Thanks for your take on the Yellow Springs Peak Oil and Community Solutions conference, Stuart.  I would like to stress a couple of points that I saw as crucial for this conference, and more generally, for the discussions here at TOD.

The "Hirsch gap," as you have named the key result of Robert Hirsch's report, is essentially the first-order answer to all of the proposed alternatives to petroleum-based fuels.  If peak oil is real, and if the oil peak is coming before the end of this decade, then the time scales for ramping up any of the alternatives are simply unworkable.  Put another way (again, assuming the reality of near-term peaking), a society that cannot obtain as much energy as it thinks it requires for day-to-day operations is a society that probably does not have enough extra energy to re-invent itself with massive new infrastructure projects.  As I am sure others have pointed out, all of that infrastructure takes energy and capital investment, and the costs will rise roughly proportionally to the cost of input energy.

Conservation, and that means roughly transportation in a zeroth-order approximation, is the only quick semi-solution.  Driving 10% less (about three miles per car per day) would save around one million barrels of oil each day.  There are clearly limits to how far such reductions can be taken, if we still want to get to work and go shopping.  However, our past record is questionable in even making the attempt.  See the graph of miles driven per automobile as a function of gas price in the 1970s and 1980s.  Oil demand is very inelastic, certainly in the short term, and slightly less so in the long-term; we need the stuff and, to some extent, don't seem to care how much it costs.  See this graph for the record over the past four years.

As Stuart has mentioned, depletion rates are the crucial to everything that follows an impending peak.  If depletion is 7%/year (high, but certainly not out of the question) we will have to cut our usage in half in a decade, all else being equal (which it will not be).  Transportation being key, driving less for work and for shopping means being more localized.  Unfortunately, we have built up a suburban, commuter living arrangement that might be poorly suited to adaptation to these changes.  The point of the conference this past weekend was simply that intact, functional, localized small communities can be more efficient, and ultimately more humane, than much of our current globalized, fossil-fuel subsidized lifestyle.  It is a bit utopian and maybe even idealistic, but it is one type of solution.

Finally, the comparisons to Pol Pot and claims that leftist Peak Oilers are looking gleefully for a huge population die-off are more than a bit ridiculous in this context.  Pointing out that fossil-fuels-drenched agricultural practices have enabled the support of large populations, that those fuels are disappearing, and that we may not have good substitutes, does not equate at all to a wish for the death of billions of human beings.

I agree on all counts, RJB, but i would like to expand on a couple of points.

First, the "we're not Pol Pot" thing can't be repeated enough.  Any inclination at all on the the part of the mainstream, particularly the news media and politicians, to see us as extremist will be incredibly counterproductive.  (I think that as long as Some People get more than their share of press, this will be inevitable.  One prediction from Kunstler or Ruppert that collapse or wholesale change is imminent, if not accompanied by a clear statement that such a result isn't to be wished for, very quickly turns into an overly broad brush that is then used to paint the whole PO community as a bunch of wackjobs.)

One the issue of transportation and oil consumption, you're clearly right that that's the first place we should look for a large (in absolute terms) amount of conservation.  But I think we should all keep in mind just how close we are to substituting electricity (only 3% of which comes from oil in the US) for some of our transportation oil demand.

The first step in reducing oil used for transportation will indeed be driving smarter and less.  But the next step won't be localized living--it's just too expensive and inconvenient to reshape entire communities to any appreciable extent.  The second step is converting local transportation to electric cars.  Mitsubishi is already talking about an all electric Colt model (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/05/mitsubishi_goes.html) with a range of 90 miles/charge, which would be fine as a second car for the overwhelming majority of households, and would likely work as a primary car for some others.

I expect that in just a few years we'll see a lot of suburban homes with solar panels on the roof that help offset the cost of charging up one or both of the family's cars (plug-in hybrids or all electrics).

Yikes, that Colt is five years away!  You can get an electric Twike next year.
Yes, the current plan from Mitsu is to bring out the Colt EV in 2010, but I'm sure they could pull that in at least a couple of years in response to market conditions.

Plus, the Chinese have said publicly that they intend to become a major force in the car market, and they're pushing the development of all-electrics very hard.

The car business will be one of the most volatile parts of the US economy in the next 5 years, perhaps second only to airlines.

[quote]The car business will be one of the most volatile parts of the US economy in the next 5 years, perhaps second only to airlines.[/quote]

If new companies spring up to provide new energy-efficient vehicles, they'll probably do all they can to get cheap labor, and minimizing labor, while avoiding "union trouble". (Fortunately for some, when there is volatility in the auto market, it means plenty of re-tooling, and re-tooling means more work for skilled machine builders, programmers, electricians, welders, etc.)

Even in China, where we outsource our lower- and lower-middle class jobs, their workers lose their jobs to automation, because it's still relatively cheap to build the machines with their cheap labor over there, and recoup their savings after only a few years, just like over here.

The very best get paid more, while the mediocre and marginal get fired and have to settle for lower and lower positions on the totem pole. Then the going rate for those jobs get bid down and down until the people doing them are living on the edge of poverty.

What happens to society when the low-level bookkeepers, ebay traders, hair and nail workers, GAP salesmen, and package delivery employees, get paid less and less, until they're finally and undeniably prole? Does society automatically swing left? Do we have a functioning constitution limiting the power of the state? If not, isn't this one of those suicidal civilization scenarios? You know - 'most democracies only last about 200 years, because when the general populace figure out they can vote themselves funds from out of the treasury, they do so, quickly bankrupting the republic.' How does that work out in a republic as big as America?

Isn't it when property is no longer held 'sacred', it loses all worth, and international capital flees? And isn't this a real possibility?

If that happens, could a new economic paradigm replace the current one within a realistic period of time to avert catastrophic failure of our complex capitalistic division-of-labor society? I mean, the American economy can't just stop.

Regardless of which side you sit on the issue - if you're a 'hard core' wealth-redistribution lefty, then you must understand the power of the communist utopian dream (the proletarian revolution, and all that), and if you're on the right, then you must understand the simple argument relating asset value to property rights enforcement - the possibility that a catasrophic failure of the current political regime, due to an extended economic crash resulting from the end of the cheap energy era, could forseeably tip the political scales towards a new unrestricted left-wing democracy, (or 'mobocracy'), and the likely resulting rise of a wealth-redistribution regime the likes of which the world has never seen, which could easily destroy the asset value of 'America Inc.' in the international capital markets.

I read sometime ago a rumor that the mint has a whole set of new money to instantly replace the old money currently in circulation, but easily distinguishable from the current bills. They would be redeemed for money currently in circulation domestically, so that international debt may be forgiven without messing with any untidy stacks of cash which might be lying around across the globe. (drug money, laundered money, mujahadeen payments, etc.)

I wonder if a FOIA request would be enough to find out if the feds have already planned for this possibility.

If they haven't, then someone should tell them that they should.

I, too, found this conference extremely stimulating, even if I  disagreed with a number of speakers. I'm glad that Stuart wrote the detailed summaries so that others can get a taste of it.

I'd just like to caution against the tendency of measuring solutions against a yardstick of practicality under a total collapse scenario. For instance, the Earthhaven ecovillage may well run into problems if they can't replace their solar panels, or may have to deal with roving bands of starving, gun-toting raiders if the worst scenario should play out. But man am I impressed with their forward thinking and strenuous efforts in a direction that the average U.S. citizen has never given a thought to. They have overcome the hurdle of mindset, and offer a hopeful example of a lower-energy/lower-consumption lifestyle that might be both workable and attractive. Yes, it is probably unlikely that 10 billion people could or would live this way, but it seems like more than a step in the right direction given the alternatives.

The last I heard, peak oil knows no politic's, thus your last paragraph makes no sense here.. If I were you, I would refrain from such remakrs..
Yes, but the response to peak oil will be intensely political.