Peak oil and government question

[skeptik]

Airport expansion. If the government turned these down, the public would not give a ****. It would actually be a potential vote winner. The people in the vacinity of gatwick , heathrow etc would be very pleased.

The construction industry has much more money in its pockets than the people of Gatwick and Heathrow. The people of Gatwich and Heathrow do not contribute all that much to Labour party funds (with which to purchase propaganda in the media), nor do they give lucrative directorships to retired Government ministers and senior civil servants.

-- 2012 Olympics This is a' nice to have', if we didnt get it (o what a shame!) then I dont believe this would of lost the government any political capital.

see answer above. A nice one for the construction industry.

-- T Blair mortgaging a ?3 million mansion on projections of US lecture curcuit earnings (is he mad????? - 2009 we are talking about here)

Dont forget his directorship with the Carlyle Group. I bet its already organised. If he doesnt get one I'm sure he'll be most dissapointed. He's always whinged about how badly paid a prime minister is and as a narcissist it must irk like hell that Cherie earns more than he does.

-- House building program Again , this is going to make very little difference in the currently very over heated housing bubble. So why the F--k bother? Why not keep that land aside for the post peak world? nobody would of even noticed and the government certainly wouldnt of lost any votes.

It keeps the economy propped up and contributions to the Labour party and Labour ministers pension plans coming in. Money makes the world go around, the world go around....

-- Road charging proposals , Why the hell are the government even bothering looking into this? No one is going to be able to run a car in 2012 + let alone instal GPS gizmos to charge us by the mile. FFS!

Very expensive, very silly. I agree, a waste of time and money. The problem will as you say sort itself out eventually.

-- Cutting back armed services - We are led to believe it will be one big resource war post peak , so if this is the case , why is the UK scaling back the armed services? We now only have one aircraft carrier in service. What a joke, without the yanks , we aint securing any resources by force!!!

Aircraft carriers are increasingly sitting ducks against long range missiles, which are only going to get 'smarter' as time goes by. If you're old enough you will remember that one Argentinian jet fighter armed with one missile was all that was required to take out a British destroyer, and that was back in the 80's. Electronics has moved on some since then. I dont agree with the concept of securing resources by force anyway. What are we, some sort of rogue state? (don't answer that - its too embarassing) If we are willing to bid in the open market the sellers will be there. Exporting countries are just as dependent on the continuance of the oil trade for their existence as we are. Terrorists (the major threat) cannot be combatted with aircraft carriers anyway. Only intelligence and police work can do that job.

There are so many examples of this. There are so many issues the government could of left alone to favour a post peak world, which the voter would not of given a shit about , yet they have gone ahead and done the complete opposite. Why? , for god sake.....??

Becasue their view of the situation is not the same as yours. Gordon Brown is an economist and Tony Blair is a lawyer. Petroleum geology and thermodynamics are outside their mindset. It's a different reality.

The one issue that nearly lost them power was Iraq, I understand (sort of) the thinking behind that , but the rest of it is lost on me.

What is everone elses thoughts?

I just do not get it....

Neither do they. It is a bit of a problem. Never mind... Keep on banging the rocks together.

[snow hope]

My view is that the upper echelons know all about PO (well before a lot of us) and have discussed it at length at G8 summits etc.

I believe it is a control thing. Governments can't come out and say the party is over and that everything is going to start going down hill - it would crash the world financial markets, people would panic and chaos would ensue with a likely breakdown of society as we know it.

This is simply a non-starter and the whole thing is being managed imo. I am sure many western Governments have detailed plans regarding how PO and the downturn will materialise and be controlled. We have all seen how the Patriot Act and new Bankrupcy and Credit card laws / changes are being brought in this year in the US. I think this is planned.

They know the housing bubble will burst. They know we are peering into a recession - but they have to keep pretending to the public and business and the markets whilst hoping a big discovery will take place.

Governments hide much more than they make visible - that is one of the ways of achieving control. Lets not kid ourselves that maybe they don't know. Of course they do! We may not think much of some politicians, but they are not stupid - far from it imo.

From the report linked above, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/issues.html

"It is expected that oil prices will remain high enough that non-OPEC producers will be able to continue to increase output profitably, producing an additional 6.8 million barrels per day by 2010 in the reference case when compared with 2003. Much of the increased non-OPEC production is expected to come from Africa and Central and South America.

No one doubts that fossil fuels are subject to depletion and that depletion leads to scarcity, which in turn leads to higher prices; however, there are many resources that are not heavily exploited because they cannot be produced economically at low prices and with existing technologies. With higher prices, the development of such resources could become profitable. Ultimately, a combination of escalating prices and technological enhancements can make more resources economical. Much of the pessimism about oil resources has been focused entirely on conventional resources. However, there are substantial nonconventional resources, including production from oil sands, ultra-heavy oils, gas-to-liquids technologies, coal-to-liquids technologies, biofuel technologies, and shale oil, which can serve as a buffer against prolonged periods of very high oil prices. Total nonconventional liquids production in 2025 is projected to be 5.7 million barrels per day in the reference case, up from 1.8 million barrels per day in 2003. "

[skeptik]

My view is that the upper echelons know all about PO (well before a lot of us) and have discussed it at length at G8 summits etc.

I dont think so. If that was the case, the more extreme policy decisions which assume 'business as usual', like building more runways , as mentioned by Totally_Baffled would not have been taken.

Dont fall into the error of assuming that "They" are any cleverer or better informed than you are. Thats just coinspiracist paranoia. The thought that "They" are in charge is just a comforting delusion. Its somewhat scarier to realise that nobody is in charge. Politics is not a pyramid, its an ant heap, and politicians mainly just react to circumstances, they dont really understand whats going on.

[MacG]

Politics is not a pyramid, its an ant heap, and politicians mainly just react to circumstances, they dont really understand whats going on.

Very good analogy. The same goes for big companies by the way. I see it on a daily basis. A bit scary at first when you realise it actually, but there is nobody at the helm. Nobody.

[clv101]

I find it very hard to accept that we, the peak oil community are any better informed than the hundreds of civil servants in the energy department. These individuals have access to all the information we have and the time and expertise to study it. They aren't stupid, they don't take IEA or USGS figures at face value.

[PS_RalphW]

I find it very hard to accept that we, the peak oil community are any better informed than the hundreds of civil servants in the energy department. These individuals have access to all the information we have and the time and expertise to study it. They aren't stupid, they don't take IEA or USGS figures at face value.

Have you ever worked in the civil service? The people with the
knowledge have none of the power. 'Yes Minister' was hailed as
far too close to reality. A polititions job is to give the illusion
of progress. The civil service's job is to prevent it at all costs.

[skeptik]

I find it very hard to accept that we, the peak oil community are any better informed than the hundreds of civil servants in the energy department. These individuals have access to all the information we have and the time and expertise to study it. They aren't stupid, they don't take IEA or USGS figures at face value.

So what are they telling their minister? Vagueries I would guess. Covering their arses. And whats his motivation to do anything about it? After all hes going to be re-shuffled to a different department iin a year or twos time, and in cushy retirement out of government a few years after that.

"Yes... Minister"

[DamianB]

I find it very hard to accept that we, the peak oil community are any better informed than the hundreds of civil servants in the energy department.

Chris- you're just re-stating the original point here. We are better informed.

These individuals have access to all the information we have and the time and expertise to study it.

They don't necessarily have the expertise and they work in an environment where sycophancy is prized.

They aren't stupid, they don't take IEA or USGS figures at face value.

They mostly do because the 'expert' task of energy security analysis has been farmed out.

We know more than they do. Full stop.

[PowerSwitchJames]

We're looking for it, therefore we can see it.

By it, I mean signs of terminal decline.

They're looking for signs of permanent increase.

People take in the argument that supports what they believe and they believe industry will invest the $9 trillion necessary.

It is a lot easier to believe that.

Or alternatively, they do know but they can't announce it yet because it'd be too devastating.

[Totally_Baffled]

Chris- you're just re-stating the original point here. We are better informed.

I really dont know about this.

Republican Bartlett and Matthew Simmons have both said in public that they have had extensive dicussions about PO with president Bush.

P Wolfowitz (Deputy of defence USA 2003) - Was quoted as saying that the reason why they invaded Iraq and not North Korea, was that they could not afford to NOT invade Iraq." It swims on a sea of oil."

Here is a guardian article:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/aboutoil.htm

Donald Rumsfield suggested way back in 1999 that the US should invade Iraq for oil.

All of this is because they are surely aware of PO.

Britain commited 25,000 troops to the invasion , there is no way Blair isn't aware of the PO issue.

Just MO

[DamianB]

I wouldn't dispute that most OECD premiers know about PO - it's the civil servants that I was referring too. That said, I would be surprised if those premiers and cabinet members truly understood the scale of the issues we face. This is particularly true with respect to energy economics and population levels.

[skeptik]

Chris- you're just re-stating the original point here. We are better informed.

I really dont know about this.

Neither do they. The politicians are not getting a consistent message from the 'experts'.

Heres the latest press release from the IEA
( "The IEA acts as energy policy advisor for its 26 member countries in their effort to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for their citizens." )

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/press/press ... REL_ID=159

?There is no shortage of oil and gas in the ground, but quenching the world?s thirst for them will call for major investment in modern technologies?, said Claude Mandil, Executive Director of the IEA

... then they have Matt Simmons, Colin Campbell et al.. shouting the opposite in the other ear - that increasing production rates will soon become impossible, and in fact production rate will start to decline.

The natural tendency of a politician in such circumstances is to prevaricate, do nothing, play for time.

.... set up a commission of enquiry, maybe. Get friendly journos to float policy options in the press as a softening up exercise should action become neccessary / inevitable (e.g more Nuclear Power) . Anything other than actually DO something which might be wrong.

Meanwhile, as far as other policy options are concerned, assume 'business as usual'

[clv101]

"There is no shortage of oil and gas in the ground, but quenching the world?s thirst for them will call for major investment in modern technologies?, said Claude Mandil, Executive Director of the IEA

... then they have Matt Simmons, Colin Campbell et al.. shouting the opposite in the other ear - that increasing production rates will soon become impossible, and in fact production rate will start to decline.

My point is that if you and I can plainly see that the IEA are talking rubbish and the Simmons/Campbell argument is far more credible why can't governments? I think it's unreasonable to assume we are more informed or just smarter than civil servants in the energy department.

After this thread and the sister thread on peakoil.com I still lack a convincing argument to explain government behavior.

[nancy]

I'm not sure if this helps, but this is a comment by a State politician in Australia who introduced PO to parliament earlier this year and was asked to put a task force together to address the issue at State level

But I should defend my colleagues a bit, I don't think that there's lots and lots of politicians here, or anywhere else, who are just sitting on their hands and saying nothing when they know about it. I think it's a genuine blind spot that has just had this debate bubbling away in the geological community and out in broader fringes for quite some time without it ever really making it on your desk. As a politician there is just enormous amounts of reading; reports hit my desk every day. And you don't really need to go looking for work, it just comes at you. So to go and find something that's not coming at you, and Peak Oil really wasn't - there's an element of luck in it. One by one as I talk to my colleagues here there's a reaction of "Oh my God, how did this happen? How come I don't know about it?" And, that's one of the big arguments that people raise, is that "This can't be right, otherwise we'd all know about it". And, the reality is that we'll all know about it sooner rather than later.

Now, he is admittedly well down the power totem pole, as he admits, even in a unimportant little country like OZ, so it will be interesting to see the reaction to his Task Force Rreport due October.

[rs]

Personally I think the IEA is just a front for disinformation. You only have to look at some of the connections of the people involved in that organisation to sniff doo doo.