Nixon oversaw US Peak Crude Oil, when in 1970 the Texas Railroad Commission who effectively limited Texan oil production to maintain price stability, lifted all restrictions on production. Nixon could forsee that decreasing US oil production would lead to increasing oil imports and huge outgoings of Dollars. So he decoupled the Dollar from Gold allowing it to float, effectively removing all limits on money-printing. He also realised that publicly acknowledging Peak Oil would have dramatic effects on the oil majors future prospects, and share price, so Peak Oil was never to be acknowledged.
By 1977 the situation had become:
Carter's "Fireside chat" of 1977 shows he clearly understood about Peak Oil and its consequences.
as did Obama's in his 2013 speech :
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/remarks-president-climate-change
What is true is that we can’t just drill our way out of the energy and climate challenge that we face. (Applause.) That’s not possible.
And while the climate challenge would bite some time after 2030 , the energy challenge will bite before 2020 . Which would worry you more?
How could they NOT know, with all the experts and unpublished data that they have access to, and internal oil company forecasts for production that they are privy to?
So Trump must know that too, even if he doesn't want to believe it. He probably knows the exact year that the Peak Oil problem will become impossible to hide, and what year the whole economy will collapse, and how much longer it can be put off by how much more money-printing. It's not something that can be set aside for idealogical reasons. The next crash will be the last.
Your grasp of the peak oil math is accurate, but your grasp of the relative importance of catastrophic climate change versus peak oil is woefully inaccurate, if not sadly upside down. WHY?
Before I answer that, please realize that that Big Oil, despite knowing the peak oil math, stubbornly have tried to cling to their UPSTREAM "business model". The following graphic is irrefutable evidence that Big Oil, HAVING THE MONEY to transition to clean energy, IGNORED their own peak oil research and DOUBLED DOWN on UPSTREAM (i.e. exploration for, and exploitation of, oil and gas sources
) investments:
They certainly could have spent that 900 BILLION DOLLARS in Renewable energy, but greedily (and stupidly ) decided NOT TO on the basis of extending the day of reckoning for peak oil (and BLATANTLY ignoring
the fact that said upstream activity would goose catastrophic climate change even more). So, that gigantic amount of money argues against all the claims you just made about Big Oil (and Trump) "knowing the score", even though Carter and Nixon DID know the score (
Obama did NOT really know the score! His mealy mouthed attempts to do "all the above" in energy technologies was clear evidence of that.)
Yet, you continue to believe that Big Oil is acting rationally by giving more importance to fueling civilization than trying to stop polluting it to extinction. The two dangers cannot be weighed logically as you continue to attempt to do. Now to answer the "WHY?" I first presented to you above.
Let us assume, for the sake of non-argument, that your RCP 4.5 scenario assumptions, which is probably where you get the rationale for the year 2030 being the leading front of costly climate change impacts, are accurate (I think we are in RCP 8.5 or worse territory now, but we have argued that before and you are sticking with your conservative RCP 4.5 view no matter what.
).
Peak civilization sustaining ENERGY (which is what you REALLY MEAN by "peak oil"
) is, as you claim, a sort of light switch type (i.e. sudden) event that triggers a major collapse.
Of course we all want to avoid that. Of course, the trajectory we are on NOW will definitely produce that collapse eventually.
However, your estimate of the date of said collapse being around 10 years prior to the major catastrophic climate events is NOT a proper or reasonable rationale for prioritizing looking for more fossil fuels above transitioning to clean energy and banning fossil fuel use BECAUSE:
1) Lack of energy for most people to live a decent life will cause a lot of death and misery, but won't make us go extinct. After the main event, a new equilibrium will be established within a few decades or less. It is NOT the end of the world and should NOT be treated like the number one priority for the perpetuation of a viable biosphere and the human species.
2) Lack of energy will NOT cause multiple biosphere species extinctions, many of which WE NEED to avoid going extinct ourselves.
3) Catastrophic climate change will continue to WORSEN for over a CENTURY (or up to 1,000 YEARS!) after the first impacts are felt (as they are NOW, not in 2030, being felt).
I really do not see why this is so hard for you to grasp. We live in an interconnected system of biological activity. THAT is in DANGER. THAT is the first, 2nd, 3rd, (keep going for over a 100 years counting) PRIORITY for action in the defense of the biosphere, if we wish to survive.
An integral part of surviving is to STOP POLLUTING THE PLANET. Any claim to "delaying" the collapse, as a rationale to engage in MORE oil and gas UPSTREAM investment and exploitation
, actually makes the collapse MORE LIKELY SOONER, in addition to
increasing the probability of our extinction for not taking timely action to preserve the biosphere.
This is not all that hard to figure, Palloy. The fossil fuel "industry" doesn't want to let go of their "business model". So they keep making excuses that counteract the good advice of their own scientists. As long as the fossil fuelers like Putin and Exxon etc,
et al call the shots and pull the Trump strings, we ARE SCREWED. Greed has destroyed their ability to reason. It's time you accepted that sad reality is based on irrational greed, not "peak oil" math.