Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower
Posted: Thu 12 Nov 2009, 08:13:10
Ah at last a thread worth joining! I'll try and give the UK angle on this one.
1. The Guardian newspaper
Is a Socialist-leaning UK broadsheet, BTW. I personally switched to it about a year ago as I found it's coverage of the financial crisis pretty good, it has in this respect been refreshingly critical of the UK government (which is also supposed to be Socialist). So wheras, as an outlet for the 'Establishment' it's a natural candidate, I don't find it so these days. I think it's independence is thus proven (IMO).
Running this story a few days ago was a pretty good scoop for them, I read the printed version and the article had a 'hold the front page' air about it. It was very short and there was no follow-up inside (late to press, in other words). So I think it's 'genuine' journalism rather than a 'managed' release by the UK government.
Also you have to look at the nature of the article. 'World running out of oil' is NOT news (it hasn't been since the 70's). 'IEA cover-up of figures' IS. So again, I think this is just genuine investigative journalism. With regard to the follow-up articles, well I bet there's plenty of journalists out there that can use the internet. Some of them can probably even find PO.com all on their own. So the rest of the material is easy to explain. I don't see any sinister forces at work here.
2. The IEA.
A bit of a breathtaking turn-around here (re:AGW). One might say they are finally doing their job, in that it's impossible to consider 21'st century energy policy without reference to counter-AGW stratagies. Having said which, the schizophrenia of the report does seem to show that the organization may be in increasing disarray - maybe the Guardian are right in this respect. An AGW-centric stance for the IEA would really have made more sense if they had adopted it 10 years ago when oil was $20 a barrel. I don't know what they are now discussing internally but I suspect the expression 'between a rock and a hard place' might fit here.
Again, I don't see much evidence of a managed stratagy here. Rather the opposite.
3.The role of States and Corporates post peak-oil.
To bring a dose of reality back here, the dominant issue of 2009/10/11 is still going to be the financial mess that the G7 countries (particularly the US, UK and Japan are in). In particular their governments. If Peak Oil has a bearing here, it's probably that rising oil prices (once again) are likly to further wreck State (I mean Federal, if you live in the US) finances. This makes any top-level, managed response to either AGW or Peak Oil increasingly difficuilt. Particularly in the US, the prospect of State Failure becomes increasingly great. In this context I don't yet see any sort of coherent response at all - I don't loose sleep worrying that the carbon police might come to knock my door down one day. I don't think any major country has these plans in place - right or wrong - to 'manage' us off carbon. Again, increasing political schizophrenia seems to be the order of the day. Shouting one thing and doing another. That's the world we live in at the moment. Who knows what happens next, but for now I just expect more of the same.
The Corporates of course are not States (again I mean Federal). Part of the UK experience post-80's was that while private companies can run some things (telecoms for example) well, public utilities such as railways, hospitals and policing are a disaster in the hands of the free market. A market that cannot of course, function without this things operating in the background. So the Coporates neither want to run States or have the ability to do so. Against a background of failing 'big government' their activities would be hampered to the extent that they may pull out entirely from countries that are unable to keep services running. McDonalds recent withdrawal from Icelend being an example. So I don't see IBM stepping forward to run the world, much as some of us might (secretly) want them to.
So the future really is just down to free-thinking individuals (some of them appear to be journalists, BTW) and organised small communities. At the moment, these communities don't even have to physically together in the same place. PO.com is one such, I can think of a few others...
Anyhow I shall stop rambling now - must get back to work. See y'all...
JP
1. The Guardian newspaper
Is a Socialist-leaning UK broadsheet, BTW. I personally switched to it about a year ago as I found it's coverage of the financial crisis pretty good, it has in this respect been refreshingly critical of the UK government (which is also supposed to be Socialist). So wheras, as an outlet for the 'Establishment' it's a natural candidate, I don't find it so these days. I think it's independence is thus proven (IMO).
Running this story a few days ago was a pretty good scoop for them, I read the printed version and the article had a 'hold the front page' air about it. It was very short and there was no follow-up inside (late to press, in other words). So I think it's 'genuine' journalism rather than a 'managed' release by the UK government.
Also you have to look at the nature of the article. 'World running out of oil' is NOT news (it hasn't been since the 70's). 'IEA cover-up of figures' IS. So again, I think this is just genuine investigative journalism. With regard to the follow-up articles, well I bet there's plenty of journalists out there that can use the internet. Some of them can probably even find PO.com all on their own. So the rest of the material is easy to explain. I don't see any sinister forces at work here.
2. The IEA.
A bit of a breathtaking turn-around here (re:AGW). One might say they are finally doing their job, in that it's impossible to consider 21'st century energy policy without reference to counter-AGW stratagies. Having said which, the schizophrenia of the report does seem to show that the organization may be in increasing disarray - maybe the Guardian are right in this respect. An AGW-centric stance for the IEA would really have made more sense if they had adopted it 10 years ago when oil was $20 a barrel. I don't know what they are now discussing internally but I suspect the expression 'between a rock and a hard place' might fit here.
Again, I don't see much evidence of a managed stratagy here. Rather the opposite.
3.The role of States and Corporates post peak-oil.
To bring a dose of reality back here, the dominant issue of 2009/10/11 is still going to be the financial mess that the G7 countries (particularly the US, UK and Japan are in). In particular their governments. If Peak Oil has a bearing here, it's probably that rising oil prices (once again) are likly to further wreck State (I mean Federal, if you live in the US) finances. This makes any top-level, managed response to either AGW or Peak Oil increasingly difficuilt. Particularly in the US, the prospect of State Failure becomes increasingly great. In this context I don't yet see any sort of coherent response at all - I don't loose sleep worrying that the carbon police might come to knock my door down one day. I don't think any major country has these plans in place - right or wrong - to 'manage' us off carbon. Again, increasing political schizophrenia seems to be the order of the day. Shouting one thing and doing another. That's the world we live in at the moment. Who knows what happens next, but for now I just expect more of the same.
The Corporates of course are not States (again I mean Federal). Part of the UK experience post-80's was that while private companies can run some things (telecoms for example) well, public utilities such as railways, hospitals and policing are a disaster in the hands of the free market. A market that cannot of course, function without this things operating in the background. So the Coporates neither want to run States or have the ability to do so. Against a background of failing 'big government' their activities would be hampered to the extent that they may pull out entirely from countries that are unable to keep services running. McDonalds recent withdrawal from Icelend being an example. So I don't see IBM stepping forward to run the world, much as some of us might (secretly) want them to.
So the future really is just down to free-thinking individuals (some of them appear to be journalists, BTW) and organised small communities. At the moment, these communities don't even have to physically together in the same place. PO.com is one such, I can think of a few others...
Anyhow I shall stop rambling now - must get back to work. See y'all...
JP