Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Gridlock wrote: I don’t deny it’s a huge problem. But what motivates collective action is not, IMO, what you described in the population reduction thread.

And therein lies the problem. What we need to do does not square with what we can or will accept.

And therein lies the problem. What we need to do does not square with what we can or will accept.

Maybe, I think the purpose of this thread was to find something that does, which has gone off on a tangent (probably my bad!).

Gridlock wrote:

And therein lies the problem. What we need to do does not square with what we can or will accept.

Maybe, I think the purpose of this thread was to find something that does, which has gone off on a tangent (probably my bad!).

To some degree, but we keep steering back there.

I know of nothing that is acceptable that will even begin to address peak oil. Nothing. And I have been looking for over 35 years. Our govt had to sell Resource Wars under the guise of a War on Terror. And even that is backfiring if you look at the latest polls.

They need a new 911/Pearl Harbor to reignite the masses to support more aggression. Look at the hammering of the NYT and the recent capture of the terrorists wann-a-be's. Flag burning admendments, etc.

Do you wish to bet that they were not told to trot out their best domestic-terror-possiblibilty case for PR purposes with these 7 guys?

They need a new 911/Pearl Harbor to reignite the masses to support more aggression. Look at the hammering of the NYT and the recent capture of the terrorists wann-a-be's. Flag burning admendments, etc.

Do you wish to bet that they were not told to trot out their best domestic-terror-possiblibilty case for PR purposes with these 7 guys?

You won’t hear an argument against that from me, but I'd say I don’t think this is happening in every country, and that they are manifestations of the problem, not the solution.

Peak Oil doesn't have a solution. It is a condition, and it demands we either adapt to it, or die trying; and it doesn't care which of those two is what happens. So the thread itself is a bit misleading. Kinda like asking, "do you have a solution for green chloriphyl."

MonteQuest wrote:Resource Wars under the guise of a War on Terror. And even that is backfiring if you look at the latest polls.

Polls are irrelevant; elections count. I think we'll know more about whether the Resource Wars are acceptable to the public based a little upon '06; and a lot on '08. I do wonder about what it will take for the mainstream politicians to call them what they are; but thats just meaningless words, and so, just a curiosity.

They need a new 911/Pearl Harbor to reignite the masses to support more aggression. Look at the hammering of the NYT and the recent capture of the terrorists wann-a-be's. Flag burning admendments, etc.

Remember, a politician doesn't need, or even really care about continuous support; only that his support crests to 50%+1 on election day. Anything higher than that indicates wasted effort.

The only solution for peak oil this year is to pump more oil next year.

To drop oil prices all you have to do is pump so much oil that all the reserves are fullall the tanks are full and all the refineries are full and all the car tanks are fulll and the price will be 25 cents again.

The more you pump the cheaper it gets.

The less you pump the more expensive it gets.

I think that is right anyway.

so if half the world stops using oil we can have cheap gas again.

So if most of the Large cities would suddenly stop using oil it would become cheap again.

Gridlock wrote:And you are seriously positing that the US will wage a war with China over it?

Yep, and the U.S. Army War College thinks so too. Check out my latest post here:

http://www.peakoil.com/post325022.html#325022

Interesting. I've only read the summary you provided. A couple of things I wondered:

1. I didn't see a mention of China, still think this is unlikely, but I don't deny it could escalate. Perhaps it is referring more to places like Nigeria?
2. Did they release this for public consumption? If so I wonder why.
3. They draw alot of personnel from the Pentagon from what I gather. More of Rummy's cronies?

Gridlock wrote:Interesting. I've only read the summary you provided. A couple of things I wondered:

1. I didn't see a mention of China, still think this is unlikely, but I don't deny it could escalate. Perhaps it is referring more to places like Nigeria?
2. Did they release this for public consumption? If so I wonder why.
3. They draw alot of personnel from the Pentagon from what I gather. More of Rummy's cronies?

It refers to anywhere we might have to go to secure adequate supplies. Since China is all over Africa in an effort to secure resources and they are our major competitor, it is by no means a stretch to envision a head butt with them over access somewhere.

Yes, released for unlimited public consumption.

OK here is my problem: TPTB must realise that going to war with China, or any other major power over oil, leads to the exact situation that you are trying to avoid. Oil price spikes and shortages at best, (if not all-out armagedonn). As this will happen anyway, what is the point in expending precious resources? Also, they must realise that oil is going to run-out regardless, so unless you address that then even if you win WW3, you’ve still lost. So I think whilst the times are still good, countries are doing what they can to extend their influence, in preparation for the down-turn, so that their exposure is as limited as possible, and alot of this is sabre-rattling and bargaining for position.
I’d be surprised if the US and China were to go at it, I think there are alternatives for them (not just energy-wise)...

Gridlock wrote:OK here is my problem: TPTB must realise that going to war with China, or any other major power over oil, leads to the exact situation that you are trying to avoid. Oil price spikes and shortages at best, (if not all-out armagedonn). As this will happen anyway, what is the point in expending precious resources? Also, they must realise that oil is going to run-out regardless, so unless you address that then even if you win WW3, you’ve still lost. So I think whilst the times are still good, countries are doing what they can to extend their influence, in preparation for the down-turn, so that their exposure is as limited as possible, and alot of this is sabre-rattling and bargaining for position.
I’d be surprised if the US and China were to go at it, I think there are alternatives for them (not just energy-wise)...

The same arguments have been made as to why Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito and Hideki Tojo would not wage war.

Did you not read the text of what I quoted?

A precipitive use of the military could easily trigger an escalation in hostilities, generate a tremendous amount of anti-American sentiment, lead to United Nations’ sanctions, and fracture friendships and alliances. But compared to the economic effects of an oil shortage, such risks are acceptable.

The same arguments have been made as to why Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito and Hideki Tojo would not wage war.

With slight differences I feel to today. Firstly, nuclear weapons did not exist then. Hitler could sweep through Europe because of his advance conventional weaponry. These days there is parity if you have nukes. Secondly, modern media ensures that the general public is exposed to the realities of war, and civil disobedience is a larger possibility. Though I know propaganda sadly can work wonders. Finally, I feel Hitler was fighting for colonies, people, land and resources, which were abundant and therefore his country could only benefit if the war succeeded. There is as I see no benefit in US-China warring, except to the rest of the world’s oil supplies after they’re reduced to smoking ruins.

A precipitive use of the military could easily trigger an escalation in hostilities, generate a tremendous amount of anti-American sentiment, lead to United Nations’ sanctions, and fracture friendships and alliances. But compared to the economic effects of an oil shortage, such risks are acceptable.

What I’m wondering, is whether by putting this out in the public domain, it’s purposely meant to send a message to certain countries, who are being a bit un-cooperative.

Gridlock wrote:What I’m wondering, is whether by putting this out in the public domain, it’s purposely meant to send a message to certain countries, who are being a bit un-cooperative.

The US is well on it's way to becoming a pariah nation.

"The US is well on it's way to becoming a pariah nation."

Not everywhere I think. India might be quite pleased as their demands to produce as many nuclear weapons as they want have been granted of late.

Gridlock wrote:"The US is well on it's way to becoming a pariah nation."

Not everywhere I think. India might be quite pleased as their demands to produce as many nuclear weapons as they want have been granted of late.

I'll give you that one. A recent article I read.

Public Opinion in India and America
Link

Not seen that. This is what I'm wondering: If there will be wars I see 4 major players. One is off-limits. Pick one of the remaining three and what would be in their interests.

If you can get along without modern conveniences such as power and gasoline, you will do better than others like those who live in the city.

You have to say:
How can I survive best without grocery stores, gasoline, oil, food and electricity?
How can I take care of myself without doctors or hospitals.
How can I prevent a lawyer coming along and taking over my community again?

I suggest in your community there is an article stating no leaders.

It was heard that one of the kedenies once said: "I have to go into politics or I'll have to learn to work for a living."

the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) in politics is about -250.

the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) in politics is about -250

So true, and has been this way for a long time. BTW, it is well known that the entire US car fleet can be replaced by electric/biodiesel cars. Will this happen? No, cause TPTB are makin' a killing off of the sheeple, why would they want to change a scheme which serves their purpose.

greenworm wrote:BTW, it is well known that the entire US car fleet can be replaced by electric/biodiesel cars.

Yes, except that there isn't enough electricity or biodiesel to run them.

Not true, in fact there is technology out there that exists which stores all the wasted AC energy(we waste a lot), there is enouch coal to last quite awhile. This is simply not true. It is true that the infrastructure does need to change as a lot of it is outdated. You can hack a prius to get 100 mpg, just imagine a car that gets a 100 miles per charge coupled with a biofuel engine. There are presently electric cars albeit small ones that eclipse 120 miles per charge. You could use hemp since it has a eroei 4 times greater than corn. Plus, you don't need land, all you need is sunlight and water to grow it. What you don't have in this nifty equation is the political will and quite frankly I don't think you'll get it until it serves TPTB.