[jc4patents]

with respect to US oil consumption, the Energy Information Agency (www.eia.doe.gov) reports "about 2/3 of all oil use is for transportation"

therefore, an effective course of action we can all take is to do all we can to insure that the next administration is one that will make reduction of
transportation oil consumption a national priority of the highest order (on a level of, for example, the Manhattan project in WW2)

given the seriousness of our situation, we must urge the public away from vehicles that guzzle fuel (e.g., those with V8 engines such as SUVs) and towards vehicles that obtain at least twice the current average mpg.

this doesn't even require any engineering breakthroughs.

[jc4patents]

as a follow up to my recent post, I urge all to print out the chart of
"US Oil Demand by Sector, 1950-2002" which is available at
www.eia.doe.gov
and look at the huge juicy portion at the right side of the graph which represents the transportation share of US oil consumption in 2002.

I say "huge juicy portion" because that is like fruit just lying out there waiting to be plucked off and give us some serious extra time to effect other responses to the peak oil challenge.

[Wildwell]

Well the CNN video of the guy selling stuff to drive the Jaguar is a joke. Only rich people here drive those, lovely cars, but the fuel economy is terrible – about 10-15mpg from memory. You can buy 50mpg cars right now. Which means oil can go up quite substantially without making you worse off. Sorry, I really don’t feel sorry for folks that can’t afford the fuel for such gas guzzlers. Failing that time to walk/take the train/bus/change jobs/move closer.

[DoctorDoom]

I totally agree. (Expect a visit from the Jevon's "paradox" crowd, though.)

The simplest way to reduce consumption is a large petrol tax, proven effective in most of Europe. Zero chance of that happening in the USA! Instead we'll let the market levy the "tax" as supplies become tighter. At best band-aid solutions such as CAFE requirements, until a crisis is upon us, at which point my guess is still WW2-style rationing.

In isolation, conservation is not a solution. At best it buys you some time, but you still need to come up with plan B.

FWIW I think plan B will end up being a patchwork of alternatives, including increased use of coal, a nuclear build-out, wind generators, and some expansion of biofuels. Construction of stupid stuff like shopping malls, airport expansions, or new resort hotels will stop. In the end you are powered down to the point where personal transportation has been drastically curtailed (everyone but the very rich takes public transport or uses a human or electrically-powered bike to get around), home energy needs including electricity are still met but at lower levels that assume conservation measures are permanent, and long-distance freight has moved to the most efficient systems (rail, and ships). Liquid fuels to meet the drastically reduced needs of freight and heavy equipment come from a combination of what oil is still being produced, coal-to-liquids conversion, and biofuels. Technological civilization survives. Mass starvation is avoided, at least in the developed world and, I pray, everywhere else.

I'm not holding my breath for a US politician to come with this plan, or any other plan. But hey, at least we'll get GWB out of office in 2008.