There is a stunning amount of resistance to the peak oil concept out there.  Or some people say that they have heard of it, but they think that is off in the future.

The thing that I am having trouble figuring out is how we deal with the rural poor.  They seem to get shafted no matter what happens.

Here in Australia we have had slightly mixed experience with politician's handling of rising oil prices.  A couple of years ago, when retail petrol prices surged over 90 cents Australian a litre, the Howard Government got scared at the public reaction and froze the level of excise, which had previously been indexed to domestic inflation.  This didn't stop the price going past the magic $1 per litre, and the Government spent a lot of time and effort explaining that global events and world markets were to blame.

More recently, as oil passed US $60 a barrel last year, the pump price reached A$1.40 per litre.  It subsequently fell back to the 125 cents to 130 cents/litre level, but is again moving up as world prices respond to US sabre-rattling and other factors.

I have been intrigued that, while consumers are not happy with the situation, there no longer seems to be any expectation that our Government can 'fix' the problem, and the Government does not appear to see the price as a political problem.  There has been some public discussion, prompted by consumer bodies, of profiteering by the oil majors when the pump price did not fall as far as the global oil price.

Talking about petrol prices in my workplace a few days ago, it seemed to me that everyone recognised that the price was unlikely to ever go back down very far.  My colleagues have certainly noticed the extra cost to them in a country which is utterly dependent on private cars.  We discussed the likelihood, which is being raised in the local newspaper business pages, that discretionary consumption of food (eating out), clothing and holidays will fall, with consequent economic impacts.

But there is very little coverage in our MSM of the 'peak oil' issue, and I think that the Government's feeble efforts to encourage alternative energy sources are mainly window-dressing to defend them against the charge that they are doing nothing about climate change.

At the bottom of all this is the fact that there are very big coal mining and oil interests who contribute funds to the major political parties.  It is not yet in the politicians' interests to take tough decisions about energy use.  The great tragedy is that it may take many more significant natural disasters (caused by climate change) or significant economic pain affecting large numbers of voters before the politicians change tack.

George Bush announced yesterday that he was suspending deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to make more oil available to consumers as well as putting on hold the traditional regulations requiring additives to make fuel burn cleaner during the summer driving season.

Next time the shit hits the fan (like after Katrina) he'll probably expect the EU to subserviently hand over its own reserves, right? Particularly if oil exports from the Persian Gulf are held up because of the little military adventure in Iran that we know he's planning.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

Bush runs on empty (Financial Times)

Pity the leader of a nation that regards cheap petrol as a basic human right. That is President George W. Bush's position as pump prices start to approach a high of $3 a gallon ahead of next month's driving season - and next autumn's mid-term elections - while his approval ratings are closing fast on a low of about 30 per cent.

 (...)

After the attacks of September 11 2001, the president had a unique opportunity to create a bipartisan and public consensus behind increased energy efficiency and reduced energy dependency, especially on oil imported from politically unreliable parts of the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. He did not take it.

(...)

In the end, however, America's addiction can be beaten only by hard policy decisions: rigorous fuel-efficiency standards, a tax regime that prices petrol realistically, as well as a framework of incentives for investment in alternative technologies. Meanwhile, the best agent of change is expensive oil.

Phony War on Gas (Washington Post)

NO DOUBT IT makes everyone feel better when the president states his concern for Americans, who are now paying more than $3 a gallon for gasoline. Unfortunately, the measures President Bush chose to announce this week to combat high prices are either meaningless or possibly dangerous in the long run, even if they do offer a bit of temporary relief.

(...)

The president has, of course, had plenty of opportunities over the past five years to shape a more rational energy policy, one that would have provided incentives to move away from oil and toward other energy sources. He could have lobbied harder to remove the oil industry tax benefits from the energy bill he signed. He could have insisted that Congress add more tax breaks for hybrid cars, as he now says he wishes it had done. He could lift the tariffs on Brazilian ethanol, which would help address some of the ethanol shortages across the country. He could have endorsed a tax on oil and coal, which of course would not lower the price of gasoline but would, again, begin to reduce demand while encouraging investment in new technologies.

I Smell Gas - A subject that makes congressmen stupid. (Slate)

Few topics seem to addle the collective brain of Washington like high gas prices. Politicians who raise this issue can generally be assumed to be partisan, cynical, demagogic, and dishonest. But one must not discount the possibility that something about the subject actually makes them stupid.

(...)

What none can acknowledge is that higher gas prices in the United States are a good thing. To be sure, oil at $70 a barrel causes hardships for working people and delights some of the world's worst dictators. But cheap gasoline imposes its own costs on society: greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution and its attendant health risks, traffic congestion, and accidents. The ideal way to cope with these externalities would be with higher gas taxes or a carbon tax. But these are politically impossible ideas at the moment--Democrats lost control of Congress in part because they passed a 4-cent-per-gallon tax increase in 1993. The next best solution is the one that has arrived on its own: a high market price for oil, which spurs conservation and substitution. Sustained high prices will bring about behavioral and political changes: energy conservation, public transportation, less exurban sprawl, and eventually the economic viability of alternative fuel sources such as biomass, fuel cells, wind, and solar power, which may one day undermine the power of the oil oligarchs. Are politicians too stupid to understand this, or just smart enough not to say it aloud?

For the purposes of this discussion the most important is the senate, with two members per state (regardless of population). This was done for historical reasons when the constitution was written, but the disparity between rural and urban states has increased in the last 200 years and the issue is now more stark.

The bottom line is that about 17% of the population controls 50% of the senate seats. All but two of these states are low density, rural.
I put together a chart which shows this graphically:
Senate vs Population.

In the house, which is proportional to population, sparsely populated states still get an edge since they must have one representative regardless of population.

The result of this has been an emphasis on farm supports, rural development, shortchanging of urban projects and a host of other ills which are not obvious at first.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

Out of curiosity to see what the clueless MSM were saying about peak oil and climate change I not only grabbed the PO issue of Am Prospect (which I dismissed contemptuously in an earlier thread for its touching, childlike faith in corn ethanol and Barack Obama) but also the seizure-inducing "Green Issue" of Vanity Fair -- a most aptly named mag if you actually remember the novel.  VF is -- how to describe -- Hollywood Confidential meets Elle, or something like that.  Am Prospect looks soberly realistic by comparison.  And yet...  for actual pages of relevant minatory content, VF might just win.

So, in the VF Green issue, the inside front page foldout (premiere spot) is a performance/luxury 'cute ute' ad.  Ads continue for page after page of 4-colour offset (using toxic heavy-metal inks no doubt, on virgin dioxin-bleached claycoat):  SUVs, perfumes, cosmetics, luxury handbags, more exotic cosmetics priced about the same as gold by troy weight, travel ads, gold jewellery, more travel ads, etc.  Most of the affluent world's maximally destructive habits lavishly represented and promoted, before you ever get to any actual content.  My ironometer is pegged already.

Now the articles, most of which boil down to "Pretty People Prefer Priuses," "Some Greens Dress Nicely and are Good Looking," and variations on these themes.  Plenty of snarky, snide, vicious little jabs at Birkenstocks, lentils, tie dye, tree hugging, and any critique of capitalism -- just so yesterday, m'dear.  Trying to make it clear that Pretty Wealthy People Green-ness is a whole new, fashionable, stylish and above all upper-crusty thing, not some dreary shtick about, you know, serious ideas discussed by nonphotogenic vegetarian anoraks who drive old cars or godforbid ride a bike.  Token third world activist -- just one -- Wangari Maathai.  Everyone else seems white and 80 percent male.  Feature pages:  nifty expensive gifts to buy that are green or pseudo-green -- how to Keep Consuming Pointlessly with a Clear Conscience.

However, I give the editor his due -- in among all this incitement to grand mal he ran two excellent, lengthy, substantive feature articles:  one on MTR (mountain top removal) coal mining in Appalachia, one on projected rises in sea levels.  Both are excellent -- fact filled and chewy -- and I will try to scan some of the graphics to share.  The mag as a whole though had about the same effect on me as the corpse of a diseased rat.  I kinda don't even like touching it :-)  Every pathology of the overripe zenith of American hyperconsumerism and narcissism, proudly flaunted in one shiny, garishly overcoloured, borderline-porno, pretty-shiny-toxic package.  What an experience.  What does it do to the brain to ingest one of these every month?  Gotta drink some electrolytes, I'm in culture shock...

Question is, does the editor do a good strategic deed by slipping some serious content in among the big colourful bag of M&Ms and Qaaludes?  getting an urgent message to people who would otherwise resolutely refuse to hear it?  Or does he guarantee that the impact of these grim, hard-hitting articles will be lost, muffled in the layers and layers of corporate glitz and feelgood meringue in which he's wrapped them?  The most serious (best contiguous page count and least conflict between text and graphics) layout was reserved for Junger's latest rubberneck art, an investigative essay on the Boston Strangler.  Hmmm.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...