As soon as we are on the downside of the Peak Oil curve( 2008 to 2010), global demand will always exceed production, and so there will be no demand destruction.

I'm not sure you understand what "demand destruction" means.

It does not mean "demand falls faster than supply". It means "price dampens demand". Indeed, demand destruction can occur even when demand is increasing - if 2% demand growth is expected and only 1% growth occurs due to high prices, that "missing" 1% is due to demand destruction.

Given that, demand destruction has already been happening for several years, particularly among the rich (and oil-prolifigate) nations; OECD demand is the same as it was in 2003 (by EIA numbers).

This also means that no matter what the USA does to conserve oil, the rate of depletion will continue at the same rate -- unless we can get ourselves and the other 3/4ths of the global demand to conserve.

So?

Reduced US demand means reduced US money going overseas to pay for imported oil means lower burden on US citizens means less hardship. Import prices will be high (if other nations also conserve) or higher (if they don't), but in either case the US will unilaterally benefit from conservation through the simple expedient of having to pay less.

solar and wind, but without oil neither of those has a future.

You keep claiming that; I'm not sure if you realize that that doesn't make it true.