[Buddy_J]

Yup. DC metro is great. Atlanta is also rated highly, and Portland is good too. But most of the US has broken down infrastructure or is a complete mass transit wasteland when compared to DC or to the cities of the EU.

I suppose as the good jobs and industry concentrate in suburban areas with the right mix of people, secondary educational institutes, housing, economic development and subsidy plans by the local communities, they can bring the type of mass transit infrastructure any particular area needs.

Probably not though, subsidies for alternative transport seems like a more likely way, bike lanes like Portland, encouragement for car pooling and hybrid purchases, that sort of thing.

It would be nice if some of the money that the FEDs spend on sub DC would be cycled back to the rest of the country, now that DC is the wealthiest city in the country. Cities with aging mass transit infrastructure (NYC, Boston, Chicago) could use some help, and cities without light rail need even more financial help.

Downtown DC is one of the weirdest places in the world. By day active with smart and young people intent on making their way in the world, monuments and museums, and by night...well....wander too far from the Mall at night and it can get dicey.

[SamInNebraska]

Probably not though, subsidies for alternative transport seems like a more likely way, bike lanes like Portland, encouragement for car pooling and hybrid purchases, that sort of thing.

You are optimistic. The national news was announcing peak 8 years ago now, obviously the changes you reference (I assume you mean the statistic about Portland being like 70% bicycle commuter or something?) will have no effect when peak oil (expensive or otherwise) smash into economies and create Katrina/Sandy like effects. Subsidies are irrelevant when there is no government to protect you. I recommend the hillbillies in Appalachia, the Cajuns in central Louisiana, a few areas in the PacNW, that is about it. In Portland the ex-suburbanites without fuel will be dragging the bicycle riders off like Morlocks after Eloi. Hank Williams Jr. got it right, the Smokies or Appalachia, the swamps, and the PacNW. Learn to like long pork now.

[ralfy]

From what I remember, the "national news" was announcing the opposite eight years ago, i.e., peak oil would take place decades later. It was only in 2010 that the U.S. military, Lloyd's of London, the IEA, and others stated otherwise.

[dorlomin]

The national news was announcing peak 8 years ago now

It wasn't. HTH.

[Quinny]

Where did you see the National media announcing peak 8 years ?

Although not from the States I tend to keep abreast of most major channels and I never saw any stements to that effect.

Which media and what articles. This sounds like BS to me.

Probably not though, subsidies for alternative transport seems like a more likely way, bike lanes like Portland, encouragement for car pooling and hybrid purchases, that sort of thing.

You are optimistic. The national news was announcing peak 8 years ago now, obviously the changes you reference (I assume you mean the statistic about Portland being like 70% bicycle commuter or something?) will have no effect when peak oil (expensive or otherwise) smash into economies and create Katrina/Sandy like effects. Subsidies are irrelevant when there is no government to protect you. I recommend the hillbillies in Appalachia, the Cajuns in central Louisiana, a few areas in the PacNW, that is about it. In Portland the ex-suburbanites without fuel will be dragging the bicycle riders off like Morlocks after Eloi. Hank Williams Jr. got it right, the Smokies or Appalachia, the swamps, and the PacNW. Learn to like long pork now.

[ralfy]

Here's a partial list of reports about the issue:

https://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/

Many were published only in 2010 and after.

[Quinny]

? still not answered.

[Buddy_J]

From what I remember, the "national news" was announcing the opposite eight years ago, i.e., peak oil would take place decades later.

Nope. USA Today, about as mainstream as it gets, putting it square in the public eye.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/in ... usat_x.htm

[SamInNebraska]

From what I remember, the "national news" was announcing the opposite eight years ago, i.e., peak oil would take place decades later. It was only in 2010 that the U.S. military, Lloyd's of London, the IEA, and others stated otherwise.

In 2004 or so the EIA put out some graph saying peak oil was like 2037. But certainly the hysteria was building in 2004-5, Simmons and Ruppert were in full song at the time, websites were firing up all over to sound the alarm.

Even the military claims of supply shortages in 2012 didn't turn out, and every passing year just means it HAS to be out there somewhere, waiting, lurking, knowing that EVs and the rest can't save us from ourselves.

[dorlomin]

In 2004 or so the EIA put out some graph saying peak oil was like 2037. But certainly the hysteria was building in 2004-5, Simmons and Ruppert were in full song at the time, websites were firing up all over to sound the alarm.

So Shorty, not the mainstream media then.

[Buddy_J]

Don't know about Sam, but I already referenced USAToday, as mainstream as it gets. EIA projections are pretty red-white-and-blue as well, but perhaps not technically "media".

Les Magoon for the USGS? Government scientists publishing their information not mainstream enough?
Crude Awakening?
Falls Church Press and Tom Whipple?
The U.K. Guardian?
National Geographic?
How "Oil The Dwindling Treasure" from National Geo...in 1974!

I don't know, but it seems to me like this topic has been reasonably discussed over the past few years and then some, and rightly so.

[ralfy]

From what I remember, the "national news" was announcing the opposite eight years ago, i.e., peak oil would take place decades later.

Nope. USA Today, about as mainstream as it gets, putting it square in the public eye.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/in ... usat_x.htm

It's no different from the "Four Corners" documentary featured a year later, but mainstream media were not "embracing" it then because not just CERA but even the IEA argued that conventional oil production would not peak for many years. See for yourself by reading the last paragraph of the article.

It was only in 2010 that mainstream media reported that the IEA acknowledged the opposite, and during the same year referred to reports by the U.S. military and Lloyd's of London. This was followed by a BP review a year latter coupled with reports from various banks.

[ralfy]

In 2004 or so the EIA put out some graph saying peak oil was like 2037. But certainly the hysteria was building in 2004-5, Simmons and Ruppert were in full song at the time, websites were firing up all over to sound the alarm.

Even the military claims of supply shortages in 2012 didn't turn out, and every passing year just means it HAS to be out there somewhere, waiting, lurking, knowing that EVs and the rest can't save us from ourselves.

Exactly, and they repeated the point during the next two years. It was only in 2010 that they acknowledged that conventional oil production peaked back in 2006:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0ujDVRIzGM

In fact, that was meant to be a follow up to a Four Corners 2006 feature where the IEA ironically argued what you shared:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/

Re: military views, any point about an exact year will be difficult given other factors, including declining demand for some countries due to economic crisis. With that, the important point to consider is that economic crisis leading to lower demand is similar to the results of peak oil.

Ultimately, mainstream media news about peak oil will come only after the fact. By then, such news will be irrelevant.

[Buddy_J]

It was only in 2010 that mainstream media reported that the IEA acknowledged the opposite, and during the same year referred to reports by the U.S. military and Lloyd's of London. This was followed by a BP review a year latter coupled with reports from various banks.

You are being extremely restrictive in what you consider "mainstream". Just as recently we get this kind of stuff:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... e-we-wrong

http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volum ... shape.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-0 ... years.html

I say the jury might still be out, certainly what the military envisioned for 2012 never happened, and this kind of back and forth has certainly been going on longer than just back to 2010.

[Plantagenet]

What's driving up gas prices? asks today's CS Monitor in a front page story. We are at the all-time record gas price for February...but why? What does the MSM in the USA say about it?

Whats driving up gas prices? refinery changeover, economic growth and evil speculators says CS Monitor

Who's ever heard of a refinery changing over to summer fuel when the blizzards are still hitting the USA?

And who hasn't heard the media and the government blaming record high energy prices on the evil speculators over and over again. AND the sheeple in the public fall for it every time!


For the 100th time the media and the government are blaming high gas prices on evil speculators......and the public falls for it again!

[ralfy]

You are being extremely restrictive in what you consider "mainstream". Just as recently we get this kind of stuff:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... e-we-wrong

http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volum ... shape.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-0 ... years.html

I say the jury might still be out, certainly what the military envisioned for 2012 never happened, and this kind of back and forth has certainly been going on longer than just back to 2010.

But what you just presented proves my point again.

[SamInNebraska]

You are being extremely restrictive in what you consider "mainstream". Just as recently we get this kind of stuff:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... e-we-wrong

http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volum ... shape.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-0 ... years.html

I say the jury might still be out, certainly what the military envisioned for 2012 never happened, and this kind of back and forth has certainly been going on longer than just back to 2010.

But what you just presented proves my point again.

That peak euphoria has set in? I didn't realize that was your point. I think the original reference to USAToday trumpeting peak oil back in 2005 was quite telling, no one can claim that the information wasn't out there. And the question itself, the MEDIA embracing peak oil? What is the significance of that? The media embraces sensationalism, they will scream peak oil! as fast as they will oil nirvana! a day apart, and regardless of current events.

What they embrace is basically irrelevant, for those of us who have been watching this unfold over the years obviously there was information out there we used to determine that yes virginia, peak oil happened, now life sucks (for some anyway) and get used to it because a very special event has come and gone, now get with the program and learn to ride a bicycle already.

[Buddy_J]

Back when people really had the opportunity to learn about peak oil (not just when USAToday started talking about it middle of last decade) which I would peg as late 90's with the Science article of Campbell and Laherrere, call that "the chance". Took another half decade for more mainstream journalists to notice, and then full blown excitement was going on there for awhile. Then the usual back and forth, and then everyone got distracted by recession and war and whatever, and now that the US fracking miracle has kicked in, everyone is reevaluating what that means to them. Can they use natural gas as a substitute, do they have tight oil too, how much for how long, it will take years to sort out and in the meantime the slow grind will continue. But whether or not the likes of USAToday and MSM noticed years ago, they aren't going to notice as much for awhile because the story has changed. Not REALLY, but it just looks like it has, and the MSM being gullible, they will run off after the new story for awhile.