Hope you all remembered to fill up your tanks before the election. Due to yet another completely unremarkable coincidence that is hardly worth talking about since it has absolutely nothing to do with price fixing or attempts by oil companies to influence the outcome of elections * , the price at the pump is going back up again, in spite of the fact that the price for a barrel of crude oil has fallen during the same period.
In completely unrelated news, the Peak Oil Theory of diminishing petroleum supplies and its associated impacts on the global economy has been dismissed as "faulty" in a press release issued by the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, who warn that alarm over reduced supplies of petroleum could "distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future."
The fact that the CERA is largely funded by oil companies is also completely beside the point and hardly even worth mentioning, which is why most of the news outlets that ran slightly-edited versions of CERA's press release as news stories last week didn't feel the need to mention it. I don't even know why I'm mentioning it, because it's so unimportant.
Posted by flamingbanjo at November 20, 2006 05:15 PMI really can't get my head around the logic of the oil companies on this one. Why do they want us to think the oil isn't going to run out? Anyone who's done a foundation-level GCSE science (that's a UK school qualification, foundation-level science is for 15-16 year olds who still have trouble with basic literacy) knows that oil is a non-renwable energy source. Therefore it *is* going to run out.
Are they trying to cling onto power and influence for as long as possible? Are they trying to distract us while they diversify into other energy sources? (Nuclear energy - arrgh - dangerous *and* non-renewable. Effing Tony Blair.) And while they do this, there are huge, well-funded ad campaigns running constantly on CNN and BBC World (at least the versions I'm watching in China) trying to persuade us that multi-national oil companies are eco-friendly, responsible, conscientious happy families.
Ah, rant over. Thanks for that.
Hope your work situation's improving.
Well, clearly there's a reason why you're mentioning this:
You're a shill for one of those allegedly "environmentally concerned" eco-terrorism cells that, along with Ossama, Kim Jong Il, Chavez, Bono, and Tim Robbins is intent upon destroying our God-given American Way Of Life (tm), and all the good things it stands for.
We are not running out of oil; we will never run out of oil, because God is constantly replenishing the vast reservoirs that lie at the
center of the earth - or what would be the "center" if the earth was round, which of course it's not.
Dishuiguanyin: Well, by parsing this press release, my best guess hinges on one word in particular: "Investment."
The argument they are making is that there is more oil to be discovered if we "invest" in exploration (remember that exploratory drilling is often taxpayer-subsidized, which largely eliminates the risk for the oil companies). They might also be concerned that too much investment in developing competitive forms of energy might diminish the value of that non-renewable resource over which the oil companies currently hold monopolistic control. While having the main source of energy for the entire planet run out presents many obvious problems for the public, from the perspective of the sellers of that resource it means that they control the market on a commodity that can only increase in value. And in fact, oil companies have been reporting record profits for years running now. The only thing likely to upset this business model is some sort of large scale migration to some other energy resource.
But my main point here is this: Peak Oil is not an issue I've seen discussed very widely in the mainstream press. This article "debunking" it ran in many major news outlets and for many people may well be the first treatment of the idea that they've seen. To run that press release without providing any meaningful context, including the fact that the agency issuing the report has a pretty clear interest in the matter, is in my view performing a disservice to journalistic ethics.
That doesn't mean that the data in CERA's study is incorrect or that their conclusions are faulty. But readers need to know the source of the "facts" they are being presented, particularly when a clear conflict of interest is involved.
Comte: Oddly enough, environmental advocacy groups now employ PR firms as well. This fact has been used by PR firms working the other side of the street to portray environmental advocacy as nothing more than a campaign of scare tactics designed to generate more money for environmental groups, trial lawyers, and organic food sellers.
There are no neutral facts in the media anymore. Just competing PR campaigns.
Clearly you are a shill for God's™ PR position. And we all know the big guy has deep pockets.
Posted by: flamingbanjo at November 21, 2006 12:20 PMYes, and those deep, deep pockets are squishy-full of OIL!
Posted by: COMTE at November 22, 2006 02:55 PM