You know you're in trouble when:
You have a Minister of the State who can be heard getting more desperate by
the year as he struggles to understand why he still has a job given that:

a) He is categorical in his views on 9/11 - (the USA did it)
b) He is categorical in his views on Peak Oil (it's real)
c) He is categorical in his views on Climate Change (it's also real)
d) He is categorical in his views on Permanent Government (it's real too)

I guess his colleagues generally agree with him, but just can't seem to get it
together to do something about it ... one way or another.
Front bench or backbench I wish they really did "hear, hear, hear" when they
say they do and then act, act, act as we all thought they were going to.

Well done Mr Meacher.
It's you guys I keep in mind when I tick the Labour box on the ballot paper.

Can democracy and the market economy address the momentous issues that Peak Oil, Energy Decline and Climate Change present?

To quote Gustave Le Bon, "The Crowd":

As yet a nation has never been able to change its beliefs without being condemned at the same time to transform all the elements of its civilisation. The nation continues this process of transformation until it has alighted on and accepted a new general belief; until this juncture it is perforce in a state of anarchy.

Le Bon is referring to nothing more than universally accepted beliefs. I think one of the unquestioned beliefs upon which modern society today is based is that energy is forever cheap and abundant. Our rampant denial of anything to the contrary is an important protection mechanism of the herd that serves to keep society intact. Society is doomed once its constituents begin to question the fundamental belief of forever cheap and abundant energy. When the crunch begins to really be felt, and the techo-fix wonder replacements remain stubbornly around the corner, reality will be forced upon us.

To believe we can transition to a much lower-energy world while retaining our civilization of today is to bet that out of all of human history, this time will be different.

Euan – thx for posting this!
AND KUDOS to former Minister of State for the Environment, Privy Counsellor and UK Member of Parliament Michael Meacher (well put)

It was scary and comforting at the same time – Scary because it aligns with my own sensations that “big biz” is running to much of world politics (…and in the US in particular… but also US international Co’s abroad) – but comforting to know that some in the political establishments are aware of the situation …

Now folks – ultimately it is still in your hands – BUT you have to become more interested in your own life amd the life of your kids… – and thus start to learn to separate important stuff from NOT SO important stuff… most countries are still “democratic” … and some kinds of political parties are headed for the historical dust-bin…

Euan Mearns,

Thank you for finding this and posting it for us. I was hoping things were a little better in the UK than in the US, but apparently not.

I think the root of the problem is the concentration of free information in a very few media companies, and the loss of reading as a source of info by the people who participate in the political process. The free press is declining precipitously in bothe number and readership, while the blogosphere is still so new thats its hard for a smart, committed person to get the info necessary to make decent choices. Its still such a vague process that I'm not sure that the "Iron Triangle" is even aware of their own methods, what they do in the united states is band together in various interest groups or caucuses within the Republican party. The problem is that the economy is changing so rapidly that the coaltions cannot hold, but the members of the caucus can't see quickly enough how their own limb is breaking and they may even need to get in touch with their Inner Democrat (sarcanol alert).

Here's a good example of that. The automobile industry is a charter member of the Iron Triangle. The big three US auto makers are broke, and they may be forced to liquidate rather than take Chapter 11 Bankruptcy because of their liabilities to the Pension guarantee Board. They looted the pension funds of the companies under George H.W. Bush and gave out the money as high officer's bonuses based on the new efficency of their fabulous new buisness models.

Their only hope for getting off the hook and being forced to liquidate is the Government assuming the medical insurace that they promised as part of the pensions-at least 40% of their unfunded liability. So they are breaking with the other conservative republicrats on Public Health care and joining with the Unions to call for National Health Care. And it goes on and on. Bob Ebersole

Euan...reading this all reminded me of westexas' "iron triangle" discourse over here in the States. I guess the US is not alone in these pressures.

"The oil industry; the chemical industry; the food industry; the car industry; the airline industry; these are very powerful. Who rules Britain? Not parliament!

I’ll tell you who rules Britain. It is the Prime Minister with a small cabal around him of unelected advisors, not including members of the cabinet, meeting regularly with leaders of business, leaders of finance and I have to say with Mr Murdoch and leaders of the media, and taking the decisions over our heads which are then imposed upon us."

Wasn't it Mousselini that said "Fascism is better called corporatism as it is the merger of state and corporations"?

And to answer your last question, Euan, a plain "no" suffices.

Too many people at the top are making too much money with things exactly the way they are. And they will do their utmost to keep things exactly the way they are. The only possibility would be a crash so fast and hard that it outpaced the elite's ability to stay on top of it.

It is a very serious breakdown of democracy. And until we deal with that, and until we regard that as an issue that is central to solving all our issues, including the environment and climate change, we’re not going to get very far.

My emphasis on seems is because we are at the same time ruled more by referendum and poll than ever before. And our New Labour government is riding high in the polls.

Yes, there is certainly a contradiction there, as the evidence shows the very condition you claim to be "broken" to be highly popular with voters. Such popularity rubbishes the conspiracy theory that

I’ll tell you who rules Britain. It is the Prime Minister with a small cabal around him of unelected advisors...

If the PM must go over over Michael Meacher's head to accomplish the wishes of the voters, then clearly it must be Meacher, not the PM, whose attitudes are out of alignment with democracy. And if Murdoch's desires happen to be aligned with the voter's desires, well, too bad.

So, then, could the fault lie with democracy itself? Oh, but it's politically incorrect even to mention the irrationality and stupidity of the average voter - even Hitler came into office more or less by way of the established procedures of his time and place - "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." (H.L. Mencken, American writer.) Though we must admit that serious students of the subject will tiptoe around it by preposterously claiming that the stupidities and insanities miraculously average out to zero to an accuracy of several decimal places.

No matter, we must stomp the thought out with all our might, lest every Marxist professor we are ever subjected to should flunk us out. But that only leaves us with the remaining alternative, that the voters are (on balance) right. If so, then I must suppose the world is not coming to an end and we, here, are simply worrying too hard. But that thought, too, seems sufficiently politically incorrect to get us flunked out.

Hmmm...I see no way out but to think at least one politically incorrect thought. And the thoughts in play on this occasion in no way contradict each other...

You can complain and wail all you want about the power of big corporations and big MSM, but the fact remains that they have their power because of their cash flow - cash flow that comes ONLY from their customers.

The only way to kill them off is by strangulation, and the only way to do that is to cut off the cash flow. No cash flow = FORMERLY big corporations. It is as simple as that.

Until people stop turning over their money to the coffers of these big corporations, they will continue to have power over us. Because people are not withholding their money, I must conclude that they are at least not too unhappy with the status quo.

Want to help change things?

1) Live as frugally and simply as possible. The less stuff you need to buy, the better. Most of what these big corporations make and sell is crap anyway, we'd all be better off without it.

2) Patronize small, local businesses to the extent that you do need to buy stuff you can't produce yourself, as much as possible.

3) As for the MSM, as you are reading these words, congratulations - you've already taken the first step. Relying on alternative media for one's news is part of it. Cancel your print subscriptions, limit your radio & TV to non-commercial public broadcasting at most, just say no to hollywood movies and recording industry pop music. Patronize your pulbic library. One can be informed and entertained without forking over money to big media. Tune away, turn off, and drop out.

Once I see large numbers of people starting to do these things, then I'll start to have some hope that things might change. Until then, it's all just vain and worthless rant.

How they run Britain doesn't sound any different from our town council. Perhaps 'twas ever thus.

There are maybe no big surprises here, but it puts into sharp focus how our democracy seems totally broken.

I would also says "seems broken" but for different reasons.

The fact is, our democracy has always been broken. The idea that there was golden age when society was ruled by truth and reason is a fallacy, but pops up quite frequently. There is certainly an illusion that in the past leaders were moral and upright, but that is only because they had a more cosy relationship with the media, who didn't expose their sordid affairs and dodgy deals with businessmen. Ok, so there was an expectation of men to serve their country, but didn't these men also have an expectation of getting a cushy seat in the lords and several non-execs positions? Plus ca change.

The fact is we have always been ruled by people who control resources, or the military, or both. Nothing has changed there. The main thing different is the makeup of the ruling class, and our perceptions of who has power and how they wield it.

So the question is, can any system of power address the momentous issues facing it?

There I think we run directly into Tainter.

Why don't more politicians act out on the basis of PO, even when they understand the issue (assuming there are more than just Meacher)?

I'd quote Schlesinger (ex US energy secretary) here:

"One does not want to be the bearer of bad tidings. Cassandra has never been a appropriate role model for politicians. You do not ask the public to make sacrifices. If you concede that indeed a peak is coming that we should be making adjustments now, those adjustments are costly and the public will bear the costs... that is not the way to a successful re-election."

And:

"There is not going to be a turn around until there is a public support, and the public has to got be frightened... a serious crisis, which persuades that indeed the wolf is at the door."

Look's like we might be in for some shock treatment, if Schlesinger is right.

As for can the market economy address the issue, I leave that to Hirsch & Bezdek.

I remain slightly skeptical however.

Because even if/when the mass realization of PO happens, it is more likely that companies will first try to: use it as a PR track (PO "washing"), make a quick buck (without really trying to _solve_ anything) and then finally try to monopolize the market in order to cut out the competition, while begging for subsidies and yelling for de-regulation (unless of course, it's regulation of their competition).

Democracy by large is a process made efficient/failure mostly by what the fourth estate spoon feeds us, which has been for some time already increasingly mindless entertainment (count the number of Paris Hilton stories vs energy crisis stories in mainstream quality press).

And I believe it is in the zeitgeist as well. Being serious is not cool, reality-tv, entertainment and having fun is what is deemed important.

Besides, the media is in it to make a steady buck too, why should they rock the boat. They don't want to be Cassandras either. Just show them more fantasies and feed them some fear. Sells steadily and well, why fix it?

As such, the combination doesn't appear to be well suited for rapid and efficient handling of any PO related systemic crises.

Here's hoping we can all change. We can start with ourselves and the friends around us.

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

If it is this bad in Great Britain one can only guess at how bad it is in the U.S. I have heard nothing like this from anyone in the U.S. House or Senate let alone someone in the cabinet. None of the presidential candidates touch the subject. It´s like they are all owned by the same corporations. No one represents the people.