[lateStarter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lateStarter', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lateStarter', 'A')ctually, English is my first language. Your initial post was somewhat disjointed (or perhaps I have had too much vodka tonight). I personally don't think the gov't does any planning beyond today, maybe tomorrow at best.

I was with you up to the last sentence. What do the skeptics who believe in the conspiracy theories think the gov't has been doing for the past 30 years? Are you talking about planned collapse? If so, that would be harder to accept than their apparent inabilty to plan for the eventuality of PO. Regards...

[bboyjiji]

I think he's saying that the government knew about peak oil, did something about peak oil, but ultimately nothing resulted from these actions. So he says that we can assume that the government didn't do anything in the first place. Yay!

I thoroughly believe polestar has hammered his point. Indeed, the government is not part of a conspiracy theory. So what are we doing in the middle east in the first place? Is the currency exchange for the dinars exceptionally good or something?

Jokes aside, I don't see how arguing whether the government is part of a conspiracy theory or not is a matter of importance. We, as a society, are running into a brick wall either way. We probably should probably shift our attention to a discussion on the meaning of life while we're at it.

[turmoil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bboyjiji', 'W')e probably should probably shift our attention to a discussion on the meaning of life while we're at it.

[malcomatic_51]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', 'S')uch as the people in power, and behind the scenes. Why was there no "save oil" programs not exactly labelled as such, introduced?

If I was an all knowing "major government" and knew peak oil and all its concerns, I would be trying to ensure we save as much of it as possible. Yet they let the suburbs expand further out, not substantially increase rail connectivity and throughput etc.

So I put it forward that even if someone in power in the USA "knew" about peakoil, they didn't do anything about it because they didn't care or didn't think it was that important. So stop with the conspiracies about USA "KNOWING and IMPLEMENTING" peak oil strategies from the 70s

[elroy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'i')t seems quite possible that they didn't care about it.

[aahala]

I don't recall that the term "peakoil" was in common useage in the
US during the late 70s, but the basic ideas of energy limits certainly
was.

It's not surprising a lot more hasn't been done since then. The real
price of oil and other energy during the period was often LESS than
it had been in the 50's, 60's and 70's.

And quite a bit was done -- NG furnaces were at 50% efficiency, now
70-93%, refrigerators are using half the electricity as before--even the
typical SUV is getting better gas mileage than many cars were getting
before the first oil crunch. Government did spend billions on research
and development, on solar cells, wind farms, ethanol etc.

[Gary]

Leaving aside any dark consipracy theories (of which some have some merit, IMHO) there are reasons that people have not planned for PO.

When I graduated from High School in 1976, I was full of questions about the environment, energy, and geopolitics, as well as many other things.

Questions about energy or petroleum peak were simply laughed at.

All through college I wondered about some of these same things. Seldom did anyone respond with anything other than that sort of quizzical look one gets when the other is trying to decide if one is on drugs, or just naturally a bit off kilter.

Many people today continue to act as if we have no problem with energy resources. Any explanation will do that will enable us to feel that we do not need to change at all, if we are relatively comfortable.

Jared Diamond and others have done plenty of work to explain how us big-brained people get dense when comfortable. We stop questioning ourselves, we stop believing that any of our basic assumptions can be wrong. We start inventing stories about how right and righteous we are, and we fight to keep getting more stuff and more grandiose stories.

Does that help to explain why we Americans have ignored PO?

[Wallygator]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ancien_Opus', 'T')onight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.

... Jimmy Carter 1977 link follows:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/fil ... nergy.html

[grabby]

Politicians don't want to talk about peak oil
or about social security.

it tends to cause problems.

bottom line.

[Frank]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wallygator', 'W')hy was he off by 20 or 30 years?

[Pique]

Jimmy Carter spent a lot of time talking about and acting on oil conservation and efficiency. For example, he worked with the automotive industry and transportation sector to increase efficiency and reduce speed limits, set an example by installing solar panels on the White House roof, encouraged consumers to lower the temperatures in their homes, funded alternative energy research, and on and on.

Then the Republicans took power with their dancing president puppet, Reagan, whose first official act as president was to have the solar panels removed. Reagan decimated renewable research, cutting funding for alternative energy by 90%. He raised the speed limits, if I recall correctly, and never ever encouraged people to conserve. The Republicans have been nothing if not consistent since then.

So in fact, we knew about peak oil 30 years ago, and acted on it.

It's in the time since then that things have gone south. But with the exception of the Clinton administration, it's been the same demented bunch of neocon oil-swilling crazies running the place (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfie, Perle, etc.), just with different presidents on the throne.

[Daculling]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pique', 'T')hen the Republicans took power.....

[Pique]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')emocrats are all about creating more oil instead of using it up.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pique', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')emocrats are all about creating more oil instead of using it up.

[holmes]

"the Clinton administration"

an exception? God help us all

[Daculling]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pique', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')emocrats are all about creating more oil instead of using it up.

[spudbuddy]

I would imagine that a lot of people would be embarrassed / pissed off / to know the truth about what's been known/understood and not acted upon responsibly.
That's the whole point.
Half a dozen years ago, I imagine the majority of the population had some vague idea that whenever fossil fuels ran out, we'd just have some marvelous new invention/power source to replace it.

That says a lot about how easy the population was to fool. Corporate power does not plan for the future with the greater good of humankind as its first priority. And corporate power runs the world. Everything else is political tiddlywinks.
Those who can, will keep doing exactly what they do until they can't do it anymore. At that point, their game plan is to have enough bucks to weather the storm that will engulf the majority of the population.
I don't submit this line of thinking to any political ideology whatsoever.
It's just business - and that is the world's religion, far as I can determine.

The world's just been chugging along, playing the same old games. Tweaking this and adjusting that...business as usual.
(while all the little people rattle around like dice on a casino table.)

I can tell you, they'll love it to bits - to find us all squabbling like fishwives over random details, who did what, who blames whom, etc ad infinitum.
They threw us a good party. We all had a swell time.
Now it's Sunday morning and time for penance.
Hand out the birch branches.
Count the convoy trucks zipping along the Marco Polo road.
(one switch for each deisel?)

[pj_borlace]

It's the typical human mentality. On mass we don't attempt to sort issues out if we can carry on for a while, leaving it for the next generation to worry about.

Peak Oil is without doubt one of the greatest threats to human modern civilisation, but it isn't the only issue we've collectively ignored for years.

Ultimately, noone is in control of the situation. There are different views and opinions, we get bogged down in the politics of all of this and nothing gets resolved. Most government plans across the world are short term, intended to make the current party popular and win votes. They hardly ever tackle the huge issues with an organised, effective plan. If industry specialists raise points that are 'controversial' then governments find their own answers, for their own agendas.

Anyone who thinks governments and the media are here to make our lives better - time to think again. They are here to try to run our lives, make us buy things we don't need, turn our way of live completely into a live that makes them rich and powerful.

Even if an alternative energy source to Oil were found (which doesn't look likely) we don't have enough time to implement it into the industrial world. The only realistic option left is to change our minds. By changing our minds, we'll change our society and our dependancy on fossil fuels. Looking for the next big resource is like moving onto another planet because we've ruined the earth. It's a childish behavioural strait that we need to grow out of. Just a thought...

[PenultimateManStanding]

The CIA called the Soviet mid-80s peak oil production back in the 70s. I'm sure there was behind-the-scenes analysis going forward from the moment Hubbert was shown to be correct; the strategic implications are so obvious and consequential that it defies reason to think otherwise. I would submit that long-range planning does go on in military and intelligence circles and that they have expected it for all these years. To think we've been going blindly into the future is naive. I've been saying this from time to time for the past year and a half. Maybe polestar read my posts and that's how he came to his remarks, if you others are right and nobody else is saying this. But I kind of doubt it, surely others have made this point too. I don't know as I usually just read the open forum. As for why would they let the suburb spread continue if it was unsustainable, there are some ideas that shouldn't be too hard to come up with: first of all, what was the alternative? We would have had to convert to a command economy, a top-down Soviet-style central-planning system. The American system allows for decentralized decision making, clearly better while the oil does last. The prosperity of the US has benefited from the relative freedom of the population. That prosperity is good for the government and good for the military, and freedom for the population means letting them build what they want to build. Second, we will probably need a stronger federal govenment to handle the crisis when it finally does arrive, but that can't be done prematurely. The time will come for rationing and central controls, but it will mean a loss of freedom, which is not in keeping with American ideals. We did it during WWII, and we'll no doubt do it again. And another thing: the US military buildup has been going on stronger than ever even though the Soviet enemy collapsed. Why? It was not the way things were done throughout US history: the military was always getting short-shrift in peacetime in the past, but not now. I think it's because of a strategic recognition of what is coming. My take on the Carter Presidency is that he was out ahead of the planning, that he was overruled. To a large extent, of course, I'm in the dark about how things like this work. How much power does a president have? Why would Eisenhower warn about the "military-industrial complex" unless he felt that they were the ones calling the shots?

I'm not trying to spark a debate and I'm tired of the ideological, partisan bickering, and the "blame game" which is really pointless. Just trying to get at some kind of reasonable "big picture" as Monte puts it. If you can see flaws here, post them so I can maybe adjust my thinking with new or other ideas.