I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Joined: May 17, 2004 Posts: 1969 Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington
Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 10:12 pm Post subject: Society, News, Gas Cliff, and Peak Oil
I am wondering why the media outlets such as CBS, NBC, ABC, WGN, CNN, Fox, and others are not bothering to cover the implications of peak oil, and how it will affect society as a whole? I understand that the service they provide is primarily news, but I would consider Peak Oil to be the most truly newsworthy item of our time. It is of far more importance than who did who in Hollywood, or whether or not Kerry threw medals over a fence 30 years ago. This is an issue that has far more significance than other items that are reported on.
Even it if were not broadcast on these main stream media outlets, surely PBS affiliates could run a special on this topic. This way, the message would get across to everyone in the USA. If the media outlets were to do this, they would at least give the population a very good idea of what type of challenges we will face in the next decade with increasing energy defecates that are just around the bend.
It would not be necessary to even bring up the massive die-off, increasing wars, or shortages of foods. It would only be necessary to address the ever decreasing energy available from oil, and the upcoming North American gas cliff. If the broadcasters were to stick to the provable facts about this phenomenon, and not about unknown factors such as the amount of casualties expected from the energy decline. They could also address alternative fuels, and the benefits and drawbacks to each of these methods. This would be very heavy on the facts, but it would be very informative. Maybe a presentation such as this would awaken humanity to Peak Oil and the Gas Cliff. They would also need to emphasize that this time it will not be like the 1970's, there will be no relief in sight for the ever increasing energy shortage.
Awareness is the first step to survival in any situation. If one is not aware of a problem, they have no idea of what to prepare for, as they do not know that there is a problem. However, if people are made aware of this problem, at least they would know more about this situation then they did before the program was viewed. This is crucial to surviving the transitional phase from a petroleum based unsustainable economy, to a renewable energy sustainable economy.
So why hasn't any TV station boadcast anything on Peak Oil, when it could literally be the difference between life and death of possibly billions of people? To me, it seems utterly responsible to not notify the public of the dangers ahead. I compare this failure to notify the public of this situation is similar to not posting a warning sign on the beaches of shark infested waters. It is just gross neglegence to avoid this issue. _________________ Here Lies the United States Of America.
Joined: May 23, 2004 Posts: 276 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted: Sun May 23, 2004 10:57 pm Post subject: Re: Society, News, Gas Cliff, and Peak Oil
k_semler wrote:
I am wondering why the media outlets such as CBS, NBC, ABC, WGN, CNN, Fox, and others are not bothering to cover the implications of peak oil, and how it will affect society as a whole? I understand that the service they provide is primarily news, but I would consider Peak Oil to be the most truly newsworthy item of our time.
It's not really news though. It may be current affairs, but if you tried to compress the story down into a reasonable size for media viewers to digest it, you'd lose most of the important details and whoever put out the report would basically be told to go put his or her tin-foil hat back on.
k_semler wrote:
Even it if were not broadcast on these main stream media outlets, surely PBS affiliates could run a special on this topic. This way, the message would get across to everyone in the USA.
I didn't think anyone actually watched PBS. Almost nobody here watches its equivalent, Channel 31.
k_semler wrote:
Awareness is the first step to survival in any situation. If one is not aware of a problem, they have no idea of what to prepare for, as they do not know that there is a problem. However, if people are made aware of this problem, at least they would know more about this situation then they did before the program was viewed.
Tell me something. If there was a big hurricane on the way and you were on your way to the supermarket to go buy supplies for a few days in your basement, and the traffic lights at an intersection ahead are out, would you seriously get out of your car and signal the intersection, or would you divert around the affected intersection, press on, and get to the supermarket first?
I don't think it's terribly smart to try and push the message onto the masses. Firstly, there's no answer just now, which will help create a panic (assuming people actually believe you). The economic consequences from that panic will probably kill off the chances of people such as myself being able to get out of debt, save up, and get set up. The social consequences would be disasterous. The environmental consequences of millions of people installing wood log heaters and the like would be problematic.
And then when the crunch hits, it's probably better that people in the cities keep up their false hope that things will get better, and die off there, rather than head to the hills and pillage the setups of those who were smart enough to plan ahead knowing that there's no future in the cities.
If there has to be a die off (and there probably will be), chances are it's probably best this way.
k_semler wrote:
So why hasn't any TV station boadcast anything on Peak Oil, when it could literally be the difference between life and death of possibly billions of people?
No, it's not the difference between life and death. It's the difference between simple and ignorant death vs chaotic but informed death.
k_semler wrote:
To me, it seems utterly responsible to not notify the public of the dangers ahead.
I assume you meant irresponsible. I do think the silence is utterly responsible though. Not that it's the media's job anwyay. It's the politicians job, and of course, Jimmy Carter did try, and few current politicians really want his fate.
Pay attention to row in there. The guy is has links to the media[/quote]
Thank you, I did not see that post about "Mass Media". Thank you for pointing it our for me to view.
MrPC wrote:
k_semler wrote:
I am wondering why the media outlets such as CBS, NBC, ABC, WGN, CNN, Fox, and others are not bothering to cover the implications of peak oil, and how it will affect society as a whole? I understand that the service they provide is primarily news, but I would consider Peak Oil to be the most truly newsworthy item of our time.
It's not really news though. It may be current affairs, but if you tried to compress the story down into a reasonable size for media viewers to digest it, you'd lose most of the important details and whoever put out the report would basically be told to go put his or her tin-foil hat back on.
True, in the convenional sense of how news has been reported. It has been known for a while now, and this is not newly discovered. I would agree that it does fit more into the current events catagory, which should run a be run on a program like Nova, or NOW With Bill Moyers. Doing a week long special on this issue each show running for 2 hours each day would allocate the appropriate amount of time nessecary to discuss this topic fully. This would allow adequate time to fully explain the situation ahead.
MrPC wrote:
k_semler wrote:
Even it if were not broadcast on these main stream media outlets, surely PBS affiliates could run a special on this topic. This way, the message would get across to everyone in the USA.
I didn't think anyone actually watched PBS. Almost nobody here watches its equivalent, Channel 31.
Oh, I didn't realise that PBS did not have that large of a userbase. The reason for this is because 3 out of the 9 channels that I recive are PBS stations. I also get 2 CBS feeds, an ABC feed, an NBC feed, a FOX feed, and a WGN feed. This is my channel lineup as I do not belive in paying good money to watch TV when I can get all of my programming free OTA.
MrPC wrote:
k_semler wrote:
Awareness is the first step to survival in any situation. If one is not aware of a problem, they have no idea of what to prepare for, as they do not know that there is a problem. However, if people are made aware of this problem, at least they would know more about this situation then they did before the program was viewed.
Tell me something. If there was a big hurricane on the way and you were on your way to the supermarket to go buy supplies for a few days in your basement, and the traffic lights at an intersection ahead are out, would you seriously get out of your car and signal the intersection, or would you divert around the affected intersection, press on, and get to the supermarket first?
To be 100% honest, I would either avoid downtown completly and go to the supermarket faster, or if I forgot to take into consideration the powerouts and heavy traffic, I would probably force my way through the intersection to get to the store. It would really depend on the situation, and if a alternate route was possible. Chances are very high that I would not stop to direct traffic though.
MrPC wrote:
I don't think it's terribly smart to try and push the message onto the masses. Firstly, there's no answer just now, which will help create a panic (assuming people actually believe you). The economic consequences from that panic will probably kill off the chances of people such as myself being able to get out of debt, save up, and get set up. The social consequences would be disasterous. The environmental consequences of millions of people installing wood log heaters and the like would be problematic.
Good point, I did not consider this. Knowing people in general, they would have no guided effort to attain a sustainable existance. However, with guidelines issued by the govormment like survival instructions were distributed for food, shelter, water and resource allocations during a time of nuclear disaster, the effort would be more guided with govormnental agencies being at the center stage for information regarding the upcoming crisis.
Although the nuclear threat is no longer what it once was when the USSR and US were in the depths of the cold war, it is still very easy to obtain fallout shelter instructions, as well as a wide range of research regarding the various ballistic patterns for each nuclear warhead. This information did not cause a panic, as it was distributed by a trusted source. The economy did not collapse because of the cold war in a overall scale, and people were guided in instructions for thier survival. This is the type of information distribution that would be requred to be adequatly prepared.
MrPC wrote:
And then when the crunch hits, it's probably better that people in the cities keep up their false hope that things will get better, and die off there, rather than head to the hills and pillage the setups of those who were smart enough to plan ahead knowing that there's no future in the cities.
If there has to be a die off (and there probably will be), chances are it's probably best this way.
This is one thing that I did not even think of. You bring up a very good point here. I have no rebute for this, as we have never faced a scenario like what would happen at any point in humanity's history. I will also agree with you when you state that it would be better for people to die with a glimmer of hope, than to die with no hope of survival at all. If they were aware of this problem, it would cause a drastic shortage of supplies nessesary for those who have prepared in advance, and this would usher in a era of a massive planet wide extenction of all humans. The masses would loot, plunder, and exploit what little resources there were of amy kind, thus making the earth prehaps unlivable for any life. This would probably hasten the collapse.
MrPC wrote:
k_semler wrote:
So why hasn't any TV station boadcast anything on Peak Oil, when it could literally be the difference between life and death of possibly billions of people?
No, it's not the difference between life and death. It's the difference between simple and ignorant death vs chaotic but informed death.
I completly agree with you given the reasons that you have stated, and I did in the previous paragraphs. Even with the best information available about the effects of nuclear war, if such an event would have broken out, it would have made little or no difference in the survivablity of the human race in the long term. They may have benifited initially from this information, but eventually the would have still succumbed to radiation sickness and parished anyway.
MrPC wrote:
k_semler wrote:
To me, it seems utterly responsible to not notify the public of the dangers ahead.
I assume you meant irresponsible. I do think the silence is utterly responsible though. Not that it's the media's job anwyay. It's the politicians job, and of course, Jimmy Carter did try, and few current politicians really want his fate.
Yes, I did mean to say irresponsible. I guess I forgot to type in the "ir" part of it. I do differ with you when you state that it is not the media's job. If the media's job is not to keep people aware of current events and news around the world, then what is the point of thier existance. Surely thier existance has a more crutial role than a method of pushing consumer goods and mindless entertainment such as "Entertainment Tonight", or "Hollywood Squares". Of course, this would explain why I have had no trouble restricting my TV watching hours to 3-5 hours per week. Considering just 5 years ago I watched over 40 hours of TV a week, this is quite a reduction. Anymore, I get most of my information from AM radio. Even though the sound quality is not good, it is much more informative than other media outlets, and actually requres thinking unlike television. The last time I listened to FM radio was 4 months ago, and I do not miss it whatsoever. _________________ Here Lies the United States Of America.
Joined: May 24, 2004 Posts: 3429 Location: California, USA
Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 12:59 am Post subject:
The first legal responsibility of any corporation larger than approx. 35 shareholders (varies depending on jurisdiction) is to maximize return to shareholders. Even if a news entity wants to spend more money producing a quality product, if it can't produce ROE (return on equity), the shareholders can (and often do in many instances) sue.
This is one of the examples of "perverse incentives," in the sense that the incentive structure produces a positive feedback loop that is decoupled from the ostensible purpose of the entity.
Aside from all that, the media *will* start covering the issue soon enough. As soon as the energy pricing structures start to produce a stronger financial incentive for nuclear, wind, etc., utilities will need to mount major PR efforts to overcome NIMBYism. The PR efforts will involve lots of paid advertizing on radio, TV, etc. The editorial departments will then have the incentive to start covering the issue, to support their advertizers.
This might actually be a good thing (assumed: the nay-sayers who discount non-fossil energy sources are too pessimistic; even if nuclear, wind, and solar can only replace a fraction of the fossil fuels, that's better than nothing). It could help new energy installations get built, and it will also keep the focus off the kind of "survivalist and hard-core sustainability" activities that some of us here contemplate. That is, to put it crudely, prevent a mass-migration to the rural areas that would destroy them. So I suppose we should be thankful for small favors:-)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
