Peak Oil & The Media: Multifaceted Issue Requires a Shift in Values and Thinking

“Peak Oil & The Media: How Bad Can the News Get?“… The news could get worse. A lot worse. But, is that what we should be focused on? Are we actually getting the full story? If not, why not? Where do we go from here and what is the media’s role?
The July 12th panel discussion by the Vancouver Peak Oil Executive (VPOE) depicted the potential impact of peak oil and addressed the media’s role in its fragmented coverage. It also raised questions about related, multifaceted issues.
VPOE host, Justin Roller, set the stage. “Peak oil… there seems to be difficulty in the media with covering such a complex issue. [It’s] reflected in several key areas of concern:”
– an attempt to marginalize the issue
– nitpicking about the shape of the curve measuring the peak oil timeline
– a false portrayal of “alarmists”
– dismissive statements that peak oil is just a theory
– an attempt to refocus people on other issues, diverting attention elsewhere
The result has been societal confusion, disbelief, or denial.
As the facts on peak oil gradually sink in with somewhat “balanced” news coverage recently, some individuals and organizations are taking action. Yet for many others, there is still surprise and stunned inaction, like a doe caught in the headlights. Why and what can be done?
Roller posed five questions to the panelists from various media:
What Does Peak Oil Represent?
All the panelists pretty much agreed on the most basic definition of peak oil and that the media and politicians have done a poor job in preparing the public. Generally, “global production of oil peaks and starts to subside as demand stays the same or increases”, comments Charlie Smith of the Georgia Straight. “Conventional oil peaked in 2006, according to German analysts.”
Added Barbara Yaffe, columnist for The Vancouver Sun, “This should not be a surprise given that studies had first surfaced in the 1970’s about the potential for peak oil.”
“Peak oil represents globalization of an unsustainable system,” a sobering, big picture view offered by Alex Smith of Radio Ecoshock, a non-profit radio station which covers environmental issues. “Everyone is looking for a (short-term) technical fix, but this requires a social change.”
“The energy return on investment is diminishing and we’re even burning more fuel to get fuel,” added Rex Weyler of The Tyee. In essence, when we put “100 barrels in, in the beginning, [we got] 100 barrels out. Now, it’s 20 barrels in, 1 barrel out.” At almost any cost, “it’s all about access to oil now. US$1 trillion was spent by the USA to access oil in Iraq.”
The political, economic, and social fallout from peak oil and climate change cannot be ignored. “Watch the military-industrial complex and the world global powers,” suggested Yaffe. A shift in power is predicted; political chaos is possible.
Indeed. Sara Robinson, correspondent for Blog For Our Future, sees peak oil as the “end of the American empire.” Historically, all empires have been built on resources. Oil is the foundation of the U.S. economy. With its unraveling, “democracy will become difficult to uphold.”
How Difficult Is It to Explain This Complex Issue?
Several answers were offered — some conceivable and straightforward, some opened up related, profoundly complex issues.
It’s a matter of getting “the issue down to its core. People want something comprehensible – they want the concept and what we need to do to adapt. The technical [information on peak oil, climate change, etc.] is difficult, but the public really doesn’t need all that technical information,” advised Yaffe.
Agreed. But, this then begs the question as to why the media has not done a better job at covering the issue of peak oil, given the confusion, disbelief, and denial that’s out there.
Charlie Smith added, specifically, “The media needs to tie peak oil to other local issues that oil affects,” thereby making a complex issue more readily understandable. Moreover, “a lot of reporters, media people, are ignorant and driven by the issue of the day. I try to suggest books in my analyses” to facilitate and encourage people to be better informed.
Yaffe rejoined, “The issue is the commercial aspect of the media. The media reflects the public.” This, however, is an age-old, chicken-or-egg causality debate. It’s become clearer through a number of studies that the media does influence the public. The degree to which it does is debatable. There must be some type of balance between private versus public interests.
It’s boiled down to a “shouting match of polarized views”, weighed in Weyler, echoing a keynote speech by legendary broadcaster, Bill Moyers, at the recent fourth annual National Conference for Media Reform. “It’s insufficient for journalists to just quote the left and right sides of an issue. When think tanks get involved, they confuse the public: The journalists are then not doing their jobs to analyze the issues.”
“The media [tends to] show two sides of an issue when there are more sides,” concurred Sara Robinson, adding, “Major media houses are owned by only a half a dozen companies.” With media consolidation, where is the independent, democratic voice and coverage? The American independent journalist stated that she has not seen “democratic, free reporting in the U.S. for the last 25 years.”
Alex Smith agreed and brought the point full circle: “Traditional media is now shrinking and most coverage in mainstream media is car ads. Readership is also down.”
What Can or Should the Media Do?
In addition to Charlie Smith’s earlier suggestion for journalists to become better informed, Rex Weyler put it simply as, “we need better journalism and the public should demand it.”
How? “Write brief, succinct letters to the editor and to columnists,” suggested Robinson and Weyler.
Where Is The Accountability and Follow Up for This Issue?

Robinson stated, “Part of the problem with better coverage is that the public fears the issue and will not face it – denial.” It seemingly follows that they will not read articles on peak oil, nor will they write comments to the editor or columnist, thereby, potentially reducing readership and the commercial interests – in part — of media.
“Extreme things are happening and people are not realizing it to reorganize their lives. The media is Iulling us,” counters Alex Smith.
Charlie Smith corroborated, “Media has some responsibility to alert the public [to issues that have a direct impact on their lives], such as food shortages.” Weyler added, “Media [also] has a responsibility to point out the wrong decisions that we’re making before we crash. For example, we’re building more highways, but we don’t want to reach a point in a few years and say, ‘Dang! We should have analyzed the situation more closely and…'”
Will Consensus About The Urgency Come Too Late?
The bad news is that the public and the B.C. government are generally late to react with urgency. “Politicians… don’t want to be the ones to deliver the truth,” states Weyler.
The bright side is that, “we are starting to see academics come forward,” comments Charlie Smith, “along with senior executives of corporations, such as CIBC’s head economist appearing on CBC recently.”
A few questions came from the audience, two of which prominently formed a natural extension of the earlier discussion. More importantly, the answers offered intriguing insight to prospective – if not, optimistic – shifts in perspective and sources for change:
Can Our Economy Continue to Grow and How Do We Transition as Painlessly as Possible?
Oil is a finite resource and it should be evident that “exponential growth cannot go on forever”, stated Weyler. We need to rethink and change our values because “value does not equate with what you buy.”
Robinson added, “we need to figure out other criteria to measure ourselves and compete,” perhaps corroborating Wexler’s earlier comment that “GDP is a bad measure.”
“It will not be painless,” affirmed Alex Smith.
Charlie Smith proposed that “the change will actually come at the municipal level, as it has been the case in the past. Local governments will become more important [also in the transition].”
How Do We Deal with the Complexities of the Issue?
With respect to how to approach the peak oil issue, as with most issues, Sara Robinson offered a pragmatic answer: “There are complexities to understanding the issue, but it’s more complex to figure out the various options for action or solution. ‘Systems thinking’ has grown and we need to think in this way.”
In essence, “we need to reverse our thinking to ask how ecosystems work and look for solutions in nature,” adds Weyler. “Ecology is the economy.”
Overall, VPOE’s panel discussion on peak oil and the media was a colourful, frank, democratic debate. Time permitting, the discussion would have easily delved deeper into the issue and possible solutions.
Key takeaway messages for us:

• Oil is a finite resource and peak oil represents globalization of an unsustainable system with dire consequences.

• We need to take a systems approach to peak oil and climate change, realize that ecology is the economy, and use environmental science to develop comprehensive solutions within nature.

• We have the technology, but it’s an enabler for solutions.

• To effectively and responsibly “inform” the public on peak oil, journalists need to become better-informed, analyze all sides of the issue, report the facts as objectively as possible, and hopefully stimulate their audience into thought-provoking discussion and/or debate.

• Since environmentalism and sustainable development are grassroots-driven, is it surprising that the seat of pivotal change may be at the municipal level of government?