Friday, May 18, 2007

Oil, Smoke & Mirrors

I've been pre-occupied with 'Peak Oil' and its relationship to constant government sponsored scare-mongering about the so called (and to me clearly phony) 'war on terror' lately. Complex subjects both, but deeply intertwined and plagued with 'smoke and mirrors'.

So the title of this video caught my eye. It is a disturbingly convincing introduction to the issues.


  1. G Eagle Esq5:31 pm

    Bonjour Monsieur Sabre-Tache

    The beginning is all very depressing - most of these guys are even older & more depressed than me (or is that "I")


    this assumes that current trends (as they perceive them) will continue unabated even if oil begins to run out


    surely the market mechanism will bring forth solutions to increasing oil prices

    eg this will encourage reduced oil consumption

    eg this will encourage the discovery & production of alternative energy sources

    In the time of the wretch Heath (who got everything wrong but never apologized about anything) the 1973 Arab-Isreali war led to massive increases in oil prices but Western Civilisation absorbed these price increases without collapsing, through a combination of :

    1. general price inflation making oil price increases of little significance and

    2. technological advances resulting in a more efficient use of energy

    As to the suggestion that the CIA staged 9/11, this is bizarre & thin to (or beyond) vanishing probative value - or are these guys suggesting that Pearl Harbour (another example of US unpreparedness) was carried out by the CIA, rather than by the Japanese

    Yr obedinet servant etc

    G E

  2. "Or are these guys suggesting that Pearl Harbour (another example of US unpreparedness) was carried out by the CIA, rather than by the Japanese"

    Another example of US unpreparedness? Historians have established through documentary evidence the fact that the US government had foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbour attack but decided to allow it to proceed.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. The CIA wasn't founded until 1947 - but I get the point; and there is a lot of evidence pointing to foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbour attack by elements of the US government and military.

    The only thing about 9/11 that I am personally certain of is that the report of the Kean Commission is a travesty; as is the NIST report on the mechanics of the building collapses. Both even more so than the Warren Commission report into the JFK assassination that concluded a lone gunman was responsible

    As ever, cui bono? needs to be kept clearly in mind.

    I agree with Andreas Von Buelow that there are really just four possibilities 1, Total surprise, 2. Some foreknowledge but confusion resulting in total failure by the entire US security apparatus. 3. They let it happen. 4. It was a covert operation. Having spent countless hours researching the issue I concur with him and lean to the view that it was indeed number 4.

    Sounds totally ridiculous to the average man in the street I know, but I have no axe to grind and that's where the evidence leads. The silence of the US authorities on a whole range of matters; their refusal to address perfectly legitimate and pressing questions of fact; together with their refusal to release mountains of video and other evidence only compound matters. IMHO they do so because they know (or believe) they can rely on the patriotic gullibility of the mass of Americans to whom the very idea of complicity in such a thing by their own government is quite simply outrageous - not to say treasonable.

  5. Peak Oil yes, but America is already feeling the effects of Peak Energy. Brownouts in New York and other cities are the early symptoms. What's remarkable is that almost all USA electricity is generated by coal-fired stations - issuing all sorts of stuff into the atmosphere. And the trend is for the energy companies to demand that they be allowed to build more such stations. The problem is that even if they start building now it's doubtful that they'll have sufficient generating capacity for many years, such is the incredible growth of demand.

    The same is true of Europe, generally. But some - like the French - have been happy to build nuclear for decades. Meanwhile in Britain we have not really begun to start thinking about the problem. Maybe that's because our politicians live for the moment.

  6. Chuck

    I'm not a particular fan of Michael Meacher, having had a couple of serious one-to-ones with him over hunting back in 2002-3. But I think he's right about government knowledge of Peak Oil. I think it more or less certain that, at Privy Council level, the threat it represents is well understood. The problem is that, when you look deeply into the subject, it becomes apparent that there really is no solution that will not require a drastic - and I mean drastic - change in our whole approach to energy usage. My guess is that, as things stand the government prefer that the global warmoing debate should dominate since the prescriptions for combatting that correlate closely with what is needed to mitigate 'Peak Oil' effects - at least in the immediate term. In my opinion it ain't going to work though - and we are heading for catalcysmic changes.

  7. Agreed. But it's also true that Peak Energy can easily become (and many sources would argue actually is) part of the global warming debate. I and some American colleagues have done some work on this and we can put up sound arguments for (electrical) energy reduction. Most coal-fired units run at best at 30% efficiency. So 70% of their (substantial) emissions arises from wasted energy.

    Of course the whole middle-east and Afghan charade is about oil. Just watch the Russians. At least they are more upfront about their intentions!