The history of peaking and collapsing societies suggests it is usually a long drawn out process that people only seem vaguely aware of. In many ways the USA has been declining since the 1970s when local oil production peaked. Since then the rise of the middle class has reversed, access to education and health care has deteriorated, civil liberties etc (only partly offset by rising technology).

There is a massive amount of waste in the west still to be trimmed down (ie eating grains rather than running feedlots, and multihousing/car-sharing not because we feel guilty but because there is no other choice). Perhaps having 10 or 20 million barrels per day below peak production wont be as crushing as we imagine. We would have already been through 5 and 1 million per day less. In the beginning we will still be arguing if it is a temporary dip or not. By the time we are certain it is a permanent downward trend we will be a few years past the idea of being shocked by it. Changing prices would have already started to change everyone's economic priorities.

There are two potential black swans to negotiate though. The first is the unwinding of the financial system that could lead to short term distortions in demand and trade relationships. The second is global warming crossing a threshold. The most immediate risk there is declining industrial activity leading to a rapid decrease in particulate pollution, loss of global dimming, and getting the full impact of greenhouse gas pollution over a very short period. Together these could be the one-two punch that causes the wholesale doom that some of us like to imagine.

It does seem resonable to think that the world can and will adjust to less oil for a few years. The question is: to what degree will the global economy be able to support a slow decline in oil?

to what degree will the global economy be able to support a slow decline in oil?

Various firms will let the air outta the bubble by going bankrupt.

Hopefully the air going out won't result in violent reactions.

I hadn't considered the affect of global dimming due to industrial activity. Thanks for the insight.

We pick up about 4.1 watts/M^2 due to GHG forcings and we lose about 2.0 watts/M^2 due to reflection of sunlight, mostly from sulfate aerosols caused by dirty diesel.

Looks like those prayers have been answered by the increasing likelyhood of a peak or plateau in world oil production. Finally, emissions will begin to subside by geologic necessity, and alternatives will begin to kick in. Here is the DOE's strategy for replacing the automobile fleet with hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles by the year 2020. The hydrogen will come from very high temperature helium-gas cooled fast spectrum reactors. These reactors utilize uranium over 100 times as efficiently as current reactors, and will be fueled by nuclear waste from current LWR reactors. Uranium is an abundent, abiotic mineral in the earth's crust, and exists in abundance even in seawater.
http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/genIvFastReactorRptToCongressDec2006.pdf
Look, I don't want to upset any of the doomers here, but this is supposed to be a "discussions about energy and our future" site, not dieoff.com

It's far, far, cheaper to build fast reactors using enriched uranium. The accidental pollution cost of attempting to use old, radioactive, PWR fuel rods is horrendous. The financial cost is almost as bad as the security issues.
Specify helium and you run into availability issues. Argon is a byproduct of nitrogen fixation plants. We aren't going to run out of argon. Helium leaks into and out of everything. And if you are running a fast neutron reactor, thermal absorbtion is not a significant factor for gas coolant. Helium gas does have a lower viscosity and that reduces pumping power.
The good news is that the Chinese government will build sensible systems. They don't care what the political types in America and France will back. If we want to do something dumb, that's our decision.

Do you have any stats to back up these dubious claims?