I know it has been discussed at gristmill from time to time.  They might be a little skeptical, but they had jumped to one core question: whether it would mean a reduction in greenhouse gases or a greater shift to coal and more/worse emissions.
It's mentioned on Treehugger from time to time too.
That's my point. The people who talk about PO don't have other pet issues that it might get in the way of.

For pro-environmentalists / democrats, PO means having to think long and hard about nukes and coal as alternatives to oil. But they have spent the last 40 years opposing both very strongly.

For pro-business republicans, they have been talking about technology and freemarkets for even longer. Moreover the oil and car industries underwrite much of the political lobby and advertising space (ala Westexas's Iron Triangle).

This is why (IMHO) despite a high level awareness generated out there, no one with a vested interest is really talking about PO.

This is pure "3 Days Of The Condor" stuff.

When people are hungry and cold, they're not going to ask where their energy is coming from or how or why....... No, toto(neila), humans are not smarter than yeast.

"This is pure "3 Days Of The Condor" stuff."

For added drama...

http://tinyurl.com/letyk

=AC

(youtube link)