The time frames for these demand reductions are ridiculous and do not reflect the real supply shortfalls that lay before us. I concede that it's a good but small step toward acknowledging the actual future problems but that is all.

So, JD, since you're so busy debunking peak oil, I suppose you think this is real progress. Conservation and efficiency are real but so is Jevon's Paradox. Diminished oil & gas usage--if it is sustained over time--really helps us meet the "Hirsch Gap". Otherwise, Lieberman is just talking about slowed rates of demand/comsumption growth over time. This is just nonsense and helps us out not at all. His 2.5/mbd reduction in a decade would reduce US overall consumption by some small amount over one year's increase in demand given the current trends. Anyone believing that will make any appreciable difference is living in a fantasy world.
I just want to make a correction. When I said "His 2.5/mbd reduction in a decade would reduce US overall consumption by some small amount over one year's increase in demand given the current trends", I meant reduce world-wide overall consumption. Sorry.

In addition, if we look at the EIA's demand increase numbers for the US, we see that over the period 1997 to 2004, oil demand (consumption) increased by about 0.3/mbd year to year. So, if demand increases remain linear and if in the 10 years we cut domestic consumption by 2.5/mbd, we will increase our total new consumption by only 0.5 mb during that period and our growth rate will be cut to 0.05/mbd per year on a linear basis. But, our consumption would still be growing albeit at a much smaller rate. Yet, there will be less world oil supply to share, supply will be decreased. So, where's the solution to our problem here? Obviously, demand must decrease, catastropically so for those earliest affected by the scarcity. Therefore, we are not looking at a situation where excess capacity is available but we are doing the right thing by conserving, instead, we are looking at a situation where demand shrinks (so-called "demand destruction") due to lack of supply. Which is why I think Leiberman's assumptions are all wrong. He frames it as "oil independence". This is a red herring at this point. We will be more oil dependent than ever, there will just be less of it to go around.
There is no such animal as "oil independence".  The only way we can be independent, is to not use oil from any other sources but our own.   That is not going to happen seeing that most people have to drive to work, to schools, and we still have to harvest things to eat, let alone fuel a military.