are you referring to plug in hybrids or plug in eletric cars? If hybrid you are still using gas.

I meant what I said, plug-in hybrids. Of course they still use gas, but not exclusively. After the hybrids we might get fully electric cars.

If you were to run all land transport off grid power for electric cars it would probably take a complete overhaul of the power transmission infrastructure. Lots of grids are maxed out already I think it won't be easy to add the capacity to power transport too.

Exactly! This is precisely my point. The scale of the changes involved in a transition from a fossil fuel based energy system to a renewable based energy system is staggering.

There is huge amounts of energy- there is orders of magnitude more in solar radiation hitting the earth every day than our current total consumption. There is kinetic energy everywhere in waves tides wind. Nuclear too. Fossils fuels are the only source that is drying up (unless you take the long look for when thet sun dies).

Sure. But just because energy sources exist does not mean we can or will harvest them. An energy crunch is still likely, and soon. Fact is, most of our energy comes from fossil fuels, and our massive transportation infrastructure runs virtually exclusively on liquid fuels, overwhelmingly derived from oil.

How do you propose to build all the nuclear power plants, wind turbines, etc. without oil? How do you propose to to replace our transportation infrastructure and all the new cars (running on whatever - electricity or hydrogen, you name it) without fossil fuel energy?

As I mentioned to Mike Sulzer, we probably can still do this, but it will mean a significant reduction in our current standard of living as we divert energy to these other activities. Unfortunately, I see no political will to do so, and time is running short.

I think your drawing the wrong conclusion. There are enough energy sources to ensure a long long time before people die off from lack of energy. They all have their own sustainability issues but there's not persuasive evidence an energy crash is imminent.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

Finding enough arable land and efficient crop production for the growing population will be a problem long before an energy shortage is. Related to that, the climate effects of burning fossil fuels will pose a problem before the actual physical supply of them will is my feeling.

Possibly. But all these issues are closely linked. Interestingly, the North Korean famine of the '90's was caused at least in part to a lack of petroleum supplies. North Korea spent a great deal of energy industrializing, so much so that its agricultural sector became highly dependent on petroleum for fertilizer, running the farm machinery like tractors, and food distribution (via trucks). When the Soviet Union collapsed, and their fuel subsidies dried up, this contributed to the famine of the '90's.

Just to preempt those who jump on this, I realize there were other causes of the famine - you can't explain it through the loss of petroleum imports alone. But that was a significant factor.

Anyway, the world is likely to suffer a similar fate when oil production starts to decline. Current crop yields rely on petroleum based fertilizers - scarce oil will lead to reduced yields. Food distribution networks will be strained by rising fuel costs, farmers may not be able to till as much land with liquid fuel driven farm equipment, etc.

Peak oil is not just about high prices at the gas station.

Thanks for the link - very interesting.

First off, thank you for finally addressing something I actually said.

Regarding the "taxes curbing consumption" crap, the government has been taxing tobacco for the exact same reason for decades and *GASP* people still smoke even if they are paying over $5 a pack. Am I supposed to believe that the same thing won't occur regarding energy, something that EVERYONE uses every day?

I'm confused - in earlier posts you seem to make any government intervention, including, one has to assume, taxation, out to be some kind of fascist impulse. Because if people refuse they will be locked up.

Now you claim that taxation won't work, because the US has high cigarette taxes and people still smoke. So apparently taxes aren't fascist at all, just impractical.

Which is it?

OF COURSE people will still use carbon based energy even if a carbon tax is passed. The point is, the tax is an incentive to use less of it, and to stimulate the renewable energy industry. Do you dispute the notion that a carbon tax will have these 2 effects, namely 1) reducing the use of carbon based energy and 2) encouraging renewable energy?

$5 a pack due to taxes and people still smoke regularly. So now what does the state do to prohibit smoking? They ban it in all restaurants and bars in the entire state or entire cities ban it with ordinances. You couldn't see that kind of situation happening with other things people like, say energy? "Hey look, taxes aren't working and people are still consuming X too much, time for more drastic measures".

You're confused. Smoking is banned in restaurants and bars because second hand smoke is unhealthy. If I smoke in a restaurant, I force others to be exposed to second hand smoke because the they must breathe the air I'm discharging the smoke into.

Secondly, these laws were passed by duly elected representatives, not some authoritarian politician who gets off telling others what to do.

However, I will say, that I think the problem is serious enough that passing laws, in addition to taxation, may be necessary. Some of these laws we already have, like CAFE standards for vehicles. We already do this stuff now, all the time.

Apparently we are already living in a Stalinist regime.