A bit of a negative outlook, I'll admit, but I think people in the rich West are quite interested in someone else reducing demand due to global warming, less interested in doing so themselves. People seem more interested in reducing personal demand due to high prices--but that tends to lead to reduction in the most discretionary demand first, which makes the remaining systemic demand more inelastic, which will likely exacerbate these feedback loops (same is true if people actually did reduce personal demand out of a concern for global warming).

Add to that two things:

1. people in the rich West who reduce demand out of concern for global warming make energy consumption more affordable for the developing world--so actual energy consumed may not decline.

2. to the extent that global warming begins to wreak havoc (which would certainly increase the desire to reduce demand to slow it down), the warming itself has the potential to exacerbate these feedback loops by reducing the availability of substitutes (mainly biofuels), increasing the weather-related damage to energy infrastructure, etc.

However, I think you still raise a good point--especially if there is some kind of temporary surge in demand destruction due to some newfound global warming concern. That could dirupt capital flows, or even more likely lead to new regulation that makes the energy investment environment highly uncertain...

"People seem more interested in reducing personal demand due to high prices--but that tends to lead to reduction in the most discretionary demand first, which makes the remaining systemic demand more inelastic, which will likely exacerbate these feedback loops (same is true if people actually did reduce personal demand out of a concern for global warming)."

On the other hand, spreading the reductions over a longer time period increases elasticity. If SUVs go the way of the dodo by 2010, you might initially have a lot of very upset people. By 2020 most people will only vaguely remember them, and by 2080 or so people will look at them the way we look at a steam locomotive.

Same goes with air conditioning. The initial impact will be huge on quality of life, but over time people's mindsets will acclimate and they'll be about as happy as they are today.

Refrigeration is another. Transitioning to non-perishables (with perishables a treat that must be quickly consumed) would certainly be a shock, but it's something that can be mostly acclimated to, given enough time. In addition, non-perishables generally have lower all-round energy demands than perishables, since most non-perishables are vegetarian whereas most perishables are usually meat or dairy.

Security (and all other wasteful) lighting is another one. Someone who has grown up with the belief that such lighting is 'good' might miss it, but their kids are unlikely to care about its absence.

In short, the more time a given set of cutbacks can be done over, the easier it is for people to acclimate to.

human psychology being what it is, I believe you're right. I may long for refrigeration, A/C, individual transport, lighting, but to those who know none of that, they don't miss it or even comprehend the benefits. Humans adapt to their conditions, as easy or harsh as they might be.

Having said that, I'd hope not to live in a world where energy is so dear as to require those sacrifices. it would not be a comfortable world. What I want and what will occur may be two completely different things.

*Lifts glass of COLD beer*
Here's to life in a brave new world.

Sitting in Denver, air conditioning is a luxury not a necessity. Air conditioning is a luxury in Phoenix or Las Vegas, too, but you need to write off a few million house designed under the assumption of continuing cheap energy as uninihabitable without it. If we reduce human living to true "necessities," civilization would look like a factory farm.

As long as we're bicycling and sweltering in our uncooled homes, you can add frequent bathing to that list of luxuries too. Hot water takes a lot of energy. Fortunately, a solar hot water heater is relatively low-tech and easy to build.

Funny you should mention a cold beer. Some friends and I were joking about the value of a cold beer in a Mad Max world. If you could build a hand-powered refrigeration pump maybe you could be the king of Bartertown.

I wonder which food preservation system uses less energy. For canning you first must cook the food to high enough temperature to kill any microbes and turn off any biochemical reactions which cause over ripening. For some foods brine or pickling may also be used. This heat is lost during storage and the food could be stored for several years with only enough energy to prevent freezing needed. Then before eating it is cooked a second time to be part of a hot meal.
Refrigeration and freezing is another preservation option. This usually involves flash freezing with the use of liquid nitrogen and the energy cost of liquifying, storing, and transporting the liquid nitrogen. Sometimes it involves just taking fresh cuts of meat and putting them in a simple freezer. Refrigeration uses very little energy compared to the benefits it provides to the world. It would not take much in the way of PVs to keep even a large freezer operating. The amount needed is proportional to its surface area but the amount kept frozen is proportional to its volume. Very large freezer are much more efficient than small ones. They have been proposed as a way to store wind energy since they can be made even colder during high wind power and allowed to warm back up during calm periods as long as the temperature stays below freezing.
Some foods like lettuce and eggs can not be canned or frozen without serious changes in their characteristics. Some foods like potatoes and onions can stay good enough for months in a root cellar. Grains need to be dried and will last for many years if kept dry and protected from pests. Drying though requires an energy input in order to evaporate its water content which is roughly 1,000,000 btus per ton at 50% moisture content.
I don't see these food preservation methods going away ever. They provide an enormous benefit for their energy buck. What may become very expensive are the highly processed foods found on many supermarket shelves. Hamburger Helper and breakfast cereals may become luxury items. I see potato chips becoming the luxury food it originally was.

I would mention smoking and seasoning as preservative
measures as alternatives also. "Prosciutto" for example, the most expensive sold today is not even cooked first, its salted and left hanging for months.
Then it is usually smoked. Fish can also be salted and
the cooking process avoided altogether. Spices can also "cure" meat thats raw without need for cooking.
The spices themselves create a sterile product that
lasts many several months or even a year.

The most expensive Prosciutto isnt cooked but rather
salted and smoked, its cost is approx $15.00 an ounce
and its addictive as it is expensive. I could mention several other methods which have seemed to become lost arts....maybe another time.
The Prosciutto thats the Dom Pérignon is approx 18 months old when sold.

I think freezers still need to keep a stable temperature. It may work out better to use surplus wind energy to make ice in an insulated tank to use for chilling. Some commercial AC systems do that now with off-peak electricity.

Yartrebo,
You have made a good point about the weakness of jeffvail's argument about in-elastic demand. If gasoline prices continue to rise as they surely must do post peakoil, then some very big structural changes are going to occur in US gasoline consumption ( and heating oil use). The issue is how much time the world will have; two years is not going to be long enough, 10-12 years would be adequate if the US and other governments provide more leadership that just proposing to drill more of the continental shelf. The 20% renewable energy plans by 2020 or 2030 are good starting points for the US, another is a big rise in gasoline taxes or accelerating the introduction and higher CAFE standards, sooner than 2015.
I don't see why people have to give up personnel transportation, refrigeration or air-conditioning, if much more efficient cars, and appliances are used( or legislated).

I think you've both missed the key to the argument about increasing inelasticity. These "very big structural changes" will target the most elastic demand first if they are driven by the market. The remaining demand will, as a result, be more inelastic, and therefore more vulnerable to geopolitical feedback loops...

Jeffvail,
A few examples of long term increases in elasticity would be an oil fired electric generator being modified to operate on duel NG/oil or a motor vehicle duel CNG/gasoline. These changes take time to occur, after a price shock, but result in long term increase in elastic demand( for oil). The really big one will be when a significant proportion of vehicles are PHEV, where gasoline will be directly competing with the price of electricity and the inconvenience of having to plug-in after every trip, versus the convenience of filling with gasoline once a week.
Some people will only use electricity and some will have to use mainly gasoline , but most consumers will adjust behavior depending upon price and thus regulating demand.
Other examples would be NG used for synthetic rubber versus plantation grown, again with perhaps a 10 year lag until trees are producing. If the price of NG keeps increasing a greater proportion of rubber will be derived from plantations, even though there is a high labor content in plantation rubber. If NG prices decline, plantations will be managed to give lower costs but less production.
Your example of US consuming 20 Million barrels/day, having higher elasticity than the US consuming 10 million barrels/day is only valid if this is achieved by short term measures such as gasoline rationing. Longer term adaptations such as vehicles becoming twice as fuel efficient, relocating housing closer to work or work closer to housing are all going to maintain the same elasticity.
The reason you have the oscillations between predator and prey is due to the slower reproduction rate of predators so that for example Eagles are unable to keep up with a rabbit or mouse plague, and the prey runs out of food and crashes. In the sense that the lag in responding to higher oil prices may cause oscillations in price the analogy is good, but not relevant to the brittleness of the economy. The price changes over one or two years are unlikely to be influenced by changes in vehicles, use of oil for home heating or even investments in new oil production, these cycles are likely to occur over decades.