Every projection I've seen for fossil fuel consumption shows dramatic increases over the next 10, 20, or 30 years.

None of these seem to recognize the possibility that we will tackle global warming through conservation or carbon taxes which can be set to drive consumption to any level up or down. If we drive right by the need to limit carbon emissions to focus on projected consumption, there will be bigger problems than $10/gallon fuel driving 100 mpg cars. Ultimately, we need to reduce carbon emissions from today, and this doesn't seem to mean that we will need 50 million more barrels per day of oil.

There are three good reasons to focus our economy on efficiency now, and any of the three are sufficient in and of themselves: 1. Fight global warming; 2. Reduce dependence on supply from volatile areas. 3. Fight for the lead in renewable technologies. Will we take any or all of these actions? With our current congressional system paralyzed by the narrow interests of established money (can the solar power industry buy a congressman owned by Exxon, or will they need to wait until that person retires?), doubtful. But at least with the internet's archiving ability, no politician will be able to say (as Condi did for WMD) "No one could have anticipated the effects of not becoming more energy efficient". Not so, we know right now, and future generations will look upon our profligacy in the way we denigrate the cutting of redwoods, the massacres of Bison for fun, and any other natural despoliations of the past 200 years.

It boggles the mind.

Peak Oil is a sound, scientific method of looking at non-renewable resources. Opponents might attack it based on some scientific reasoning but to date I have only seen vitriol. Evolution went through the same thing.

Of course, it would help if we could all be a little more careful with the terms we use. It grates to hear about "oil production" - no one is producing oil, we are only extracting it. "Oil extraction" should be the term used.

I'm glad to see that the WSJ is changing their tune. It would be nice to see the Financial Times and the Economist do the same. The Economist recently predicted another anti-Malthus editorial. Why do they continue to attack a 200-year old idea? When will they discuss seriously the limits of growth?

But what really is astounding is that some strategic board, like the NSC, has not been studying this seriously. Energy is the most important resource we must plan for (with education second). Leaving it to "the invisible hand" and "I just don't believe Peak Oil" is mule-headed and negligent.

Unfortunately, I don't expect things to change for a while.

The petroleum energy industry does not want to openly discuss the reality of a finite supply of crude oil. This admission would have very predictable consequences in present and future investments in that industry.

Instead, they propose more drilling and more refining but I have a suspicion that this is based upon overly optimistic estimates of the availability of new oil deposits.

If any substantial oil deposits exist they will be increasingly hard to mine and combined with the timeframe required to get the oil to the gas pump, will make any new supply meaningless against future increases in consumption.

To get an idea as to the magnitude of the problem, take an informal survey of the vehicles on the roads and highways. Do a little mental arithmetic and you'll see that most of the vehicles cannot meet a minimum fuel mileage requirement of 20 mpg. Next, look at driving conditions and habits. Urban driving is slowed by heavy traffic and highway speeds easlily exceed 70 mph. This combines to drive our actual fuel mpg even lower.

I believe the bottom line is this: If we do not alter our vehicle choices and driving habits substantially and quickly, gas will continue to be more expensive and we may have shortages to boot.

Meanwhile, I'm riding my motorcycle whenever possibe. It gets 60 mpg.

Seemed like a good idea right after WWII to get the Saudis to only sell oil for US dollars. Particularly when most of the rest of the middle east oil producers followed suit. But it led to some bad habits, like spending more than we make as a country year after year for most of my life. I remember in the first grade having to bring in a current events piece to school. It was big news then (1965) that the US had bought more goods from Japan than it had sold. The headline was "US Imports exceed Exports for Third Quarter". The term "trade deficit" wasn't in vogue yet. It may not even have been invented yet.

But that was then. Now we're bidding for oil that's still sold primarily for US dollars against a new, improved China that has more dollars to spend than we do and will for the foreseeable future. Unless and until we no longer need foriegn oil, which is the same thing as saying until we no longer need oil to run our cars and planes, we are stuck with two choices. Either we do with less and China gets an even larger share of a resource we're all running out of, or we print even more dollars, devaluing our debts to everybody and causing, at the very least, 70s style stagflation and crude oil prices to got up even further.

We as a people need to invest, and heavily, on everything we can think of to either reduce our consumption of energy or find new ways to convert sunlight into chemical energy or very soon we're going to be a footnote to world power like Spain when the South American gold ran out or Britian after the opium trade got illegal. Personally, I'm not ready to be a footnote.

Greetings

The biggest problem with the reality of peak oil is no realistic alternative exists for crude oil as energy thus for the greatest number of us there is no choice in the matter.

We buy gas at 3.85 or higher, we buy food trucked in at increasingly higher cost grown with even more expensive inputs and we look forward only to even greater costs as this toxic brew boils even higher....

With a barrel of sweet crude blasting past 100 with no end in sight, no one in any sector of gov or business offers any useful solution and in the midst of a political campaign bogged down in flag pins and stupidity I don't see any practical useful solutions that will benefit my neighbors

There is a reality to this crisis that seems unable to penetrate the unreality of public discourse perhaps because we are not ourselves prepared to confront reality

Enjoy the journey

WarLord