neat, the last ~2 issues didn't interest me much... but I bought NatGeo magazine now and then. I borrowed one past issue to a new friend, which has being receptive to Peak Everything and die-off hints.

Jack could've been reading from Dante's post here.
He said traders were betting on futures that the world is reaching the point of a peak in oil production. More MSM chatter is good. Each day on CNN's Situation Room, Jack poses a question each hour for viewers to reply to by email. Peak oil is the underlying topic of this hour's question.

Thanks! Post your responses here folks!

Will Jack read yours?

No. More MSM chatter is worse. Unless you are done with your preps.

From a personal point of view it is of interest to keep PO in the closet. Which might explain the resistance of admittance to evidence so far.

The longer PO is not part of public discussion the better.

Were in trouble folks!

A quick scan through the reply's shows that most peoples answer is hydrogen cars and drill more oil

We've been in trouble for the last 20 years. Do yourself a favor and read the Hirsch report. It explains how reasonable mitigations (conservation, CTL, etc.) are lengthy and gigantic projects that must begin 20 years before peak has occurred to avoid catastrophe. It would have taken 30 years of infrastructure redesign for a painless transition to the post-peak regime. So we already blew it years ago.

People, if you want to avoid trouble and pain for you and yours then you are working full time to create a life independent of the consumer society that will implode.

And then get down on your knees and pray that you are not caught in the suction of that sinking ship.

I worked in energy conservation in the seventies and we knew then that if plans were not set in motion at that time we would not have sufficient time to impact the infrastructure displacing the petro economy. Many people have made this known all during the last forty years to deaf ears. It is as if we were warning the people of Pompeii of the impeding eruption and they just continued to play. Like the Eloi in Wells' Time Machine.

In all of those years I realized how little the general public knows about much of anything regarding the things they need to live. Oil has been taken for granted for so long that something like what is happening now is the only way to get people to take notice. Unfortunately, like saving for retirement you cannot start when you are sixty-five.

It's a positive development after all, isn't is?
PO will correct and clean out a lot of dirt, including these self-declared Christians that do mistake salvation to be the immediate outcome of resource constraints, while PO in fact it is nothing but a trigger to something larger in the development.

They are to be recognized by their paranoid relationship with the birth canal.

Check out this gem I was linked to while checking my hotmail this morning:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Sa ... allon.aspx

If the MSM is carrying an article on peak oil (though not in so many words, of course) I'm inclined to think peak is here. It even quotes Simmons and Heinberg, and it all but acknowledges that we WILL have $10/gallon oil; it's simply a matter of when, not if.

Of course, the article assumes a "hakuna matata" attitude so as not to scare anyone (god forbid). There would just be a short term recession before the economy adjusted, we'd switch to solar, wind, and wave power, cities would be revitalized as people started growing their own gardens, yadda yadda. We might have some civil unrest, but nothing much would change except that we wouldn't be able to afford bottled water and life would be a little quainter, like it was in the 1950s.

As laughable as the article's spin is, seeing PO discussed so matter-of-factly in the MSM is a little scary.

$10/gal? Peanuts.

Many European countries are at that price level. I see more huge cars rolling around than ever before. My guess is that gas would have to rise to at least $20/gal before any significant change in car use and driving patterns occur.

The thing is that $10 a gallon is a very reasonable price for what it can do for you. The problem is that for many americans they are completely and utterly dependent on using a lot of this stuff just to survive their daily lives and in that case it is not healthy.

It's like around here you might pay $5 to $8 for a pint at a bar which is pretty high, but if you don't drink often or to excess then it is very affordable and even enjoyable if the atmosphere of the bar enables socialization.

Driving out to the mountains to go hiking with a few friends is still a bargain at $10/gal and it really wouldn't affect my choice to do that one bit. In fact, it could become more enjoyable if the roads are less crowded. But if I had put myself in a circumstance where I had to drive 100 miles a day to get to my job and my wife did the same and the kids had to be driven to soccer and we had to drive to get food etc. it would be a very different situation.

The USa is fucked.