PowerSwitch

The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.

The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel.

"By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.

Article continues.

For those of you who have watched Firefly:

Wash: "...this landing is gonna get pretty interesting."

Mal: "Define interesting."

Wash: "Oh god oh god we're all gonna die?"

Mal: "This is the captain. We have a...little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode."

Poor old Wash, I miss him, it was such a shock....


*missing the point*

Given the increasing amount of PO reports coming out of the corridors of power, it does seem like the TPB are trying to get the 'news' out there without scaring the horses... erm markets... erm populaces.
*takes a ring side seat and sits back*

Yes but have you noticed how the Labour leadership thingy is completely avoiding the whole peak oil / global warming stuff? None of the candidates' websites have anything significant.

Yes but have you noticed how the Labour leadership thingy is completely avoiding the whole peak oil / global warming stuff? None of the candidates' websites have anything significant.

It's because they think there are no leadership votes in these subjects- it's as though the more important an issue, the less attention it gets
Similarly the issue of the economy and cuts before the election was barely discussed; the parties' had clearly all agreed to avoid the issue at all costs. They must think we're stupid.

Also, while the issues of CC and PO are complex the answers are not. However, as we all know they necessitate a huge shift in lifestyles and to neo Labour this is unpalatable.

I'm disappointed in Ed Milliband, who has been a strong supporter of 10:10.

I wonder what their father would say...

I'm sure you're right.

It's like we're electing a new band-leader for the Titanic instead of sending the Full Stem Astern signal to the engine room, and rearranging deckchairs instead of using them to build more lifeboats.

The other reason Biff, is that the Labour leadership can't comprehend the logical inevitablity (with PO and the debts) of the small state - thats why they are clinging desperately to the growth thing to avoid the inevitable that we are now entering into a long-term crunch in the role of the government.

Lord Beria3 wrote:The other reason Biff, is that the Labour leadership can't comprehend the logical inevitablity (with PO and the debts) of the small state - thats why they are clinging desperately to the growth thing to avoid the inevitable that we are now entering into a long-term crunch in the role of the government.

Labour understand that, but because they're in opposition they can talk about growth, knowing that it's not their problem to provide it.

nexus wrote:...Similarly the issue of the economy and cuts before the election was barely discussed; the parties' had clearly all agreed to avoid the issue at all costs. They must think we're stupid.

David Cameron mentioned, early in the election campaign, that we might have to make do with less in future and the Tory's vote share dropped drastically. It was noted by all the parties, who subsequently kept quiet about it, so, no they don't think we are stupid, they know we are stupid (in general, I mean, not those on this board).

kenneal wrote:

nexus wrote:...Similarly the issue of the economy and cuts before the election was barely discussed; the parties' had clearly all agreed to avoid the issue at all costs. They must think we're stupid.

David Cameron mentioned, early in the election campaign, that we might have to make do with less in future and the Tory's vote share dropped drastically. It was noted by all the parties, who subsequently kept quiet about it, so, no they don't think we are stupid, they know we are stupid (in general, I mean, not those on this board).

Quite right Kenneal - the politcians respond to the opinion polls and the focus groups, and the message coming from them was that the general public didn't want to have a honest discussion.

Whats more surprising for me is that members of this board, who are aware that at some point economic growth is going to end, are as deluded as the rest of the population on the need for sharp and sustained cuts in the State.

featherstick wrote:Poor old Wash, I miss him, it was such a shock....


*missing the point*

I never understood why the series was canned.

Anyway...change "engine sequence" to "economy/fuel supply" and "explode" to "implode."

Maybe I should've paraphrased?

Lord Beria3 wrote:Whats more surprising for me is that members of this board, who are aware that at some point economic growth is going to end, are as deluded as the rest of the population on the need for sharp and sustained cuts in the State.

I don't think I am. As a former Tory voter, part of me is quite impressed with what they're doing, but I don't feel very comfortable about it. I haven't studied the numbers to see if I agree the cuts are necessary for the reasons they claim, and it's not useful spending time doing it because it won't change anything. It wouldn't make me change the way I vote. I haven't voted Tory for years, and the Lib Dems would currently be my third choice.

I get the feeling that we need massive cuts, and to get out of debt as much as possible before peak oil, climate change and the end of growth gets us. As to whether they're making cuts to the right things, I'm not so sure, but again there's not much I can do about it personally. I think I can spend my time best by trying to do positive things towards preparing for the future, and hopefully setting an example that other people can follow if/when they're ready.

Not being in debt, not needing to live on benefits, trying to keep fairly healthy so I don't need to much from the health service, and not needing to earn too much so I don't have to pay a lot of tax seems a pretty good plan.

Sorry, I meant a small element, not everybody.

Totally agree in regarding to getting the national deficit under control before the implications of PO hit home (about 15 years in my opinion at best).

I also agree that avoiding debt and depending on government benefits is clearly a sensible thing. Once PO hits home, peak welfare (if not already) will force many people of government benefits.

Of course, this will involve a lot of hardship, but it seems to me virtually inevitable and a gradual approach of weaning the population of benefits, in the long term, is more compassionate even if there is a degree of hardship in the short-term.

Of course, such a message will be unpopular with some. I understand that.

JohnB wrote:As a former Tory voter

Good grief! I had no idea!

Tess wrote:

JohnB wrote:As a former Tory voter

Good grief! I had no idea!

Hadn't I told you? It's good to know that it's not noticeable .