by dashster » Wed 08 Oct 2014, 21:30:40
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DesuMaiden', '
')Why is peak oil so easy to ignore if it is so important? That's the question I'm asking...
In 2003 the Bush Regime attacked Iraq, saying it had to because they wouldn't reveal where their WMDs were that the Bush Regime was 100% sure they had. The mainstream media could have reported that UN Weapons Inspectors had gone to over 200 sites given to it by the US and found no WMDs. But it didn't. Someone came on Phil Donahue's MSNBC talk show and raised some issue regarding the pending invasion. Either the fact that they weren't finding anything or that we had no legal authority to attack a country. Despite good ratings for the channel the show was quickly canceled.
Dick Cheney among others, was fond of going on TV (even years after the invasion found no WMDs) and talking about how they needed to attack because Saddam had "kicked out the UN inspectors". The media never corrected him on his lie. Clinton had asked the inspectors to leave so he could bomb and then they weren't let back in - for a while. Ultimately, before the invasion the Inspectors were in and free to roam about the country with unannounced inspections.
There is a movie coming out about a San Jose Mercury News reporter who broke a story that the CIA was silent but aware that the Contras, who they were helping overthrow a leftist government, were selling crack cocaine in US inner cities. Three major newspapers - Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Time all attacked the story and the reporter. He was eventually demoted and later committed suicide. At some point the head of some spokesman for the CIA publicly acknowledged that they had knowledge of the crack cocaine sales by the Contras in US cities as they were going on.
The media is owned by large companies who depend on ad revenue from large companies. They are not big on going against mainstream views or the government view.
The mainstream view - at least the professed mainstream view - is that Peak Oil is a "theory" and one that has been disproven, or "mostly disproven". That is also the US government view - at least it is the official US government view. When a sitting president mentions Peak Oil, the media will mention it.
I would imagine that if we scanned newspapers from 1956 to 1970 there would have been no mention of Hubbert's prediction about US Peak Oil. After it happened in 1970 there was probably a lot of coverage. The media will be reporting on Peak Oil, but only as a current event, not as a future event.
It may seem that it would be harmless to report on Peak Oil, and get people concerned and doing things about it, and then have it turn out that we made it through the next 50 years OK. Even the optimists aren't forecasting that we will stop importing oil. Any lessening of our usage should help us in that area. But we have a stock market and real estate priced on a grand future, and all kinds of government policies that are based on things continuing to go smoothly for 50 years - including the importation of another 100 million people. Raising a concern is not going to be looked at as benign by the elite or the government.