Why do people focus more on global warming than peak oil?

Question

It seems as if so much emphasis is put on global warming, something we may have very little control over, but the same people tend to ignore the Peak Oil crisis, something much more imminent and controllable.

Global warming is debatable by many people, but peak oil isn't. Oil is not an infinite resource. It will decline; it already has in the U.S. in the 1970's. People who ignore global warming as a natural phenomenon, can't ignore peak oil and the fact that is is wihin our control. Why not educate more people on peak oil instead since they can't deny it?

And the kicker seems to be that if we deal with the peak oil crisis, we would essential be dealing with global warming too!

(If you don't know about peak oil, check this out: http://peakoilblues.com)

Answer 1

1)Because Al Gore didn't make a movie about Peak Oil.

2)Because peak oil is an abstraction-until the oil stops flowing

3)Because you are more likely to get laid by a hot girl/guy who is concerned about polar bears & receeding glaciers.

4)Peak oil disscussions tend to involve actual scientific & technical knowledge, which by definition excludes large segements of the public.

5)Peak oil can't be blamed for flooding/drought/hurricanes or any other sever weather, so there's very limited video ops for public consumption.

6)Any and all environmental issues can be linked to global warming (regardless of the veracity of those linkages).

7)Hollywood can't make money off of peak oil.

8)No celebraties do public appearences to raise peak oil awareness.

Answer 2

Peak oil is a boogie man we just don't want to confront...plus, although it is probably already too late, we think of it as some sort of abstraction with not enough s*x appeal to get attracted to.  Also it doesn't effect the entire globe such as global warming does.  And thirdly, one has to go out of there way to research this concept.  When good morning America picks it up, it will continue to be little known, controversial and little understood.  

We are about 10 years too late to massively produce oil out of coal, and is it efficient to produce millions of barrels per day to meet our requirements?

Answer 3

Petroleum is the worst of the available technologies.  It is obsolete by any measure.  We use it not because we have nothing better, but because of business decisions made a hundred years ago and the political decisions that continue to support them.  Oil costs much less to produce in the middle eastern oil fields than it did in the 1950's, but we pay much more.  Those fields hold 75% of the world's proven reserves.  As long as we continue to use it they can charge anything they want, get richer, and do a better job attacking us and Israel.

Much better alternatives have been proposed and buried time and again, by big oil, but also by the car makers and government.  The most recent example was electric cars marketed in California during the 1990's.  They gave the equivalent of 60 cent a gallon gas and outperformed most gas cars on the road.  People will say "But the electricity comes from coal or nuclear".  Sure it does, and both pollute much less than the gasoline.  With a single central location the pollution is much easier to control and abate than in millions of autos.  They were originally marketed with a faulty battery (knowingly).  When the battery was replaced with a good battery they were unbeatable.  Chevron bought the factory and the patents for the battery and shut down the production line.  When GM got the law changed that mandated EV's, they recalled every single one, crushed them AND shredded them!  Most of the hybrids, electrics, and alternative fuel cars made in the USA are worthless, and planned to fail.  They make good ones in Japan and Europe.  The alternative fuels advocated by the government, car companies and oil companies in the USA are also worthless, and planned to fail.  The less of our time and money we waste on oil the better off we'll be.  The sooner we abandon it the sooner we can get to work on the survival of the human race.  It isn't worth the 4,000 dead American Soldiers it has cost us to stay with this antique fuel for the last 8 years.

Answer 4

Peak oil doesn't seem like as 'romantic' of a cause. I have no idea why no one seems to care about it. There is solid proof of the oil issue, why people debate endlessly about something that isn't even proven like Global Warming is beyond me.

Answer 5

To put it bluntly:

Global warming - the planet is screwed and it's our own fault, but there are many things we can still do. We can save the planet and nature will thank us. Yay, we're heroes!

Peak Oil - humanity is screwed and it's our own fault. Any solutions are either hard or require a lot of sacrifice and nature wouldn't care if we eventually go away. Yay, we're insignificant!

Which of these you think sounds better to the public?

Answer 6

People don't understand peak oil.   "We have 250 years worth of coal that we can make into oil like the Germans did."   "We have hundreds of years worth of oil in oil shale and tar sands."   I recently heard someone say there is more oil in Alaska than there is in the whole middle east.     Ignorance and wishful thinking can go a long way in dispelling fear and positive actions.

Answer 7

In history, the economy has always come before the environment. People still feel the same way. People would rather admit to environmental degradation than to an economic recession or other problems with the economy.

Also, people probably feel more altruistic if they fought for "Mother Earth" and "future generations" than for their own needs for oil.