Well put Glenn.

Working in favour of cooperation is the fact that fighting climate change and addressing oil shortages actually go together quite nicely. Net importers have many incentives to reduce their imports, including the huge one of energy security. The trick is to make oil expensive locally but at the same time protect the poor and keep the money from flowing, in the form of scarcity rent, to the producing countries.

Peter Barnes has developed a great approach called Sky Trust; an Irish think tank has a similar approach called Cap and Share. These are what the world needs.

One of their strengths is that it isn't all or nothing... individual nations or regions can start, and others can join them or not down the road. The Irish government, I understand, is seriously considering this. It is the ultimate buyers' strike. Although their focus is on climate, they have written about peak oil and how a cap and share approach would keep energy scarcity from, in their words, crucifying the poor.

http://www.capandshare.org/

Yes - that's about what I had in mind. thanks

I've heard this kind of system justified on Georgist grounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

The time we need to carry out these things is actually not that much longer than a modern war so I would think that straight out rationing should be the starting point. Introducing some trading makes some sense if it is done at the level of the individual. Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) have been discussed here: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/4/163554/8625
and the US DOE rationing plan includes a ration white market. Cap-and-Trade though tends to benefit legacy polluters and I think it needs to be avoided.

Chris