This is quite common knowledge : all 2007 BP report values, this is not even a per capita graph.

Hi Gail,

Thanks for responding.

re: "But I think we may already have huge economic disruption, without even hitting peak oil."

Yes.

re: "And any actions to mitigate should have started long before."

Well, of course, there is nothing to disagree with here.

The thing is...what I was trying to say...to say to people the same things need to be done whether peak is today or 40 years from now - well, it just gives an odd impression. (I don't know how else to say it.)

The beginning of decline causes problems - we don't know how severe, but could be really bad (as we all well know). As you say,
"Once we hit peak oil, things get a lot worse, in some sense."

Yes, they could.

Yes, we already have problems. (and then again, some of us think peak is already here.)

I tried to say in my re-phrasing of your paragraph that the "exact" date does not matter. At the same time - the difference between yesterday (or 2005, as my personal view) and forty years from now...that's 32 years or whatever.

It just seems to me the way you phrased it makes it sound like there's no urgency.

When I believe you mean to convey the opposite.

Hi again, Gail,

I had an opportunity to talk to some "peak oil aware" people, and tried out on them - the question "Does the date of peak matter?"

Though I may have said it awkwardly above, it seems to me there's a confusion conveyed with the sentence:

"The actions we need to take are pretty much the same, whether the peak in the world’s oil production is now, or in 2040."

This is not the same as saying we need to plan in advance. These are two different thoughts.

The sentence above sounds like you're saying literally - 2008 or 2040, the actions are the same.

I'd maintain this is not the case. (For best outcome.)

The nearer the date, the more limited the options - the more urgent the action. The limited options are the crucial issue with a near-term peak. We've talked about this here in some detail (yes?)

Instead of the "fuel efficiency", etc. you talk about - we would talk about more radical measures. I just don't think you can make the case that this much of a time frame literally doesn't matter.

This is quite a different point than to say that we need to take immediate action.

Yes, we do need to take immediate action.

Or, if you believe the actions are literally the same, then perhaps spell them out?

Also, it seems to me "peak lite" as you define it - actually is a subset of "true peak". "Supply less than demand"...if there was no underlying constraint, this would not occur.

Or...if what you're really trying to say is what you describe about the economic effects, then my suggestion is just to go ahead and say it.

I think it's a critical point.

If you expect the readers of this to refer to your other writings on this point, then my suggestion is to be sure to reference those in this specific paragraph.