Politicians know all about Peak Oil

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 12 May 2010, 12:52

There still seems to be a view from some people on here that politicians don't know about Peak Oil.

I suspect this view comes about because they generally don't hear politicians taking about the subject.

I think the majority of politicians are well aware of Peak Oil, but it is a bit like the elephant in the living room - everybody knows it is there, but nobody wants to wake it up, in case it suddenly springs to life and crushes everybody!

As we all know Peak Oil is not a good news story and there are no silver bullets or solutions that the politicians can put on the table and say here is the problem and this is the solution we will implement. This has prevented the subject being discussed at least in public.

That is up until now.

I think we are about to see things change (at last) as now the politicians have a new coalition and are talking about the 'immense challenges' ahead - this gives them the opportunity to start to talk about the elephant in the room. I do hope they won't let this "opportunity" slip...... time for Cameron to take on his responsibilities!

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 12 May 2010, 13:00

The EU is now proposing 30% unilateral CO2 cuts by 2050. Given the total collapse of US/Chindia negotiations on CO2 constraints, this can only be an energy security measure. Europe will have to burn a lot less hydrocarbons because we will not be able to afford to import them, when confronted with limited global supplies and (in a BAU model) a heavily industrialised and powerful developing world.

There does not need to be a clear understanding of peak oil leading to the collapse of BAU for rational planning based on economic survival in the old model.

In practice the collapse will still overtake the 30% drop long before 2050.[/i]

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 12 May 2010, 13:33

RalphW wrote:The EU is now proposing 30% unilateral CO2 cuts by 2050.

No, no. It's 2020, not 2050. That's an important difference!

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 12 May 2010, 13:35

Some politicians know about it, some you tell them and they still don't understand it Ive talked to some of them .

Lets say you have a person who believes immigration is a great thing you can explain to that person till your blue in the face that we wont be able to feed 70 million people and its not in their emotional interest to " get it ", because if they do they would have to reverse on their base assumptions.

Try telling people who are mad on street racing cars and drum and bass music they wont generally get it because all their life is is consumption and driving round in a car making themselves deaf .

Hippies or people who for whatever reason arent fans of the present system can get it to a degree because its in their emotional interest to get it, often times they have a over rosy view of things they have a utopian view of how things will turn out partly because their dream is this sort of rural Idyll .

Then you get people who have a romantic view of the apocalypse, I think there are some people who get it just because of logic but I think their in the minority

Quintus · Post by **Quintus** » 12 May 2010, 15:39

RalphW wrote:The EU is now proposing 30% unilateral CO2 cuts by 2050. Given the total collapse of US/Chindia negotiations on CO2 constraints, this can only be an energy security measure. Europe will have to burn a lot less hydrocarbons because we will not be able to afford to import them

That's how I see it; make a virtue out of a necessity.

But I think it's also the case that the west's slice of the cake is getting smaller. The planet's GDP is growing slowly, yet the GDP of certain countries - Chindia, Brazil, parts of the Middle East, tiger economies etc - is growing quite rapidly. More for 3bn others = reduced living standards in the west. Tighten your belts, folks.

Prono 007 · Post by **Prono 007** » 12 May 2010, 19:03

Interesting post.

Being aware of peak oil can have a very wide range of belief/knowledge about the subject. You might understand the term simply as a theory that fringe elements in society take seriously. Or you could be highly knowledgeable about the subject and belief that it spells the end of civilisation within the next 5 years.

Personally I'd think that most MPs are much nearer the former (weak) side of possibilities than the latter. I'd base this on how well the APPGOPO meetings are attended. Last I heard these were very poorly attended. If MPs were really concerned about PO those meetings would be rammed.

Gordon Brown repeatedly made statements about a return to economic growth which suggests he didn't really get the either the fact that energy was about to decline OR that economic growth is entirely dependent on growth in energy supplies. Can't be sure about Cameron/Clegg team but I suspect they're similar to Brown. They're ideologies are completely based on growth and capitalism and I suspect that jettisoning such beliefs will be very hard for them and most MPs.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 13 May 2010, 04:02

The APPGOPO meetings are very well attended, just not by MPs. The Tory MPs should know about Peak Oil as Zak Goldsmith would have told those who would listen. My MP knows but still mentions the G word occasionally.

I think they are just using the G word as a way of saying that things will get better as they haven't another accepted way of saying that. A politician has to say that things will get better as he/she won't get elected otherwise: just look at the reaction to the Tories honesty about cuts in public spending.

You often hear of "Sustainable Growth" now, whatever that might be. Could it mean negative growth? Maybe they are making an effort to wean the populace off "more, more, more."

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 13 May 2010, 09:23

kenneal wrote:You often hear of "Sustainable Growth" now, whatever that might be. Could it mean negative growth? Maybe they are making an effort to wean the populace off "more, more, more."

So that's why they talk about negative growth. It's part of the plan to introduce TEOTWAWKI to the voters gently. "We said there would be economic growth, but we didn't say it would be positive"!

Neily at the peak · Post by **Neily at the peak** » 13 May 2010, 09:30

I think this link means that Chris Huhne the new energy and environment secretary has signed edm 1453. Or have I interpreted this incorrectly?

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetai ... DMID=35715

Neil

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 13 May 2010, 10:21

Well, I can't argue with that(!)

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 13 May 2010, 10:43

Neily at the peak wrote:I think this link means that Chris Huhne the new energy and environment secretary has signed edm 1453. Or have I interpreted this incorrectly?

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetai ... DMID=35715

Neil

Looks like it. How tame.

Neily at the peak · Post by **Neily at the peak** » 13 May 2010, 12:29

quite! but better than nothing perhaps. My own MP refuses to sign edm's as they are "parliamentary graffiti" which does not lead to debate.

Neil

Prono 007 · Post by **Prono 007** » 14 May 2010, 19:53

Neily at the peak wrote:I think this link means that Chris Huhne the new energy and environment secretary has signed edm 1453. Or have I interpreted this incorrectly?

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetai ... DMID=35715

Neil

Good link. However I note only 69 MP's have signed - around 10% of all MP's.

90% haven't signed!

If they were anywhere near the level of PO awareness as people on here then I think they'd probably have signed without question. It's not exactly a contentious EDM after all - not if you know and understand the implications of PO.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 14 May 2010, 21:30

I seem to remember a web site where you can ask your MP to sign EDMs, but can't remember where it is. It's time to see if my new MP is better than the last one

Eternal Sunshine · Post by **Eternal Sunshine** » 14 May 2010, 22:04

jonny2mad wrote: Try telling people who are mad on street racing cars and drum and bass music they wont generally get it because all their life is is consumption and driving round in a car making themselves deaf .

Hippies or people who for whatever reason arent fans of the present system can get it to a degree because its in their emotional interest to get it, often times they have a over rosy view of things they have a utopian view of how things will turn out partly because their dream is this sort of rural Idyll .

Then you get people who have a romantic view of the apocalypse, I think there are some people who get it just because of logic but I think their in the minority

I think you've got something there. It's almost impossible to make anyone see an alternative point of view. Most people (including me) automatically justify their point of view, or come up with an arguement that lets them carry on with their life in the way they've chosen to lead it.

Anyone who chooses to believe something new propably did have a pre-disposition to that point of view anyway. (Like myself when I discovered PO, it fitted with nightmares I'd had since I was little, of a breakdown in society and a Mad Max style existence).