities.

If she's at all representive of the American public, I'd say we're not at all ready to accept the reality of peak oil. We're also woefully ignorgant when it comes to science and math (myself included.) I do have a basic knowledge of science but I've never gotten beyond HS Algebra. I hope to learn more math so I can understand this better. My background is in the fine and commerical arts not math and science.

I think only a reality check will shock us out of our hubris and complactecly [sic] and start the ball rolling. By then it will be too late for a painless tranistation. I do think a profound shift toward our environment and energy will happen but only after we go through much suffering in the meantime. I think it's time to fasten our seatbelts and brace for a rough ride.

[MonteQuest]

More ammo for my cannon...

Sweet deals: Behind the Iran 'crisis'

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ell, I did until I recently read an analysis by Greg Muttitt of the plans by Big Oil to enter 40-year Production-Sharing Agreements (PSAs) with Iraq. The deal is this: we develop your oilfields, and in return we get - for 40 years - a major share of your crude-oil production at favorable "at cost" prices. The outcome will be profits beyond the dreams of avarice.

To enter credible PSAs, there has to be a legitimate government in Iraq. There is none in Baghdad now by any stretch of the imagination, and which country has the power to to prevent one from being formed? That's right, it's Iran.

[lakeweb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'M')ore ammo for my cannon...

Sweet deals: Behind the Iran 'crisis'

To enter credible PSAs, there has to be a legitimate government in Iraq. There is none in Baghdad now by any stretch of the imagination, and which country has the power to to prevent one from being formed? That's right, it's Iran.

[rwwff]

Under the "other plan" option...

Something that fits with the neocon ideology of marketplace freedom being the legitimate source and addresser of peak oil.

One of the posits of peak oil disaster is the idea of a price spike with no time for the economic adjustments to occur.

Now, what if politicians here go to extreme efforts to drive up the price?

- continuing to increase the strategic petroleum reserve
- restricting the building of refining facilities.
- placing huge tracts of land and sea off limits (anwr, CA, FL, etc)
- throwing verbal fuel on the fire with leaked suggestions of war with Iran.
- alternately antagonizing and ignoring Chavez.
- continuing a high deficit in order to vastly increase foreign held debt
denominated in US dollars.

No price spike, all the way to $200 / barrel. Everyone gets the opportunity to adjust to new realities with appropriate purchase and lifestyle decisions, and at $200 a barrel all kinds of interesting things become economically viable.

In the end, they may believe that any solution implemented by the government would be worse than the disease. Better to spend your efforts adjusting the global conditions so that the private sector can create solutions that people actually want.