I agree wholeheartedly that "what we have here, is a failure to communicate" to borrow a phrase.

I've run into the same problems of describing the issues involved with peak oil and climate chaos to a wide range of audiences, in size, age, and general science background. It ain't easy, especially when they've heard just a little about the topic--mostly from ads financed by the fossil fuel lobby--and they think they know things that just ain't so, a condition far worse than simple ignorance.

But I think the proposed solution has some non-trivial problems, as well. Even if you limit participation in the declaration to just those you mentioned (conviction about the situation's urgency and the lack of a silver bullet), you've still set the stage for some huge battles within the group. I'm as convinced as anyone here that peak oil is "real, imminent, and an enormous problem", as I've said over on my site (The Cost of Energy) countless times, but that would still leave me at odds with many other people who share those beliefs. There's a heck of a lot of real estate between "yes, it's a real and very serious problem and we can't squander any more time" and "we're cooked and should forget about fixing anything and learn how to make needles from rat ribs". How do you get everyone under that enormous umbrella to play along?

Based on my roughly five years of writing and speaking about this topic, such an effort can only succeed via a push--as in advertising. Relying on a pulled message, meaning things people have to take action to find online, just won't cut it. First of all, very few people (relative to the overall adult population) will bother looking, no matter what the message is and how well it's portrayed. Second, those that do find it online are all too happy to dismiss it as just another example of Internet idiocy. They know what a bust Y2k was (see below), and they know that the Internet is loaded with ridiculous stories of alien abduction, Dick Cheney still running the world from hidden bunker, Illuminati, 300 MPG fuel injectors, Area 51 technology, etc. Why the heck should they believe this wild story about "the world running out of oil", when it's never happened before?

Still, I think it's an idea worth pursuing. Right now, the peak oil message sounds to an outsider like a room full of zealots all trying to out-scream each other. I have to believe we can find a way to do better than that.

(On Y2k: I know for a fact thanks to many industry contacts with first-hand information that it was a very real and very serious problem. The only reason it didn't turn into a disaster is that a huge number of very smart people fixed it. All the scare mongers on the 'net didn't know squat about what was really going on, and their displayed lack of understanding of how humanity responds to at least some crises is nothing less than pathetic.)