by DoctorDoom » Fri 21 Apr 2006, 16:45:26
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.