PowerSwitch

I found this link on TOD:

http://www.bohemian.com/bohemian/06.17. ... -0924.html

which has this quote from David Fridley who is a staff scientist at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory:

Fridley also believes assistance will not come from the world's leaders. Transition can only be a grass-roots revolution. He points out that Secretary of Energy Steven Chu was previously the director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where Fridley has done much of his thinking about peak oil and Transition.

"[Chu] was my boss," Fridley says. "He knows all about peak oil, but he can't talk about it. If the government announced that peak oil was threatening our economy, Wall Street would crash. He just can't say anything about it."

Obama appointed Chu as Energy Secretary, so Obama knows about peak oil too.

dudley wrote:I found this link on TOD:

http://www.bohemian.com/bohemian/06.17. ... -0924.html

which has this quote from David Fridley who is a staff scientist at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory:

Fridley also believes assistance will not come from the world's leaders. Transition can only be a grass-roots revolution. He points out that Secretary of Energy Steven Chu was previously the director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where Fridley has done much of his thinking about peak oil and Transition.

"[Chu] was my boss," Fridley says. "He knows all about peak oil, but he can't talk about it. If the government announced that peak oil was threatening our economy, Wall Street would crash. He just can't say anything about it."

Obama appointed Chu as Energy Secretary, so Obama knows about peak oil too.

All world leaders know - why is there any debate about this?

It's easy as a Peak Oil "initiate" to flatter oneself that one is a member of an elite group who alone know "where it's at".

We also take any opportunity to flatter ourselves that we are cleverer than our leaders. This simply isn't true. The first thing that happens to any new leader is that they're briefed on the whole sorry state that the world is in - in case they didn't know already.

The questions are not whether they have been told but:

• 1. Do they believe it?

and

• 2. Have they the courage to do something positive?

and
3. Are they able to do anything about it.

Ludwig wrote:...
We also take any opportunity to flatter ourselves that we are cleverer than our leaders. This simply isn't true. The first thing that happens to any new leader is that they're briefed on the whole sorry state that the world is in - in case they didn't know already.

That merely makes them better-informed than us. Not necessarily cleverer.

And it's still worth our badgering them about it. The message being (to simplify a bit) "we know too, so unless you organise something humane about this, come next election yer out on yers ears".

Ludwig wrote:

dudley wrote:I found this link on TOD:

http://www.bohemian.com/bohemian/06.17. ... -0924.html

which has this quote from David Fridley who is a staff scientist at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory:

Fridley also believes assistance will not come from the world's leaders. Transition can only be a grass-roots revolution. He points out that Secretary of Energy Steven Chu was previously the director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where Fridley has done much of his thinking about peak oil and Transition.

"[Chu] was my boss," Fridley says. "He knows all about peak oil, but he can't talk about it. If the government announced that peak oil was threatening our economy, Wall Street would crash. He just can't say anything about it."

Obama appointed Chu as Energy Secretary, so Obama knows about peak oil too.

All world leaders know - why is there any debate about this?

It's easy as a Peak Oil "initiate" to flatter oneself that one is a member of an elite group who alone know "where it's at".

We also take any opportunity to flatter ourselves that we are cleverer than our leaders. This simply isn't true. The first thing that happens to any new leader is that they're briefed on the whole sorry state that the world is in - in case they didn't know already.

Do you have anything supporting this statement more than your own opinion?

I happen to think that most people in charge are deeply in denial. Otherwise they would simply not muster the energy to go to their jobs in the morning. Yea, doublethink is a strong one among people in charge, but I expect them to be "informed" on about the same level as the Soviet elite was "informed" in 1987.

MacG wrote:

Ludwig wrote:

dudley wrote:I found this link on TOD:

http://www.bohemian.com/bohemian/06.17. ... -0924.html

which has this quote from David Fridley who is a staff scientist at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory:


Obama appointed Chu as Energy Secretary, so Obama knows about peak oil too.

All world leaders know - why is there any debate about this?

It's easy as a Peak Oil "initiate" to flatter oneself that one is a member of an elite group who alone know "where it's at".

We also take any opportunity to flatter ourselves that we are cleverer than our leaders. This simply isn't true. The first thing that happens to any new leader is that they're briefed on the whole sorry state that the world is in - in case they didn't know already.

Do you have anything supporting this statement more than your own opinion?

Not off the top of my head. I've certainly read of references to briefings new presidents get, but I can't remember which of the numerous books I've read about current affairs they were in.

I happen to think that most people in charge are deeply in denial. Otherwise they would simply not muster the energy to go to their jobs in the morning.

There is undoubtedly some truth in that, but inthusfar they're probably not much different to most contributors to PS. I mean rationally I think we are facing the end of civilisation, but I'd go insane if I spent every waking hour thinking about it.

Yea, doublethink is a strong one among people in charge, but I expect them to be "informed" on about the same level as the Soviet elite was "informed" in 1987.

They are informed enough to having been making preparations for dealing with civil unrest for almost a decade, via increased surveillance and "anti-terrorism" laws.

I am guessing that WTSHTF we may see the results of long-standing preparations for things like food distribution and oil rationing. At the moment one can only speculate.

Government is not just Parliament: it is also the Civil Service and, indirectly, the security services. There may be a lot of clueless people in those organisations, but there are also a lot of clever ones.

In times of crisis, governments play their cards close to their chests, and their propaganda machines go into overdrive. Reams of bull***t were printed in newspapers in WW2 to keep morale up. And UIAMM no one would know the real story of the Suez Crisis from the Government's pronouncements and press stories of the day.

A lot of people seem to have a real problem accepting that their governments keep secrets from them.

Ludwig wrote: <snipp>

A lot of people seem to have a real problem accepting that their governments keep secrets from them.

Oh no, I have no problem imagining gov keeping secrets - it's the degree of delusion and hubris I'm interested in. The ultimate masters in gov secrecy were probably found in the former DDR, and look how far it took them.

Welcome back MacG - haven't seen you for a while.....

I tend to agree with Ludwig on this matter. Of course our leaders know all about Peak Oil. Just think about it for a moment - it would be absolutely incredible to think that the leaders of countries wouldn't know all about the issues in front of us. It is likely they know about threats that we haven't even heard or thought of.

I agree with the notion that if they start to talk about it and show acceptance of it then the Markets will crash and we will really go over the cliff. They won't and can't do this.

Its all a big game and nobody is going to tell the truth until it is hitting us all in the face and even then they will deny it and pretend it is due to something else.

I don't think it is the end of civilisation, but I do think it is the end of civilisation as we know it and that is going to be a very big shock.

Its not the end of civilisation, far from it. Its just the peak thats all.

The government are doing a little about it. They have changed their policy that the UK should buy food from abroad because it's cheaper to one of encouraging people to grow their own because there might be a food shortage. That's quite a big step.

I also know that the Tories are aware of the situation because I tell my MP, a Shadow Minister, everything I hear and I get the impression that he is now aware before I am. That was not the case a couple of years ago. It's just a shame that the knowledge or awareness hasn't percolated down to grass roots councillor level.

[quote="WolfattheDoor"]

MacG wrote:

Ludwig wrote: <snipp>

A lot of people seem to have a real problem accepting that their governments keep secrets from them.

Oh no, I have no problem imagining gov keeping secrets - it's the degree of delusion and hubris I'm interested in. The ultimate masters in gov secrecy were probably found in the former DDR, and look how far it took them.

I think it's just impossible to say for sure how much our leaders are deluded and how much they're keeping quiet about what they know, since the effect is the same: they act as if they don't know.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not suggesting I have faith in the ability of our leaders to get us through this. (Though Heaven knows, I sympathise with the size of the challenge of priming our selfish, atomistic society for it.) I simply don't think their silence on the matter can be put down to hubris; the most humble, clear-sighted government in the world would be advised to keep their mouths shut, while making what plans they could behind closed doors.

It wasn't secrecy that brought down the old Eastern Bloc: it was the combination of its dire economy and the end-of-empire apathy of its leaders (sound familiar? ). In fact Gorbachev had, for several years, been on a drive to make Russian government MORE open when the final collapse occurred: fat lot of good glasnost did him. When the DDR fell, it was because it no longer had Moscow behind it.

RGR wrote:and 3. migation has already begun.

We all sincerely hope you're having fun.

[quote="emordnilap"]