[ralfy]

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.

CERA, which was mentioned in the article, argued that oil production would peak after 2020. The IEA, the main international organization that studies oil supplies worldwide, gave a similar conclusion. As shown in the article, the only ones who argued otherwise was "a vocal minority of experts." It was only in 2010 that the IEA insisted otherwise:

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

That's why except for a few articles on the matter, the media never "fully [embraced] peak oil."

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.

Actually, what you call "a very special event" hasn't come and gone because total production hasn't dropped yet. That's another reason why the media won't be embracing this issue, and when they do, it will no longer matter at that point.

What the media is embracing, though, is the opposite, i.e., news about reserves, etc., "saving" us.

[ralfy]

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.

As seen in the article, only a "vocal minority" issued warnings. It was only in 2010 that the IEA admitted that conventional production peaked in 2005. This was confirmed by the BP review released during the same year, together with reports from the U.S. military, Lloyd's of London, the German military, various banks, and even oil companies:

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

[Buddy_J]

As seen in the article, only a "vocal minority" issued warnings.

So now we talk about the difference between vocal minority and how big that is? And whether or not the entire energy crisis of the 70's counts? If the topic is the media and not various militaries and government institutes which can't be relied upon to tie their shoes let alone figure out crude oil depletion, there is one thing for sure....we need more consequences and less of the nebulous meandering towards abundance which that same media now appears to get away with, with impunity.

[ralfy]

So now we talk about the difference between vocal minority and how big that is? And whether or not the entire energy crisis of the 70's counts? If the topic is the media and not various militaries and government institutes which can't be relied upon to tie their shoes let alone figure out crude oil depletion, there is one thing for sure....we need more consequences and less of the nebulous meandering towards abundance which that same media now appears to get away with, with impunity.

Mass media will only report what these organizations state, and it turns out that many of them began to warn about peak oil only around 2010. In which case, the former will "fully embrace peak oil" only when the latter does.

That's why "the entire energy crisis of the '70s" didn't "count", especially given voodoo economics and unbridled consumption during the next three decades that followed.

In fact, your last sentence my point: it's the "nebulous meandering towards abundance which that same media now appears to get away with" is what can be seen even in the earlier USAToday article, together with much of news coverage that ignored this problem for three decades.

That's it. I've wasted enough time with you. Off to my ignore list.

[Econ101]

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

You are correct. The seasonal gas transition is not the cause of higher prices. (The seasonal gas transition happens automatically and mechanically). Rather spring maintenance causes refinery shutdowns (and resulting price increases). Guess what? Spring maintenance happens seasonally . . . because spring (and fall) have what? Nice weather. Do we have nice weather?

According to the article the seasonal gas transition is definitely part of the price increase:

Seasonal changes. Refineries usually shut down for maintenance in late winter, temporarily reducing gas supplies. As per federal requirements, refineries also begin transitioning at this time of year to summer blend gasoline – a more environmentally-friendly, and expensive, blend to produce. This reduces current winter blend gas supplies.

These blends are very problematic. Many cant be made in the US because of environmental regulations. As a result raw gasoline or partially blended value added gas is exported. It is blended and then appears as a refined import. All of this adds a lot of cost and of course distorts the market helping hide true value.

[Econ101]

Over the past few years, increasing energy costs have made quite a dent in my family's standard of living, and I know we are in good company. We are gainfully employed and manage to pay the bills but there isn't much left to save, with the sting of high utility bills and higher food prices. Most families like ours, who are working and just managing, can't afford to buy new appliances or cars or pay for a vacation without putting it on a Mastercard, which is something we won't do. I'm guess I'm waiting to see what's going to happen when the majority of people in the wealthier countries can no longer put cars and appliances and vacations on credit.

What will happen in our cities? I'd like to imagine teenagers getting together in a schoolyard to play sports in their spare time, and adults helping each other out in their gardens and maybe bartering some services. But then there's the idea of the whole transportation-in-the-city and jobs/lower-paying-jobs/no jobs for a lot of disappointed people. And I'm wondering about the transition from Iaptops and personal automobiles and fixation on shopping, thinking how many generations will it take to feel grateful for what we have left?

I track family expenses carefully. January 2013 saw a 4.95% increase over Jan 2012. This is typical. Of that transportation represents only 6%. We use 3 vehicles, all paid for. Costs are up on everything. It is inflationary. We know because no value is being added to support higher prices.

There are a lot of challenges. More and more it looks like we need stronger communities and more harmony/cooperation between them. False issues like peak oil and climate change are useful diversions. Answers to the questions are not found in those issues. Stabilize the ever changing climate and give us all electric cars, the problems still remain.

[Buddy_J]

There are a lot of challenges. More and more it looks like we need stronger communities and more harmony/cooperation between them. False issues like peak oil and climate change are useful diversions. Answers to the questions are not found in those issues. Stabilize the ever changing climate and give us all electric cars, the problems still remain.

Inflation does serve a purpose. It allows the debt of the government to be lessened in value until it can be handled. It also whacks the buying power of Americans and allows it to be recalibrated against the value of their labor versus the world. For example, inflation eats away at the buying power of all, but the union worker bolting wheels onto a car doesn't see much in the way of cost of living increases to keep up, but the oil engineer in the Bakken see's raises and bonuses allowing him/her to keep up. This balances the value of the two jobs within society.