Monte mentioned the idea of rationing oil evenly, so I did some calculations.
What if we rationed each year's oil production evenly to all nations, on a per capita basis, so each person got the same amount of oil?
Oil production/day = 80 million barrels
Oil production/year = 29.2 billion barrels
Oil production/year/capita = 29.2/6.4 = 4.5 barrels/day/capita

Looking at the chart here: link

We see that 4.5 barrels/day/capita would put everybody at a level right between CU (Cuba) and ZA (Zaire?). Each person would receive roughly two quarts of crude oil per/day.

Naturally, the US is at the top of the list, using about 26 barrels/year/capita, or about 3 gallons of crude oil per day per person. So if you're using more than 3 gallons of gasoline a day, you're really out of control!
4.5 barrels/year/capita still isn't that bad. The countries at the bottom of the list appear to be: AF (Afghanistan) at 0.08, and UG (Uganda?) at 0.11.

Aghanistan is incredible. Each Afghani is getting by with about 2 tablespoons of crude oil per day. It's doled out in cough syrup quantities. They're already deep into post peak oil conditions.

I believe that 70% of world oil consumption goes to transportation. I think that if you take away the cars/trucks/SUVs you could bring America well in line with the world.

I work from home, so I use very little gas, but most of my friends drive at least 60 miles a day going to and from work. Even if your car gets 30 MPG, that's two gallons already.

Yep with good goverment planning and willingness on the people side a lot can be done with equal distribution, conservation and efficiency. How to establish this policy is the problem however

Have you all been sniffing fumes?
This is simply not workable, precisely because the natual carrying capacity of the US has been artificially increased with the high use of cheap petroleum products.
You take that away and you have to also take away people. I have seen estimates from geologists and ecologists that the natural carrying capacity of the US is no more than 40 million.
What do you propose to do with the remaining 260million American citizens.

These "pie in the sky" discussions are really funny, if rather useless.
The powerful (i.e. the US, China, Europe, ...) will take what they need; the rest will burn cow dung.

In the U.S., most petroleum is used for wasteful driving around, not for tasks essential to survival.

I doubt it. China feeds 4 times as many people with 1/20th the oil per person. Carrying capacity is large even with very low levels of oil. And we're talking about reducing US consumption per capita to 1/5 the current level, which would still be about 4 times the current Chinese level.

I'd like to see their calculations. Post a cite and we'll see if their estimates hold up to scrutiny.

You should mention it to Monte, then. It's his idea. I'm just goofing around with it for entertainment.
Actually, I think George Bush might like the idea. After all, task #1 right now is bringing freedom to the world's people, and the freedom to drive is the most important freedom there is. Ask any American. They could take away your freedom of speech, or your freedom to assemble, and everybody'd be too scared to fight it. But take away the freedom to drive? That's unthinkable. They'll hang anybody who tries that from a post.

link This site doesn't factor in the energy consumed to produce foodstuffs and thus also doesn't include factors for falling pretroleum supplies.

link This site provides a good, quick survey of some of the estimates made over the past few years. You'll notice the only ones with high population estimates are those that either don't factor in energy use or assume an unlimited supply of fossil fuel.

The one fallicy that I see in high estimates that factor in energy use, by way of comparing life styles is that there is no economy of scale for agricultural production with regards to energy use. So if you say 10 billion can be sustained if we all live within the energy footprint of India, it is assumed that energy use for food production is also at India's levels. This is wrong for two main reasons. India is a net importer of food, meaning they have exceeded their carrying capacity and the food they import is primarily produced at 1st world energy levels. Second, if the whole planet where to live at the level of India you would still need to consume 1st world levels of energy to produce food simply because not all agricultural land is equally productive or evenly destributed meaning essentially you still have to ship food all over the world.

link This is older but still a good discussion.

link Pay particular attention to chapter 16.

RdSnt,
The current population of China is about 1.3 billion vs. a US population of 300 million. China has 9% of the world's arable cropland, and the US 13%. In 2003, Chinese oil consumption was about 5 million barrels/day, and US oil consumption was 20 million barrels/day. Also, imports account for less than 2% of China's food supply. So even if we assume that 2% of China's population must die without food imports, China would still be supporting 1.274 billion people with a petroleum supply 1/4th that of the US. Thus, it would seem reasonable to believe that the US could reduce its petroleum consumption by 15 million barrels/day, quadruple its population, and still feed everbody.

RdSnt,
By the way, which was the cite that gave a figure of 40 million for the carrying capacity of the US?

John, I see what you're saying, but I think your overall argument is loco.
Yes, the US could certainly *greatly* reduce its levels of oil use and feed its current population - or even a much larger one if it came to that. This would obviously entail great changes to how most people in the US live. It's unfortunate that most oil consumed in the US is frivolous, but that's that.
And I shudder at the thought of the US having a population close to that of China. Not a place I'd want to live.
Hmmm. I'm not sure about China, but I had thought that it imports a much greater percentage of food than you indicate (2%). I'm not certain though. Have to do some research.

The big thing for me is whether any of this is sustainable for any length of time. Nature has hardly had a chance to react to the sudden onslaught of humanity we're experiencing this century. Modern farming practices are hard on topsoil; arable land is disappearing. The big question mark is whether the current population is sustainable for any length of time. In the short term (20 - 50 years?), with or without cheap oil, the answer is yes. Longer term... big question mark.

We live during very unique times - the population has never been so large, nor has it ever grown so quickly. So, again, the big question is whether the human population can exist sustainably, at current (or even greater levels) for centuries or millenia. The way we war, destroy and degrade the environement, and rely on a non-sustainable use of resources leads me to say NO, it's not sustainable for any length of time.

John, please quote me where I suggested rationing the oil world-wide. I have suggested that perhaps gas rationing might be instituted by the govt so they might wage war to get more.

If there were 2-hour or longer gas lines by, say, august due to some supply disruption, would you be obliged to wait in them? If so, how many times a month?
Has anyone prepared to leave their car parked for a while and get around some other way?

My motorcyle gets 65 MPG, and my bicycle gas milage is infinite. I could get by just fine without gas for quite a while. My wife would have to conserve a little bit; but she could probably go without for a while too. She can always carpool with friends, and save her gas for when she really needs it. Her car gets nearly 30mpg so she can make a tank go a long way. SUV owners living 20+ miles from work would really be hurting.

I keep the bicycle in good condition, my car get 4.7 L/ 100km on diesel, and I have started to run more.

I am ready.