I think Jim Cramer, of the 'Mad Money' program, is a pompous blowhard.  However I couldn't help notice that his latest syndicated blurb over this past weekend is basically an admission that we're either already at Peak Oil, or damn close to it.  Cramer is intrigued by the fact that even as a barrel of oil hits unprecedented price levels, globally, the big oil producers don't seem to be able to produce much more of it.

Cramer doesn't buy the line that the big oil producers are intentionally holding back production.  And neither do I.

Yet who dares to say this to America? -- in terms of our political leadership, I mean.  I don't hear McCain, or Obama, or Hillary referencing Peak Oil.  Nor even supposed progressives like Edwards or Kucinich.

Which means there's gonna be a lot of PISSED people out there when this shit really does hit the fan (in 3 years? in 15?).  

Woe to whoever is in public office at the time.  Even though the fault lies with a 50-year trajectory of foolish investment in a petroleum-intensive US economy, and boneheads like Cheney who keep us driving directly toward the cliff, it will be those in office at that time who will suffer the wrath of the public ...
... a public who will suddently find themselves with one too many gas-guzzlers in the driveway, ten too many miles between themselves and the places they shop and work, and woefully short of practical alternatives in their communities, such as light-rail stations, bike lanes, and quick, comfortable inter-city trains.

Progressives will blame it on the oil companies.  Conservatives will blame it on the environmentalists who didn't let them drill in ANWR.  It is all so predictable.  It will take a long time for the painful realities to sink in, I'm afraid ...
 

It's particularly ominous because their "solution" isn't much different than organizations like NRDC and Center for American Progress.

The magical wonders of carbon capture and sequestration.

Which of course will be merely a pre-tense to allow for further exploration of dirtier and dirtier oil product.

And even if they were serious about it, sequestration would hardly even be able to bring the increased emissions of "alternative petroleum" in line with conventional petroleum.

...I know there are different calculations that they use for peak oil, but from what I heard, most experts seem to think that oil peaked 'bout two years ago already.

I don't think so.

We're going to burn all the oil and gas we can get at any price anyone can afford.

In order to avoid a total economic wreck, we're going to have to go all-out on avoidance & efficiency, while reworking our infrastructure (which takes time) to use much less oil and gas.  The Hirsch Report thinks that we should be starting that 20 years before Peak Oil [oops, look it up in Wikipedia and then the report is online.]

So far, economics and climate are well-aligned: actions to reduce GHGs are about the same as those to keep economy OK.

To me, the ugly conflict will be the incredible pressure to use more coal, tar sands, shale oil, coal-to-liquid ... as conventional oil&gas decrease.

-John Mashey

Pangolin:  "The powers that be are working to hide the truth from you. Count on it."  -- I think not really.  They simply don't see it as their concern.  And it isn't really, it's YOUR concern.  Why blame some supposed {powers that be} for not finding a solution for a future problem which is your's?  Who'd you vote for / campaign strenuously for / support with donations in the last several elections?

As far as peak oil goes, I can only note that it is to be fervently hoped that oil production actually DID peak two years ago, because it's obvious that that event (has / will) have a huge economic impact in importing countries and if $100 / bbl isn't it, if the price increases due to demand exceeding production are still in the future, then I'm afraid that the US is done for.

The powers that be are worried and have been for some time. They understand the issue perfectly well. They feel that admitting it could lead to unrest, rising energy prices and economic problems. Blair turned oil occupier after a small fuel protest in the UK almost led to no food in the supermarkets in only a few days He never realised before then how dependent we are on the black stuff.

Next thing you know he's happily invading Iraq.

To me, the ugly conflict will be the incredible pressure to use more coal, tar sands, shale oil, coal-to-liquid ... as conventional oil&gas decrease.

Isn't that the same as putting global warming on the backburner, or off the stove entirely?

And as Shell put it:
nations rush to secure energy resources for themselves, fearing that energy security is a zero-sum game, with clear winners and losers. The use of local coal and homegrown biofuels increases fast. Taking the path of least resistance, policymakers pay little attention to curbing energy consumption--until supplies run short. Likewise, despite much rhetoric, greenhouse gas emissions are not seriously addressed until major shocks trigger political reactions.

Their "solution" instead of this, is of course Sequestration combined with Dirtier Oil.

Both look like bad options to me.