I think the thing that is not fully appreciated by a lot of people is that going with any alternative energy scheme such as solar, wind, wave, etc) will actually worsen the fossil fuel situation over the short term, even if that time period is only a few years.

This is not to say that we shouldn't be pursuing such alternative energy schemes, it's just that we have to factor in the reality that such schemes will actually increase fossil fuel demand for some time period. If we wait till the supply/demand situation gets really bad, it will become far more expensive and difficult to implement such systems. It's analogous to the starving farmer who can't afford to buy seed for next season's crops.

It's also become almost an article of theology among financial and business types that a unless a certain percent return on investment is guaranteed, there is no justification for going with a project. I think when it comes to trying to develop a whole new energy infrastructure, the insistance on such criteria is highly flawed. What if NOTHING you can do in the way of alternative energy shows an acceptable return on investment?  What do you do then - just wait around until things collapse?

There is also a displacement in what we include as 'investment'. Arguably, a certain fraction of the US military budget of over $400 billion can allocated to maintaining our access to oil and in obtaining new sources of oil (read that as taking control over someone else's). But this huge amount of money doesn't get charged against the current price of imported fossil fuel. Rather, it shows up under another account, euphemistically called, 'national defense'.

So, what if we were to take say 25% (just to pull some number out of the air) of the $400 billion US defense budget, or $100 billion, divide that by the total number of barrels of oil we import per year from the Middle East, and then add that number to the market price of oil?  That sum would more accurately represent the true price of imported oil - the market price plus the price of the 'externiality' (I believe that's the word economists love to use) of maintaining a huge military presence to ensure the continued flow of that oil.

Of course, neither the government nor the oil companies would ever accept such a number as valid, as it would be far too embarrassing. I maintain that the number is valid because if the US were to magically obtain a reserve of oil equal to that of the whole Middle East, it would be possible to reduce our military spending by some huge amount because there would be no need to perpetually meddle in the Middle East.

None of this will ever happen, but it's a way I prefer to look at the situation.