[DesuMaiden]

Hardily anyone I talk to knows about peak oil. And the people who know about peak oil don't think it is a big deal. Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, but peak oil is a big deal. Everything in society relies on oil. Without oil, this society will apart. Our global economy will fall apart without oil. Even our food production is heavily reliant on oil. Without oil, we can't produce or transport food, meaning people will starve to death. Yes, without oil, we can't even produce food, meaning people will starve to death without oil.

If peak oil is such an important issue, then why do so few people talk about it? It is the most important issue out there, and yet hardily anyone knows about it. And many of those who know about it are apparently not very concerned of it at all. I guess those folks don't understand the full implications of peak oil. The implications of peak oil should never be underestimated. The implications of peak oil would be huge. That's because our food production is totally and utterly reliant on oil. Without oil, we can't even produce and transport food, meaning people would starve to death.

Yet despite how important peak oil may be, hardily anyone knows about peak oil. Everyone cares about pointless useless things like sports and movie celebrities, yet the most important issue of all human civilization is hardily ever brought up in the media stream media or any discussions for that matter.

Why is peak oil so easy to ignore if it is so important? That's the question I'm asking...

[Withnail]

Why is peak oil so easy to ignore if it is so important? That's the question I'm asking...

I don't think everyone ignores oil or the importance of oil or peak oil.

I think the powerful people in our societies are well aware of it.

And we can obviously see evidence for that in the extreme level of militarisation in the Middle East, which is an insignificant part of the world except for oil.

[dissident]

The mainstream media is all about pushing established narratives be they on foreign affairs or domestic issues. It is basically a lickspittle operation that does not challenge the status quo and makes sure that the perception of business as usual into the far future is the accepted view.

The amount of articles I have seen that confuse kerogen deposits in shale with oil deposits in shale-like rock formations (e.g. the Bakken) is incredible. This "mistake" cannot be an accident. There must be at least one reporter with a clue. But they are either drowned out or censored by their editors. It may be some defect in the news business but at the end of the day the result is the same: a spew of don't worry be happy propaganda.

[DesuMaiden]

Why is peak oil so easy to ignore if it is so important? That's the question I'm asking...

I don't think everyone ignores oil or the importance of oil or peak oil.

I think the powerful people in our societies are well aware of it.

And we can obviously see evidence for that in the extreme level of militarisation in the Middle East, which is an insignificant part of the world except for oil.

The elite are well-aware of the importance of oil. Yet they have done nothing to make the public aware of peak oil. Most people are totally oblivious to peak oil and its consequences. They are just doing business as usual. This doesn't work because you can't ignore peak oil. Ignoring a fact doesn't make it go away. We need to do something to address the challenges we will face from peak oil.

The funny thing is that we have already reached peak oil. Yet nothing has been done to mitigate this problem. The only affects of peak oil we have experienced is that economic growth is IMPOSSIBLE. You can't grow your economy if your oil supply has maxed out since your economy is totally and utterly dependent on oil.

[Paulo1]

A lot of people are simply narrow minded and stupid by choice. They like to be entertained, but not informed. Life is easier that way, (until it isn't), and then listen to the howls!!

[Withnail]

The funny thing is that we have already reached peak oil. Yet nothing has been done to mitigate this problem. The only affects of peak oil we have experienced is that economic growth is IMPOSSIBLE. You can't grow your economy if your oil supply has maxed out since your economy is totally and utterly dependent on oil.

Well, oil prices are falling currently.

Actually although I've never speculated in markets before I was thinking about taking an oil futures position.

Based on the theory that if oil prices fall far enough, tar sands and shale oil production would be uneconomic, therefore resulting in a bounce back up.

[Poordogabone]

Why is peak oil almost never brought up in main steam media?

1 there is no solution.
2 It means austerity.
3 If everyone critically thought about it the economy would crash in one second.
4 we live in a society were denial and magical thinking is pervasive.
5 Thou shalt consume.

[DesuMaiden]

Why is peak oil almost never brought up in main steam media?

1 there is no solution.
2 It means austerity.
3 If everyone critically thought about it the economy would crash in one second.
4 we live in a society were denial and magical thinking is pervasive.
5 Thou shalt consume.

Well there renewable energies we can probably invest in although they are very infantile in development. I heard algae-based biofuels might be the solution to our energy crisis. Or maybe that is all hype.

[Poordogabone]

Why is peak oil almost never brought up in main steam media?

1 there is no solution.
2 It means austerity.
3 If everyone critically thought about it the economy would crash in one second.
4 we live in a society were denial and magical thinking is pervasive.
5 Thou shalt consume.

Well there renewable energies we can probably invest in although they are very infantile in development. I heard algae-based biofuels might be the solution to our energy crisis. Or maybe that is all hype.

It's a matter of scale. The energy required to replace fossil fuels with renewable on a 30 year goal would leave practically no energy to run societies. The 70's was the time to act but capitalism IMO flushed down the toilet that window of opportunity. Read Richard Heinberg for more info on renewable.

[DesuMaiden]

oh. regarding biofuels; it is hype. A big pile of smelly BS hype. Ask me why. Or do a search going back 10 years. Right now I don't have the time.

The problems with ethanol is that we simply don't have enough arable land to grow enough ethanol to meet our energy demands. Even if we dedicated all of our arable lands for growing ethanol, we still wouldn't have enough ethanol to meet our energy demands. And there is no way we can dedicate all of our arable land for growing fuel because there wouldn't be enough arable land for growing food.

Algae biofuels, while it sounds good in theory, probably has its own practical limitations, which means it can't be a full substitute for oil.

We simply don't have any viable alternatives to oil. Anyone who says otherwise is just engaging in wishful thinking. Ethanol my ass. There isn't enough arable land to grow enough ethanol to meet our energy demands. Algae biofuels probably has its own hidden limitations meaning it can't fully substitute oil either.

There is no magical trick that's going to save us. There is no way we can have infinite growth on a finite planet.

Just deal with it. There are just too many damn humans on this planet. We are running out of every type of essential natural resources for our survival. We are going to overconsume this planet to oblivion, and we are going to overconsume this planet until billions of people starve to death.

If only we can institute birth control so that we don't end up overconsuming this planet.

[DesuMaiden]

Why is peak oil almost never brought up in main steam media?

1 there is no solution.
2 It means austerity.
3 If everyone critically thought about it the economy would crash in one second.
4 we live in a society were denial and magical thinking is pervasive.
5 Thou shalt consume.

Well there renewable energies we can probably invest in although they are very infantile in development. I heard algae-based biofuels might be the solution to our energy crisis. Or maybe that is all hype.

It's a matter of scale. The energy required to replace fossil fuels with renewable on a 30 year goal would leave practically no energy to run societies. The 70's was the time to act but capitalism IMO flushed down the toilet that window of opportunity. Read Richard Heinberg for more info on renewable.

Why would it leave practically no energy to run societies. Can you please explain that for me? Capitalism was a failed system. It will not survive in a post-oil society. I think we have to return to feudalism once we run out of oil. We would probably be living in a neo-feudal society sometime in the future.

What is the BEST option for renewable energies, by the way??

[Poordogabone]

Why would it leave practically no energy to run societies. Can you please explain that for me?

It takes energy to build the wind farms/solar panels and all the infrastructure associated with it plus maintenance plus mining and processing the raw materials, if you're talking about replacing fossil fuels with renewables, the energy required is mind boggling.

[dashster]

And we can obviously see evidence for that in the extreme level of militarisation in the Middle East, which is an insignificant part of the world except for oil.

Oil makes the Middle East significant, but it isn't the only thing. The 51st state is in the Middle East. Those Neocons swarming around the Bush White House were mostly Jewish. They weren't dreaming of oil at night like many of the PaleoCons they had teamed up with. They were thinking of killing threats to their spiritual homeland.

[Poordogabone]

What is the BEST option for renewable energies, by the way??

IMO in the short term, small scale individual investment in solar panels, wind turbine, for heating/pumping water etc.. try to get off the grid as much as you can if you can afford it. In the long run, windmills/watermills used for mechanical energy are much more efficient, great for grinding wheat, sawing wood and things like that. Horse power will get you around. You get the picture.

[DesuMaiden]

Why would it leave practically no energy to run societies. Can you please explain that for me?

It takes energy to build the wind farms/solar panels and all the infrastructure associated with it plus maintenance plus mining and processing the raw materials, if you're talking about replacing fossil fuels with renewables, the energy required is mind boggling.

Yeah you are right. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy is going to take a huge amount of energy in and of itself.

[dashster]

Why is peak oil so easy to ignore if it is so important? That's the question I'm asking...

In 2003 the Bush Regime attacked Iraq, saying it had to because they wouldn't reveal where their WMDs were that the Bush Regime was 100% sure they had. The mainstream media could have reported that UN Weapons Inspectors had gone to over 200 sites given to it by the US and found no WMDs. But it didn't. Someone came on Phil Donahue's MSNBC talk show and raised some issue regarding the pending invasion. Either the fact that they weren't finding anything or that we had no legal authority to attack a country. Despite good ratings for the channel the show was quickly canceled.

Dick Cheney among others, was fond of going on TV (even years after the invasion found no WMDs) and talking about how they needed to attack because Saddam had "kicked out the UN inspectors". The media never corrected him on his lie. Clinton had asked the inspectors to leave so he could bomb and then they weren't let back in - for a while. Ultimately, before the invasion the Inspectors were in and free to roam about the country with unannounced inspections.

There is a movie coming out about a San Jose Mercury News reporter who broke a story that the CIA was silent but aware that the Contras, who they were helping overthrow a leftist government, were selling crack cocaine in US inner cities. Three major newspapers - Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Time all attacked the story and the reporter. He was eventually demoted and later committed suicide. At some point the head of some spokesman for the CIA publicly acknowledged that they had knowledge of the crack cocaine sales by the Contras in US cities as they were going on.

The media is owned by large companies who depend on ad revenue from large companies. They are not big on going against mainstream views or the government view.

The mainstream view - at least the professed mainstream view - is that Peak Oil is a "theory" and one that has been disproven, or "mostly disproven". That is also the US government view - at least it is the official US government view. When a sitting president mentions Peak Oil, the media will mention it.

I would imagine that if we scanned newspapers from 1956 to 1970 there would have been no mention of Hubbert's prediction about US Peak Oil. After it happened in 1970 there was probably a lot of coverage. The media will be reporting on Peak Oil, but only as a current event, not as a future event.

It may seem that it would be harmless to report on Peak Oil, and get people concerned and doing things about it, and then have it turn out that we made it through the next 50 years OK. Even the optimists aren't forecasting that we will stop importing oil. Any lessening of our usage should help us in that area. But we have a stock market and real estate priced on a grand future, and all kinds of government policies that are based on things continuing to go smoothly for 50 years - including the importation of another 100 million people. Raising a concern is not going to be looked at as benign by the elite or the government.

[Keith_McClary]

The mainstream media is all about pushing established narratives be they on foreign affairs or domestic issues. It is basically a lickspittle operation that does not challenge the status quo and makes sure that the perception of business as usual into the far future is the accepted view.

The amount of articles I have seen that confuse kerogen deposits in shale with oil deposits in shale-like rock formations (e.g. the Bakken) is incredible. This "mistake" cannot be an accident. There must be at least one reporter with a clue. But they are either drowned out or censored by their editors. It may be some defect in the news business but at the end of the day the result is the same: a spew of don't worry be happy propaganda.

I think the current generation of reporters are scientifically illiterate (and just plain illiterate) and lacking in critical thinking. I guess they are products of the Journalism departments of our corporatized universities.

[alokin]

It is talked about - indirectly. Or why do you think there are more and more "security" laws implemented? Why all these laws to protect us against terrorism, like at the moment in Australia? (I am a hundred times more likely to be killed by a snake and even that is a very unlikely event) Why are civil liberties taken away? This is about peak oil, they fear it. Once our cozy Western lifestyle people will band together, take what they need, do what they want and will not pay any taxes. Depending were you live people either will fight with each other or form strong communities. In both scenarios there is no space for the elite, they want feudalism.