Dave--
You're right that the attention is all driven by high current prices. It's the only way to capture the short attention spans of the media, public, and policymakers. Then it fades.

Less attention to the PO issue is bad, but there's a bigger danger: when prices fall back, the warnings will look false to many--even some in the PO community. That will breed more complacency and inaction until the real crisis hits.  

What's the heads up time for new technology? It depends. The DC-1 that revolutionized aircraft design and manufacture went from an unproven idea to a flying plane in 11 months during WWII. On the other hand, the British Navy knew that limes prevented scurvy (from memory) about 160 years before they actually gave sailors limes. Depends on your sense of urgency.

For conservation issues, expect lots of years. The US auto fleet is about 9 years old on average, and it takes a long time to replace those inefficient vehicles. Hirsch is probably right when he says 20 years lead time is needed--if we push.

As for salvation: if there's a feasible solution to the PO problem that we can adopt in the next 10 years, it's a pretty well kept secret. I think mitigation of the damage is necessary and doable (to an unknown extent). We'll need to work to keep societies and economies functioning, and to minimize inequities. One key task, that takes very little oil, is to work on strategies that will offer people a vision of hope, and some sense of control. That's where we in the PO community can come in.

"As for salvation: if there's a feasible solution to the PO problem that we can adopt in the next 10 years, it's a pretty well kept secret. I think mitigation of the damage is necessary and doable (to an unknown extent). We'll need to work to keep societies and economies functioning, and to minimize inequities. One key task, that takes very little oil, is to work on strategies that will offer people a vision of hope, and some sense of control. That's where we in the PO community can come in."

This is to the point. Well said. It is not a good idea to panic and try to occupy Saudi-Arabia or start rioting or let poor people to freeze to death or something like that.

But everybody should forget that "doing more with less". In real situation we will do lesser with less. And we will be less smart, too. Because we will poorer and poor people cannot always afford to use the smartest solution. So it is important to try mitigate the effects and see that everabody can make it somehow.

But remember that we will quite probably see more physical supply shortages, too, as we are now seeing in Indonesia, China and elsewhere. Rapidly rising prices will not allocate the fuels smoothly and effectively. They create also supply disturbances. Distributors will have  financing problems. Stored oil is sold elsewhere for a higher price or kept waiting for still higher prices. Contracts made with lower prices are not kept. Fuel is hoarded etc. This will cause disruptions and spiking prices. In this situation some kind of rationing is needed to keep things going. This will cause more shortages. These shortages will usually be only temporary but they will affect the overall economy and decrease demand.  

"One key task, that takes very little oil, is to work on strategies that will offer people a vision of hope, and some sense of control. That's where we in the PO community can come in."
What, like some sort of priesthood?

What's this "vision of hope" based on? What's your sense of how to "control" the wild ride down the downslope of Hubbert's Peak?


OK, we cannot control the " the wild ride down the downslope of Hubbert's Peak" but we can control, at least somehow, the social consequences of it. We could give some hope that they will survive and don't need to panic or start shooting each other. People do live, and quite happily, in societies where oil and energy consumption is far lower than in the US.