Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:15 pm Post subject: Why Isn't Peak Oil Mainstream News?
Hey there, i just recently covered up on this whole idea of peak oil. I read. I read lots. I was amazed. Some questions I have are:
from what i have read it all seems extremely logical, but why don't you hear people around towns and cities talking about this? why isnt it on the discovery channel? why isn't it in newspapers?
from what I have read, it seems oil is running out soon, and when this happens its like our whole way of living will be rewound by about a hundred years, such as people will have to start growing their own food again, since there won't be tractors to power the mass productions of food, trucks to run that food all over the country, globiliztion, the internet, our whole world that we live in will be completely changed.
I live in the peace region of british columbia, where oil and gas is the primary source of money and employment. I imagine a world without oil and gas up here, there would be no one living here. Last week I was reading the paper, and it spoke nothing of peak oil, instead it was boasting "2005 will be a record year for oil and gas activity in the peace."
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:22 pm Post subject: Re: Newbie to Peak Oil
martin0804 wrote:
Hey there, i just recently covered up on this whole idea of peak oil. I read. I read lots. I was amazed. Some questions I have are:
from what i have read it all seems extremely logical, but why don't you hear people around towns and cities talking about this? why isnt it on the discovery channel? why isn't it in newspapers?
from what I have read, it seems oil is running out soon, and when this happens its like our whole way of living will be rewound by about a hundred years, such as people will have to start growing their own food again, since there won't be tractors to power the mass productions of food, trucks to run that food all over the country, globiliztion, the internet, our whole world that we live in will be completely changed.
I live in the peace region of british columbia, where oil and gas is the primary source of money and employment. I imagine a world without oil and gas up here, there would be no one living here. Last week I was reading the paper, and it spoke nothing of peak oil, instead it was boasting "2005 will be a record year for oil and gas activity in the peace."
why is that?
Hi Martin.
I'm glad you are smart enough to see what is happening in the world around you.
The reason peak oil is not mentioned too much in mainstream news is because the major news outlets are owned by large corporations that are heavily invested in the stock markets. Any mainstream news of peak oil (and it's dire implications) would send the stock markets crashing, and with it, their money. I'm sure there are some editors and reporters that are dying to report on peak oil, but aren't allowed to. People around towns and cities don't talk about peak oil because most haven't even heard of it. Peak oil is very slowly becoming more mainstream in the news- just not fast enough.
And trying to warn someone about peak oil is like trying to tell them that a comet will hit the earth in 2 years. Most people don't want to hear bad news. It's called denial. Most people won't believe in peak oil until they see the effects with their own eyes.
Last edited by NevadaGhosts on Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 4:59 pm Post subject: conspiracy
I'm kind of uncomfortable with giving conspiracy as the reason no one in the major news organizations are talking about peak oil. Conspiracy is practically never the correct explanation. Even if we said that each editor was independently making the decision to squelch peak oil news because of vested business interests, that wouldn't really make sense.
I think we need to think up a better way to explain this away. Perhaps it is just too large of a leap for people to make -- the mind rejects what it does not want to accept as true.
Joined: May 22, 2004 Posts: 1422 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 5:11 pm Post subject:
Why it isn't in the news more:
My personal explanation is that it is too big of a story. The story has been unfolding for the past 30 years, so it isn't really news like the latest on Micheal Jackson. Why doesn't it get as much air time as global climate change is a harder question. I think it's because GCC has the backing of the scientific establishment while the scientific establishment for peak oil is mostly all currently employed by the big oil companies who have a big interest in maintaining business as usual.
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 5:39 pm Post subject: what goes up...
It is not interesting to spread the word about the fact that oil will enter peak and then decline of production because it could trigger a "gold rush" to middle east for securing the remaining amounts of it, thus raising demand, price and competition for it...
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 5:41 pm Post subject: Re: conspiracy
mmm wrote:
I'm kind of uncomfortable with giving conspiracy as the reason no one in the major news organizations are talking about peak oil. Conspiracy is practically never the correct explanation. Even if we said that each editor was independently making the decision to squelch peak oil news because of vested business interests, that wouldn't really make sense.
I think we need to think up a better way to explain this away. Perhaps it is just too large of a leap for people to make -- the mind rejects what it does not want to accept as true.
There's no need to subscribe to conspiracy theories. The media are, first and foremost, businesses. They sell time to advertisers. So, if they broadcast about Peak, which advertisers will be unhappy with them?
Car dealers/manufacturers
Chamber of Commerce types
Hotel owners
Restaurant owners
homebuilders
banks
And just about everyone else involved with growth.
Incorrect. Economic growth existed in the past when solar energy was transformed into food crops or other other goods. And sometimes people being clever monkeys created economic growth.
Oil just allowed hyper-growth over what the past got humanity is all.
NevadaGhosts wrote:
No economic growth= no capitalism.
Incorrect. Capitalism can exist without economic growth.
Did capitalism cease to exist in 1930 in the US of A?
NevadaGhosts wrote:
No capitalism= no United States.
Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&l-"iz-&m, 'kap-t&l-, British also k&-'pi-t&l-
Function: noun
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
(The US has not had a 'free market' for some time....)
The way the United States and the MBA graduates that run things will come to an end, but the end of cheap oil is not the end of existance.
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:33 pm Post subject: Re: Why Isn't Peak Oil Mainstream News?
Hear hear rerere.
martin0804 wrote:
from what I have read, it seems oil is running out soon,
Incorrect. Oil isn't running out, it's depleting. In a hundred or so years, when the last oil well stops pumping, it won't be because there is no more oil to be had, it will be because sucking it out of the ground will just take more effort than will be worthwhile. Oil will not run out, and certainly not "soon."
martin0804 wrote:
I live in the peace region of british columbia, where oil and gas is the primary source of money and employment. I imagine a world without oil and gas up here, there would be no one living here. Last week I was reading the paper, and it spoke nothing of peak oil, instead it was boasting "2005 will be a record year for oil and gas activity in the peace."
why is that?
I can't speak on near future oil and gas activity in the peace, but if the area is producing at a healthy pace still then it's easy to make an argument for record oil and gas profits in the peace. It goes like this: Global peaking of oil, without any decrease in demand for oil, implies increasing (greatly so, in some models) prices for oil. The "peace," being a producer (and hence seller) of oil, stands to benefit greatly from increased oil prices.
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 9:30 pm Post subject: Re: conspiracy
mmm wrote:
I'm kind of uncomfortable with giving conspiracy as the reason no one in the major news organizations are talking about peak oil. Conspiracy is practically never the correct explanation. Even if we said that each editor was independently making the decision to squelch peak oil news because of vested business interests, that wouldn't really make sense.
The competition within the news industry would make a conspiracy "cover-up" impossible. There are just too many reporters who would love to become the next Bob Woodward.
Peak Oil is just another "The end is near" story.
As a story of importance, it falls somewhere between:
1) Y2K will make all of the planes start falling.
2) Global Warming is going to fry us within 100 years.
3) The ozone layer is shrinking and we will fry from radiation.
4) We are all going to get brain tumors from using our cell phones.
5) We are running out of oil and have to switch to alternatives.
6) The latest wonder drug from Biogen raises the risk of heart attacks.
7) The arab terrorists are going to nuke something big (someday soon).
8) Paris Hilton's cell phone was hacked and all of her friends' phone numbers are on the internet.
Do you see how the entire Peak Oil thing can sort of be lost in the noise of 24 hour cable news?
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:23 pm Post subject: Re: conspiracy
To the majority of the media, Peak Oil is a topic of debate, not an established fact. There are many so-called "experts" who are still predicting $35 oil and an oil glut. So that gets reported as often as those who are predicting $80 oil and oil shortages.
From the perspective of most of the media, they report both sides. There are certain media sources that seem to be closer to understanding PO, such as National Geographic's cover story on "The End of Cheap Oil".
Then there are media sources (CNBC) which interviews the CEO of Exxon when he says, "The supply situation does not appear to justify the current price of $55 oil". (last week).
To declare that there is a massive media conspiracy to not report on Peak Oil is just simplistic and lacks an understanding of the role that the media plays. The media is not covering up Peak Oil to support their advertisers. Most reporters/editors are fairly liberal and will report on any environmental threat, PETA rally, or left wing issue.
If a group of reporters/editors were really under orders (from the evil corporate news CEO) to not report on Peak Oil, to protect auto dealer ads, I suspect that would be news itself. The memos would be smuggled out and would be broadcast widely. It would likely be on 60 Minutes Wednesday with Dan Rather providing the documents from his reliable source.
I love a good conspiracy as much as the next guy. But this one just doesn't even come close to being entertaining.
Incorrect. Capitalism can exist without economic growth.
Did capitalism cease to exist in 1930 in the US of A?
It came closer than you acknowlege. Communism was a strong political movement in the western world during the Depression. FDR took a middle path that prevented revolts in the US.
I think the truth is more "no economic growth = collapse of debt-based fiat currency". Capitalism exists in hard money economies and funny-bits-of-IOU-paper economies, in growth and in recession.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 1 of 4
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
