Well said Nate. I think the problem is even worse than that - our economic culture is based on maximum consumption. The entire discipline of economics, which frames and underpins policy, is based on maximising "utility". In a politico/economic sense you then have the argument about socialism vs. the free market etc.

And this is where the nub of the problem lies. To achieve the levels of conservation needed some form of intervention is required. To dress it up in free market clothes cap and trade schemes will no doubt be imposed for coal, but this does not address peak oil.

I have always thought that conservation on this level must be led by government; and to achieve that taxes need to be imposed on fossil fuels, at the well or pit head. The taxes need to reflect the cost of externalities and the true price of scarcity. Gas prices need to reach $10 per gallon at the gas station pump in short order and similar equivalent prices for natural gas, while coal needs perhaps an even higher price to halt the development of global warming. This would result in the junking of much of the US car fleet, but the fleet represents hubris and policy failure. I am not sure what can be done about that.

Taxing fossil fuels in this way need not be as painful as it sounds. If energy taxes replaced income tax, in whole or in part, people might not be any worse off. Added to that our tax system would be easy and transparent and not open to exploitation by the rich. Of course the coal and oil lobbies wouldn't like it; and that is why it will never happen. These people would genuinely prefer to fry the planet and maintain their power.