Slashdot Mirror
Whistleblower Claims IEA Is Downplaying Peak Oil
Yesterday the Guardian ran a story based on two anonymous sources inside the International Energy Agency who claimed that the agency had distorted key figures on oil reserves. "The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the [IEA] who claims it has been deliberately
underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying. The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves." Today the IEA released its annual energy outlook and rejected the whistleblowers'
charges. The Guardian has an editorial claiming that the economic establishment is too fearful to come clean on the reality of oil suppplies, and makes an analogy with the (marginalized, demonized) economists who warned of a coming economic collapse in 2007.
Yeah, but we aren't allowed to exploit domestic energy supplies. The NIMBY crowd and enviro-nazi's will see to that, aided by the current political overlords in Washington. Apparently it's better that we keep sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas than it would be to exploit our own resources and keep some of that money within our borders.
Don't worry though, I'm sure our overlords in the Federal Government will come up with a solution. All we need is more energy conservation and investment in key primary states^W^W^Wethanol to save the day.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I'm guessing their answer is to have the IEA control the worlds oil supply and distribute it to country's as they see fit, or some form of global governance, taxes, etc...
It's the only way to stop this crisis that only exists in our heads. I'm sick of these international agencies making ridiculous statements about how we're all going to die because of their computer models that make terribly flawed assumptions. Then their answer is to give them power and money.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
To add to that, this is a story by kdawson. Most of the stories from said poster usually include conspiracy-esque summaries. kdawson either likes drama or they really want to believe in these highly polarizing stories.
Not saying this story isn't true, but I'm not certain anyone really knows outside of the acronyms in question.
Employing Americans and keeping money at home instead of sending it to countries that finance extremism is a "marginal gain"?
At current oil prices, yes.
Also, apologies for the Godwin crack. I just love poking people when they get all huffy. "Enviro-nazis"! SNORT!
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
What would Rush Limbaugh do?
So under your economic reality
That's an interesting conclusion that you've reached.
No me, you retard, that's the way it is. You seem to think a few greens and their tame puppets in DC are responsible for most of the mess we're in, and I clued you in that maybe it was a little more attenuated than that, upon which your reply is to accuse me of being an unrealistic daydreamer?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
That's why we must get rid of all the damn boota-bata Arabs and stake our claim to that sweet, sweet oil, to protect America from terrists, 9/11 etc. We could also rescue the abundant Saudi women who are stunningly gorgeous but have to spend their entire lives in the garage, never driven and perpetually covered in sheets like neglected prize Corvettes.
Additionally, we should lock up people like the Bushes and the Cheneys and the Liebermans - we are mighty America and we fight for the country, not for Dick's bonus and vacation home. We do not need to pander to the Jews and the Arabs.
1.5T available barrels of oil / 20B barrels consumed daily by the US = 75 days
hmmm... That doesn't seem that great IMO.
Personally, my car runs on veggie oil, so I'm not in an "OMG Were all gonna die!" panic streak, but I'm pretty sure you're screwed.
Realistically though, what we have now is not a true free market, it is impossible to have a consumer base that is well enough informed and a corporate base that is motivated by profit over dividends. Capitalism fails in the same way that Communism does. In a perfect environment, both would flourish. But out side of academia, no such environment exists. The only logical conclusion is that some balance of free market, oversight, subsidies, and regulation will work.
Getting intelligent and open minded individuals to debate out differing points of view on that balance is what give our economy strength. Unfortunately, the media loves a good polarizing story and has managed to turn damn near every political debate into a hot button "our way or NO WAY" fight.
If you leave it to the free(er) market, the cheapest production will always get the most pressure. When sales start dropping again, more lobbying and pressure will come to bear to open up more reserves. And each time they move to the next cheapest production, prices will rise. Eventually opening the door for other more competitive fuel sources.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I'm sorry, but are you saying it's irrational to fear attracting a criminal underclass by making the city more accomodating of the same kind of person who would benefit most from bus service?
I totally agree with the need for more mass transit solutions (though I'd prefer it be brought about by peak-load pricing of the roads), but there are reasons that people go to great lengths and great inconveniences to live far from the city center and out of the reach of people who can't afford cars, and you need to understand why people have such beliefs to know when they will change their minds and stop blocking efficiency improvements in the transportation system.
"They're irrational" just isn't going to cut it.
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Stop trying to back peddle. You made the comparison, and he called you out on it. If you didn't believe it was at least partially apt, you wouldn't have made it.
Go back to your tea bagging parties you inbred simpleton.
See? That's tounge-in-cheek too! (Flame? Troll? What? You can't take a joke! Damn PCers.)
The funny business in housing can be traced to the Clinton-era HUD forcing banks to make loans to risky poor persons (or else face being drug into court). Then the Republicans tried to rein-in the exploding bubble, but the Democrats blocked it. And eventually when those poor persons couldn't keep-up with their loans (no surprise) the whole thing came crashing down in 2007-8.
Video proof -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Oh wait, that's free market economics,
See, here is where you are missing something. The 'Free market' isn't the magic bullet that you want to think it is. Oh sure, it will find an equilibrium between supply and demand. Nobody argues that. However, people might die and there might might be economic collapse while its happening, but gosh darn it, letting things take care of themselves gust makes sense!
'The free market' isn't omniscient. It can be blindsided by sudden changes. Those changes can be very bad in the short term. I might point out how the 'fee market' responded to banking deregulation over the last twenty years to illustrate my point. 'The market' has nobody's best interest at heart.
I am not advocating socialism or anything like that. The best system is probably a mixture of elements of a free market and a controlled economy.
I wish I had mod points.
I'd also like to point out that economics is not a religion to be blindly followed, it's a science to be utilized for the betterment of the human condition.
When the free market running amok threatens the human condition, it should be reigned in.
Sure, the invisible hand of supply and demand will straighten everything out in the long run, but to quote keynes: "in the long run, we're all dead".
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
> makes an analogy with the (marginalized, demonized) economists who warned of a coming economic collapse in 2007.
Hrm... like Paul Krugman, the economic who warned of collapse and yet received a Nobel prize?
All opinions expressed herein are not my own; I haven't had free will since last year when aliens ate my brain.
I remember this from the 1960s, then the 1970s when they showed a boy about 8 years old saying there would be no oil for him when he was 16 and old enough to drive. His son is driving and perhaps his son is driving by now. Another scare in 1983, 1987, 1991, 1999-2000, 2004 and a big one in 2007/2008 just in time for the election which I personally believe was very much intentional. If they keep "predicting" it, it will eventually happen I'm sure. They also stopped making new oil refineries in the US in the 1970s. So it is possible that we will hit peak oil because they won't be able to refine any more due to the environmentalists. More of the same. Nothing to see, move along.
>>>There is plenty of blame to go around but this idea that some how the Democrats in concert with lower income earning U.S. citizens caused the current economic crisis is dumb founding idiocy.
>>>
And yet I hear on the television almost hourly, "The Republicans ruined the economy."
Funny how everyone thinks that's a-okay.
Double standard.
As long as the Dems insist upon attacking me, just because I'm registered (r), then I'm going to strike back. Those videos the Grandparent Poster linked clearly show that the Dems encouraged high-risk loans ("yes som will lead to bankruptcy") and refused to regulate Fannie or Freddie Mac in 2004 when they had the chance. Then they somehow spin that around and say, "Not our fault." Bullshit.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall