Peak oil and government question

[skeptik]

"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?

Because they dont want to.

I think the problem you are having might be because you think people, en masse, think and behave rationally. I dont think they do. I think people mainly think and behave selfishly and parochially, not rationally. Most human behaviour is, as far as I can see, instinctive, not rational. This is then rationalised after the event, for the purpose of maintaining mental health - the delusion of rationality.

[PowerSwitchJames]

Maybe they're stalling for time / hoping there will be sufficient discoveries etc.

To announce that oil production has peaked and is in terminal decline is basically saying to everyone 'Game Over'.

And then TSHTF.

Not a smart move politically if the public and industry are not prepared for it.

But it is still more smart than trying to ignore it.

Which leads to a good question - should it be announced or should it be allowed to seep into the public consciousness via other organisations while all policies are shifted to fighting climate change on a rapid and large scale, which would as a consequence mitigate oil depletion to some extent.

The other thing to consider is that peak oil means the end of growth and the ongoing retreat of globalisation and that really sits opposite to their ideology.

We really can't expect governments to behave rationally. There are so many things where we have to ask 'WTF?' when it comes to government decisions. Climate change is the best example with Blair now going with Bush despite the evidence.

[peaky]

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.

Well, they have access to everything to which we have access - the reverse of course is not true.

As I'm a lover of quotes, a couple seem in order:

"It is very hard for a man to see what his job depends on him not seeing"

and

"We see things not as they are, but as we are"

The two together explain most of the behaviour we see from the government.

"Web of Deceit" by Mark Curtis ( http://www.medialens.org/articles/book_ ... eceit.html ) clearly shows that what the UK government says and what is does are often schockingly far apart.

Every day we are mapping the reality we each experience onto our own model of the world. If they get too far out of step there's a (mental health) problem so one has to be changed. For us, PO and its ramifications seem to offer the clearest explanation of the energy and political situation which we see in the world and that's the model we apply: We don't believe the government is always acting in our best interest. We don't have a blind faith in technology. We don't believe that the aim of life is to own a bigger car/house/plasma TV and that more money and more GDP makes for a more satisfying life. This means that we don't have a problem trying to fit PO onto our experience.

Now imagine you are a standard member of the government, or even most of society. More money is the reason you're flogging yourself on a 3 hour round drive to work, getting in at 8 and working until 6:30 - a bigger car, etc, etc. You've invested a big part of yourself in that entire edifice. Then someone comes along saying that all of this may have to change, and change radically. That you will probably have to make do with less - a lot less. How do you feel? So, you will look for a model of reality that fits how you want reality to be. So nuclear can supply much of our power, OPEC will open the taps even wider, the new BMW 525h (hydrogen edition) really will come onto the market in just a few years, science will find the solutions we need, planes will be more efficient.

Whew. I feel better already, it looks like we can have all those things we deserve after all. Aaahhhh.

[rs]

Some more opinion on how much the government knows about PO:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... mary.shtml

[Blue Peter]

Some more opinion on how much the government knows about PO:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... mary.shtml

Since I can't get access, you couldn't tell us what the 5 rules are, could you?


Peter.

[rs]

It is quite an interesting article, but he is basically saying :

"Ladies and gentlemen, there is a plan to deal with Peak Oil. It has been formulated for some time and it is being carried out right in front of our very eyes this minute. It contains none of the aspects you would like to see or hope to initiate but it is irreversible, etched in stone, and nothing is going to deter it. "

In other words, government preparations with regard to PO are "measures which protect the financial elites and major corporations."

So, the wealthy and powerful will be ok and the rest of us can go to hell. Given how many people treat one another it's not hard to imagine those in power not giving a rats arse for those less fortunate than themselves. Yes there are good people out there but I think they are in the minority if you took a cross section of the rich/powerful.



The 5 rules:

1. There is no combination of alternative energy sources anywhere that will enable current consumption and growth to continue.

2. Even if there were, it takes 30 years and lots of capital investment to change an energy infrastructure. Peak Oil is here now. The current infrastructure will not be rebuilt or even well maintained. The return on that investment for the financial elites is ?uncertain? and they will not spend any more than they have to on band aid solutions until the crash becomes apparent.

3. No government entity (federal or state) will do (or be able to do) anything to solve Peak Oil and energy shortages. The political system is utterly and irretrievably broken.

4. Until you change the way money works, you change nothing. It will be more profitable to let decline, starvation, wars, disease and famine occur than it will be to prevent them (Disaster Capitalism).

5. All real solutions will be place-based, local and originate at the grass roots, independent of government. What saves you and your family will be determined by what and who is in your own neighborhood and what kind of cooperation has been achieved there.

[skeptik]

So, the wealthy and powerful will be ok and the rest of us can go to hell.

Mr Rupert has a funny idea of how the world works.

The reason why the 'wealthy and powerful' are wealthy and powerful is because the people who are not wealthy and powerful a) work for them to make the products which sell at a profit and make the wealthy and powerful what they are. b) buy the products of the companies owned by the wealthy and powerful which makes them wealthy and powerful.

If the people who are not wealthy and powerul have gone to hell, then the 'wealthy and powerful' will rapidly become the 'poor and weak'

So who's going to run your production line, buy your products or shine your shoes when we've all 'gone to hell' ?

in the absence of a wealth creating economy (producing goods and services that people need or want), gold is just a fairly useless metal and money is just paper. Being 'wealthy and powerful' doenst mean dick under those circumstances.

[rs]

True, but I think we also need to consider:

For those with wealth and in power they have far more opportunities open to them than the rest of us. Who will the law will be protecting when TSHTF?

If we move militarily to secure the remaining oil who will be drafted ?

Look at the changes in the US with regard to bankrupcty. If the economy collapses who will be able to discharge their debts? If they can't, what implications does it have for them?

Look at the introduction of the Patriot Act/Homeland Security and our own similar "anti-terrorism' laws. They may be portrayed as for "our protection" but we all know who they are designed to protect and control.

[Totally_Baffled]

For those with wealth and in power they have far more opportunities open to them than the rest of us. Who will the law will be protecting when TSHTF?

I think skeptik is right.

If everything has gone to hell, what are the 'rich and wealthy' paying the police with? Money wont be worth anything

Where will the police live? Im sure they wont leave their families in urban areas if mad max has broken out.

How ill the maintain the water systems, farms , power stations etc You cannot possible guard all the infrastructure.

I just dont believe it is in anyone interests (even the rich and powerful) for things to go to hell, because it will be the end for the rich and wealthy too. Believe you me , if any attempt was made , they are going to be the target for 6.45billion poor people, and I dont think there are enough bullets to shoot all of them!!

If we move militarily to secure the remaining oil who will be drafted ?

You reckon 300 million impoverished heavily armed US civilians will join up willingly to be cannon fodder in a oil war? I think you would get revolution or civil war first.

[RogerCO]

I too can't see the whole fromthewilderness article, but from what he says in the opening paragraphs I think he might have a very good point.

Although Carter never made it to a second term, there is plenty of evidence that both US & UK administrations are in private well informed about PO, and many statements and actions, from 'terrorism response' acts through to detailed petrol demand control plans, show that there are (possibly coherent, possible unconnected and ad hoc - depends if you believe in conspiracy or cock-up theory of history) plans in place for the future.

In summary I expect these schemes amount to an attempt to keep enough control over the crash to prevent total chaos and maintain a degree of central control and supporting structures (eg the police/army) to transition to a totalitarian regeime whose function is to maintain a power elite. Most totalitarian states have run successfully for many years - Stalin, Hitler, Marcos, Saddam, the Shah etc being just a few examples from the 20th Century.

By learning from history and organising on a continental (or even global) scale a power elite might expect to do better than their predecessors. Note that this doesn't even have to be an explicit conspiracy; it could be just the next stage in the evolution of self-maintaining power systems.

Whether an explicit conspiracy or not it looks like all the ducks are being lined up.

The challenge for everyone is which side do you want to be on? Would you rather have a place (hopefully a high enough place, but only a few of us can aspire to that) in a post-oil totalitarian state, or would you rather see a more or less complete collapse of human civilization into very small isolated and/or warring units living a post-industrial life.

If you are on the side of big civilization then you don't really have to worry about peak oil - you just have to continue to enjoy the freedom (to consume) that you have today, and get yourself into a position where you will be useful to a strongly centrally controlled state (join the police?) and don't get chewed up in the transition.

If you are on the side of little civilization then you need to think about not just running away (creating a new community), but actually becoming proactive about making the collapse so hard and fast that the centre can not hold and the centerist totalitarian tendency does not prevail.

It will be a war, nothing less, between these two ideologies. Sitting on the fence will NOT be an option.

I believe that there will come a point within the next five years when if you do not want to see the forces of totalitarianism prevail you are going to have to take up arms to smash the existing system - and I mean that literally. The most useful training you can get will not be in alternative energy, but in terrorist action - how to disrupt and destroy.

The good news for those on the side of little civilization is that nature appears to be on your side. Climate change and capacity pressures (including PO) will help you.
The bad news for these people is that the other side have the weapons and have been preparing (whether consciously or not) for years.

The choice will be yours, fail to choose and you will be crushed in the middle.

I have tried to write this in a 'neutral' way to practice for not falling foul of the new 'incitment to terrorism' laws - another straw in the wind.

[Bandidoz]

Another thing to bear in mind is that studies are carried out for the Government by Private Companies. There is competition between such companies. As a result, the truth is often not told; the results of studies are "made pallatable" because the study groups do not wish to get their funding removed by being alarmist.

So, in other words, the advice being given to the government can be misleading, often quoting "comfortable" figures such as USGS/IEA statistics.

[fishertrop]

It will be a war, nothing less, between these two ideologies. Sitting on the fence will NOT be an option.

I believe that there will come a point within the next five years when if you do not want to see the forces of totalitarianism prevail you are going to have to take up arms to smash the existing system - and I mean that literally. The most useful training you can get will not be in alternative energy, but in terrorist action - how to disrupt and destroy.

Now that's how to get Powerswitch on the MI5 filter-list, assuming we aren't already....

Not that you don't raise valid points of course!

[MacG]

So, the wealthy and powerful will be ok and the rest of us can go to hell.

Mr Rupert has a funny idea of how the world works.

The reason why the 'wealthy and powerful' are wealthy and powerful is because the people who are not wealthy and powerful a) work for them to make the products which sell at a profit and make the wealthy and powerful what they are. b) buy the products of the companies owned by the wealthy and powerful which makes them wealthy and powerful.

If the people who are not wealthy and powerul have gone to hell, then the 'wealthy and powerful' will rapidly become the 'poor and weak'

So who's going to run your production line, buy your products or shine your shoes when we've all 'gone to hell' ?

in the absence of a wealth creating economy (producing goods and services that people need or want), gold is just a fairly useless metal and money is just paper. Being 'wealthy and powerful' doenst mean dick under those circumstances.

As you have explained it yourself: It's not a pyramid, it's an ant heap. The various actors are not acting according to logics, rather to instincts. The people with power, influence and money act according to system conditions and rule sets, and will of course make their various little empires undone because their very own actions. Like nightflies getting fried by candlelights.

Ruppert is generally a little to conspirational for my taste, but here I think he has just identified a couple of insect-like reaction patterns in our system.

[MacG]

Now that's how to get Powerswitch on the MI5 filter-list, assuming we aren't already....

Not that you don't raise valid points of course!

Oh my... Just imagine trying to write a weekly summary report over the conversations here. I guess they put the new hires on probation on that task, an then the senior staff wet their pants laughing when hearing the young ambitious ones trying to find some system to it.

I mean. just look, this forum sprout in just about any imaginable direction, except -until now then- violent overtrough. Hmm.. Not much sex either when thinking about it. Or sailing. And snowboarding. Apart from that, just about any direction...

[fishertrop]

So in summary then, we have 3 possible scenarios:
1) The Uk gov is ignorant of the energy situation and has little preperation
2) The gov knows about some of the probs but sees it has enough time to fix some of them, possibly with some nasty measures, but is still forming a coherent plan
3) It's a flat conspiricy - the gov are 100% up to speed and most key actions to date (such as iraq) are part of a fairly organised plan to get us to some endgame, in secret

Is that the long and the short of it?

I'm actually quite opne-minded about the possiblity of various forms of conspiricy in many places, but if you look in detail at gov actions and statements to date I see either very little to support option 3 above or simply the best most well crafted cover-up EVER, that has wiffs of incompetence deliberately thrown in often to make it look like the gov is genuine-if-a-little-clumsy when in fact it's 100% a 1984 done-deal.

My take is that lots of people in gov have lots of information but that no coherent plan has been formed that everyone buys and everyone has their own view and no one is driving it forwards.

I can believe it possible that GW said to Tony "join us in Iraq and we'll cut you 10% of the crude" but I don't buy the 1984-deal unless it's best ever show.

I see no clear direction from the gov - wind farms and airport expansion, statements about climate change but no change in road taxes for SUVs - even the proposed orwellian ID card scheme will be a failure because it'll be another 500bn outsoucing deal with more loopholes than you can shake a stick it, both al queda and post-peak britain will be able to circumvent it at will because it'll be a half-arsed job.

And finally, where's the tiny little leak from SOMEONE in the huge corridors of Whitehall, or a robin cook (bless him) style resignation on-principle?

We get leaks from people in whitehall all the time - but never a peep about these shocking post-peak master plans. Maybe MI5 nail em all before they can squeek....

I favour a situation where all the information exists in gov documents but studies and counter-studies disagree, power brokers have conflicting opinions (vested interests...), ministers have their own opinions depending on what background they have (a la vince cable) or who they dine with regularly but there's lots of disagreement (like the PO world in general) and NO politician is prepared to break ranks without the solid evidence that we all agree is virtually impossible to find.

If Peak Oil is really giving credence to a concept that we can't prove but is viable enough for us to take seriously, why should the individuals in gov be any different - not all of them draw the same conclusions from the same material as we do, just like all the PO websites etc....

I wonder who's the headbanger at cabinet meetigs who keps going on and on and on about it......