I just want to make a correction. When I said "His 2.5/mbd reduction in a decade would reduce US overall consumption by some small amount over one year's increase in demand given the current trends", I meant reduce world-wide overall consumption. Sorry.

In addition, if we look at the EIA's demand increase numbers for the US, we see that over the period 1997 to 2004, oil demand (consumption) increased by about 0.3/mbd year to year. So, if demand increases remain linear and if in the 10 years we cut domestic consumption by 2.5/mbd, we will increase our total new consumption by only 0.5 mb during that period and our growth rate will be cut to 0.05/mbd per year on a linear basis. But, our consumption would still be growing albeit at a much smaller rate. Yet, there will be less world oil supply to share, supply will be decreased. So, where's the solution to our problem here? Obviously, demand must decrease, catastropically so for those earliest affected by the scarcity. Therefore, we are not looking at a situation where excess capacity is available but we are doing the right thing by conserving, instead, we are looking at a situation where demand shrinks (so-called "demand destruction") due to lack of supply. Which is why I think Leiberman's assumptions are all wrong. He frames it as "oil independence". This is a red herring at this point. We will be more oil dependent than ever, there will just be less of it to go around.