Perhaps a policy is not needed yet. I think the best action to take is to inform them of the current situation with facts... Define the problem, how big it is. Show graphs and charts about what we are facing... show a story of "This is the problem in detail". Show how certain solutions won't work (for instance, Hydrogen is only a carrier of energy and not an energy source). Use data to make your argument that action needs to be done.

I also think that the solution to many of these problems will be multipronged, and complex. For instance, does it make sense to use geothermal heat pumps in place of current technology? Yes. Hybrid cars? Yes. Insulation? Yes. Fluorescent bulbs instead of incandescent? Yes. Electrified rail? You bet. How about ethanol? Maybe. Etc. But, for our audience, instead of mentioning all of these solutions, focus on the fact that there is a problem and it will affect the world.

Also mention how other fuels are peaking (in particular natural gas) and what this all means.

Good luck!

I think that this disagreement is healthy. A site policy, no matter how well considered & intended, would be a bad idea. It's a bad idea regardless of whatever issues of nonpartisanship on the part of nonprofit orgs may be involved. Let everyone speak for him- or herself.

I hear you about the advice - I'd like to see a smart mix of new energy development (better nukes if there is any $ for them, LOTS of solar thermal in the Mojave and wind from Dakota to Texas), a rebuild of the power transmission infratructure and Alan's rail plan

but I'm sure that any plan would meet a lot of criticism

maybe just identifying the problem facing him "here's the best estimates of production" etc. would be best then - I'm hearing Obama is considering highway building and bridge repair as an economic stimulus - seems like a big waste of $ if there aren't going to be more cars on those hwys in the future.
I'd like to see TOD continue to lead in this area, and it seems like a joint letter to the next president would be a good start (and yes, I am cynical enough to think that it probably won't matter, that large corporate interests win in the end - but it just seems TOD should take a shot at it).

as for the partisanship issue - it isn't one I'd think - how can it be partisan to give general observations on Peak Oil and the ramifications thereof (and if some consensus can happen) - some advice for an approach?

I don't think it was any fondness for Palin that prompted the negative ratings.

You may not have noticed, but we tend to be on the serious side, and people here often resent what they see as silly and off-topic posts.

To tell you the truth, I almost deleted it, just because I didn't think it added anything useful to the discussion, and I want to discourage posts like it.