When I see people making these comments, I have to think that they haven't thought through what they say.  If the peak passes us by and the back side is steep there will be little time and money to convert to other energy sources.  

Unless you are someone who would sit around a bonfire, burning books, and chanting "bring on the apocalypse" I can't see how you would say this is good news.  And if you think that 6 billion poor and desparate people will be easy on the environment, you need to go spend some time in places like sub-Sarahan Africa.

Bubba,

You are absolutely right.  We need to wish for change not disaster.  Above http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/10/24/171216/17#9
I indicate the infrastructure required to replace oil.  That takes energy.  No energy no construction.

But on the other hand the sooner we peak the more smooth will be the decline. It is the decline rate that can lead us to the most disastrous scenarious.

For me you are both right I'd just take another approach than Quickbeam - we don't really need the peak itself to move away from fossil; we need an energy scarcity or at least an indication of it. If for example Saudi Arabia announce that they will close down Ghawar in couple of years to preserve it for the future - this would do the job. Unfortunately it is hardly possible in the current world arrangement.

I guess I'm feeling low on hope these days. Yes, we should be investing every drop of oil in infrastructure for sustainable energy - but we aren't and there is no sign that this is about to change. Yes, six billion people is far too many: all world governments should be providing large incentives to lower the birth rate - but they aren't and the prospects are not good to say the least.

Climate change will make all problems vastly worse, though.