[PolestaR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pique', 'J')immy 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.

[PolestaR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'T')he 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.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', 'N')othing was done through ignorance or malice. Which one is it?

[PolestaR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', 'N')othing was done through ignorance or malice. Which one is it?

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', ' ')no one had the power to alter our society from the government side in such a fundamental way.

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

Look at Japan and the UK as examples

I wouldn't hold us up as an example (UK), unless of course of what not to do. We're essentially little America, just as free-market engrained.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', ' ')no one had the power to alter our society from the government side in such a fundamental way.

[altlewis]

hi all, i am new and may not go about this the right way so please forgive me for that and my spelling and try to be gentle in correcting me.
also thanks for the site.

I think the queston "if american knew" ignores some rather odd coincidents.
Like, the vast majority of oil is bought/sold and the profit stored in dollars, hence the term petrodollars.
So if the price of oil goes up the demand for dollars must also go up.
This system artificially inflates the American dollar giving the ultra elite and powerful more buying power abroad while dooming American products in international markets.
Thereby causing an economic down turn which will in turn help them to acquire more real property at fire/tax sale prices.
The power elite created an environment in which the oil prices would become ridiculously low to help exaggerate the effects of peek oil.
Most “in the know” people have said for many years “ill make more off the last ¼ of my reserves than the other 75 percent”, or something very close to it.
Most energy producing states gave tax relief to the energy companies because the price was too low to sustain the domestic drilling rig count. A couple years later we have an oil crises?

The whole argument gold versus what we have now is so missing the point, we had to actually own the gold… this way our currency is backed by someone else’s natural resources which are dwindling therefore driving the price up and the buying power of people with American dollars…
This in turn wrecks the American economy but not before sizable investments are moved to other countries. Then they start the cycle over again. They will make oil relatively cheap at least one more time. You wait and see.

Im not saying peak oil is a fraud, not at all. I believe it’s a reality that anyone with the ability to think logically can deduce as truth.

I also believe its being milked for all its worth and then some.
So a politician stands up in the mid 70’s and tells America “we have to change our way of life” then the oil companies make a fool out him and his constituency by flooding the market with cheap oil.

It conditions people to ignore the debate, helping to prolong the problem.
I will say this “there is no energy shortage, only mechanisms to deliver energy in a manner that maintains the status quo”.

Just a few short years before the current crises the Saudis lowered the price. An official was quoted as saying something along the lines of “if we let the price get too high the Americans will displace our oil with alternative technologies”. I would conted it was a lie of omission, while its true the Americans could do it I would stongly suggest he understood why they wont and why they wanted lower prices for a little longer.

Seriously consider it, if you had a business that was hugely profitable but you knew you could upgrade and save your customers money but you also knew in the long run it would put you out of business what would you do?
Say you knew you only had x amount of product for sale then your customers would have to transition to a new technology because you couldn’t get anymore of the product. This leaves you at a cross roads, transition them off early and ensure an orderly change.

But wouldnt that leave you with unsold product that’s value will actually decrease. Or hope for an accordian effect that allows you to repeat the cycle of gouging the customer followed by begging for tax relief just before you gouge the customer again. Dos anyone believe any corporation in the world would voluntary drop such a system while it still had product?
Honestly how can anyone believe these corporations are that public spirited?
When have you seen any long term thing that would suggest such a possibility?
Even if the governments step in and start price regulation, the profit will be based on a percentage. So at that point they will purposely become more inefficient so their percentage is worth more…
Imagine you’re in a meeting room for xyz oil company its 1976, the topic peak oil. The geek in the room says “we think we will hit peak oil sometime after 2020 and we will completely run out sometime around 2110. Were do you think this conversation is heading? And at what point do you think anyone in the room asks what about the customers, what will they do for energy?
Would you guess it will come up in the first 5 minutes of the discussion? How soon do you think the question “how do we maximize our profits on the remaining reserves” will come up? Which of those questions do you think will get priority?
At the electric company the topic comes up, peak oil. And the new guys are befuddled. Their confusion prompts one of them to ask “but isn’t high production cost bad”? And the old guy behind him snickers as someone else explains, when we raise rates we get bad press and some government commission gets involved, they like to see us make no more than x percentage of profit. He notices the remark hasn’t sunk in yet and asks the obvious “would you rather have 4.8 percent of 10 dollars or 20”.
At either company someone asks “what about hydrogen, I hear that’s very promising” and everyone spits on the ground as someone patiently explains “we have to put a good face on it publicly but that shit will put us out of business or at the very least put our profits back 30 years if we don’t have total control of the legislation controlling it”.
If anyone makes any real plans that have any chance of going some were at these companies it will involve convoluting and over regulation to keep people from being able to make their own. That’s the real problem they have to create real emergences to justify the profits and help them maintain control when the change over is made.
Think about it, if the change is a nice orderly thing with plenty of time for honest debate and planning with the people involved in the legislation what kind of laws and regulations do you think we will get? On the other hand if its ignored till the last second and Americas on the brink of a carbon starvation diet and the laws are quickly rammed through the government, what kind of laws and regulations do you think we will get?
When the energy giants come forward with their ideal to save America and someone points out “hey, why are we outlawing home hydrogen production”, you can bet some politicians going to tell them, ah no we cant have that no no no, too dangerous. And when others want to discuss it the same politician will become indignant and ask something along the lines of “what’s wrong with you Mr, you want the children to freeze to death. Not to mention it will bring American industry to a halt. We have an answer right now, that’s what’s wrong with people like you. You want to talk a thing to death. We need something right now and my bill dos just that. We have been working with the experts in the field (meaning they wrote the bill for him) and have managed to come up with a workable solution. No bodies saying its perfect but if we wait for perfect think about what will happen to the children in the mean time”. The elected flunky will perform some kind of show and tell using some poor smuck that will be referred to as “my constituency” or “my people”. The person won’t actually know anything about hydrogen generation or the energy problem but because of the mind altering statement this person makes (which will be something along the lines of “grandma’s cold”) we will rush to back the bill. Then the tv will flash over to some tv commentator who will spew their normal crap and it will sound a little something like this “that’s deep, cuts right through to the problem don’t you think” and their co-whatever will say “yes your right that says it all, grandmas cold”. The press headlines will be “grandmas cold and the American people aren’t going to stand for it any more. Such and such was rushed into law backed by the overwhelming support of the people”. And no one will notice that in the process we will get the biggest piece of crap in the history of our government and it will take more than 100 years to get rid of its effect. Insuring the survival of many of the world’s great and admirable corporations at the expense of the normal human beings whose life’s they steal by manipulating the political and economical systems in the world.

And the biggest single coincidence to be ingnored will be that we were so fortunate to avoid disater just as the last billion barrels were sold.leaving millions to wonder, how dos america keep comming up with these great leaders just before disaster over takes her?

good night and good luck