[MC2]

There are a couple of threads addressing the fact that the Indy picked up the story on PO, it's now splashed across the top of the Drudgereport, etc. This is to ask, what now? As someone posted already, this has been in front of the public before (2005, USN&WR). I'd like to ask posters what reaction do you get from people when you bring up PO? Do you think anything will change because of recent headlines?

Here's my experience. I work as a professional in an international field, coming into contact with a number of fairly high level persons in many countries. Usually, after getting to know them fairly well (maybe after a second or third visit, while on a train/plane ride somewhere, or in a bar), I'll casually ask them about some of the PO concepts. Almost invariably, if I go too deeply into the theories, I perceive them beginning to look at me a bit guardedly, as if maybe they were beginning to re-assess my presumed sanity.

I always caveat the topic by saying "there are lots of extremes in the viewpoints being expressed on internet websites, and plenty of wackos out there, but why not take a minute some day and just google "Peak Oil." To my knowledge, none has ever done so. At least, they don't tell me later, if they did.

I tend to think that the occasional PO article, like the one in the Independent, gets effectively negated by a few statements publicly made by "industry." The fact this occurs so easily tells me the sheeple really are just that, sheep. They just want to be assured that nothing bad is going to happen to them, or, at least, that there's nothing to worry about just now. It's pretty sad to see this viewpoint from well established professionals at the tops of their fields, frankly.

Just wondering, do you get this if/when you bring up PO? I'm pretty careful where I do so, as I can't afford the reputation of being thought a nutcase, lol!

[Eli]

Yup, Nothing.

High inflation economic chaos and PO will be a lost concept.

[highlander]

I think the momentum may be changing. The preponderance on evidence (science) of global climate change is opening some minds. Articles that put scientists up against corporate mouthpieces are good for the credibility of the PO crowd. In three weeks though, Paris gets out of jail and we will be entertained with something else.

[emersonbiggins]

3. Profit!!!

[shortonoil]

MC2 said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')o you think anything will change because of recent headlines?

[Carlhole]

I didn't see anything much different about The Independent article than I've seen in many others over the past several years. I don't know why it's considered remarkable.

These articles usually point out that there is a group of scientists who disagree with CERA and the oil companies about how much crude oil will be available in the coming years and decades. They tell a little about M. King Hubbert and the idea of oil production peak following oil discovery peak. They mention the growth of China and India. They mention Chris Skrebowski, Campbell, Deffeyes or whomever and say a little about ASPO or ODAC. Then they warn that the price of gas could double, triple, quadruple in a few short years if the PO crowd is correct. Sometimes they mention alternative energy sources and the problems with those.

But sooner of later there is bound to appear a '2nd generation' Peak Oil article which assumes that the reader is already acquainted with the above details. I guess such a story would only begin making the rounds after a real energy scare and a flurry of media stories about the impending energy crisis.

I wonder what the next generation standard media story about PO will look like?

From experience, whatever it looks like, I know that it is bound to disappoint people on these boards. Probably the media will begin to show many more human interest stories about individuals taking steps to protect themselves and their families from looming gas shortages with commentary from this or that expert about whether or not these featured people are smarter or simply crazier than the rest of us.

[Twilight]

I see people buying broadsheets all the time, or picking up the free papers, and they're always straight to the back page for the sports news. Just because a highly-regarded newspaper printed it, doesn't mean anyone read it.

And as the impacts become more visible, the story will be the impacts, not the drivers.

Plus, most mainstream media articles on specialist areas are very badly written, because it is never a specialist writing them. They avoid committing themselves to an assessment and write in nice safe general terms. Even a full page article may not necessarily say anything.

[jdmartin]

I personally think it's not going to ever make a difference. The biggest effect it can possibly have is getting people to buy hybrids or try hypermiling - other than that, no one is going to do anything until forced to. Inertia is a pretty damn strong force to overcome.

The few people I talk to about peak oil, even peak cheap oil, believe that there's a conspiracy out there, usually a consortium of Exxon, Arabs, Environmentalists, liberals, and beaurucrats. The only peaking of oil to them is the inability to get the good stuff because the pushers are guarding the stash.

[bshirt]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', ' ')It took 12 years for the US government to finally design and implement the Organic Standard. It would take much longer to analyze the inherent energy in a corn chip. Do not wait. Buy Local Now

[sameu]

nothing

I used to be happy when a newspaper did a peakoil story
'aha now they'll get it, it's not only me who's saying this, it's in the newspaper now'

link it on a couple of forums, but it doesn't change a thing
people don't get it, aren't interested to begin with, don't think about it, and skip to the sportssection

[MattSavinar]

The 10,000 or so people who are concerned about PO will read every word of the article.

Everybody else will glance at it and go back to drinking beer and watching televised sports.

[Chuckmak]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', 'T')he 10,000 or so people who are concerned about PO will read every word of the article.

Everybody else will glance at it and go back to drinking beer and watching televised sports.

[MacG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', 'T')he 10,000 or so people who are concerned about PO will read every word of the article.

Everybody else will glance at it and go back to drinking beer and watching televised sports.

[malcomatic_51]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', 'T')he 10,000 or so people who are concerned about PO will read every word of the article.

Everybody else will glance at it and go back to drinking beer and watching televised sports.

[coyote]

I nearly rushed to forward this to my friends and family -- and then I heard a sound in my head.

"Eh."

I've tried it before... I'll probably mention it to a couple of people, get the usual knee-jerk scoff, and that'll be that.

[shortonoil]

MattSavinar said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he 10,000 or so people who are concerned about PO will read every word of the article.

Everybody else will glance at it and go back to drinking beer and watching televised sports.

[PeakOiler]

My apologies to the mods if this article has already been linked in another thread, but here's one more link to an article that has appeared on the web recently: InfoShop Link

It may be the same story that "the Independent" released.

Excerpt:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')A survey of the four countries with the biggest reported reserves - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait - reveals major concerns. In Kuwait last year, a journalist found documents suggesting the country's real reserves were half of what was reported. Iran this year became the first major oil producer to introduce oil rationing - an indication of the administration's view on which way oil reserves are going.

Sadad al-Huseini knows more about Saudi Arabia's oil reserves than perhaps anyone else. He retired as chief executive of the kingdom's oil corporation two years ago, and his view on how much Saudi production can be increased is sobering. "The problem is that you go from 79 million barrels a day in 2002 to 84.5 million in 2004. You're leaping by two to three million [barrels a day]" each year, he told The New York Times. "That's like a whole new Saudi Arabia every couple of years. It can't be done indefinitely."