It appears that oil production may have peaked last year at 84.8 million barrels per day (with the US using about one-fourth of that per day). Production will decline forever from then if it did peak. Lester Brown just wrote a great article about it:

http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2007/Update67.htm

To see a revolution in transportation see:

http://www.theaircar.com

and search "air car" at www.youtube.com and view the eight-minute video there about how it works. Spread the word.

It is amazing. And if you can find evidence that the air car is not viable, post it below.

We don't consume 21 billion barrels per year of oil (the entire world's production is about 29 billion barrels per year).

I think the author was thinking of our DAILY usage which is 21-22 MILLION barrels of oil, or about 7 billion barrels per year. Either way, we still consume about 25% of all oil produced in the world. The US also skews heavily toward gasoline production (versus diesel and other fuels) so we wind up using nearly 40% of all the gasoline in the world. Americans love those V-8 powered SUVs.

And, yes, I am looking at buying a Prius to do my part. The cheapest plug-in conversion that I've found is Hymotion of Canada. So far only shipping limited test volume to commercial fleets, but they claim a $10K consumer price in 2008. Even at 100mpg (mainly urban driving), it will take 2-3 years for economic payback, but at least I'll feel like I'm doing something to help.

Anyway, the point the author makes is still quite valid and its disheartening to see consumers and manufacturers tepid response to increasing fuel standards (even moderately). I'm afraid it will take $5, 6 or even 7 dollar per gallon gas prices to change things.

"Reliance on markets alone cannot solve this and doing so will bankrupt our future. We need sustainable national energy policy legislated now. Energy conservation should be first."

Agreed.

So, while driving a Prius or an electric vehicle or even riding a horse are not perfect solutions, they are individual actions that give us a leg to stand on while we demand that Congress do something.

"Efficiency is not the same as frugality. People with more efficient cars may then drive more miles in them."

Agreed. However, I don't think folks who take a conscious step toward efficiency are interested in merely driving more miles. Let's take all the help, and good steps, we can. Waiting for the perfect solution is futile - it will never happen and we'll screw ourselves in the end.

Your point about frugality is right on! That's something we can all do right where we are. It's also good for us.

energy conservation, and yes, sweaters at home are coming whether we like it or not.
reflecting on energy conservation, it is worth noting that our biggest energy consumption occurs in transportation and housing.To conserve more, it would help to have mass transportation. (even if it is not financially sound for the city, it is for the country when the undocumented costs of obtaining energy are factored in)To permit mass transportation, it is necessary to have high density housing, and so land zoning and regulations should permit that.This is why the per person energy use in china is still trifle compared to usa.(Heating efficiency per unit is also increased.)Bicycling should be encoraged.
Figure the consequences of oil at six dollars a agallon, as is already the consumer cost in europe. For a 2 car household driving a total 80 miles a day at 20 miles a gallon for 250 days, the fuel cost will increase from 3000 to 6000 annually. Over 15 years, the extra cost is 45000, which should surely decrease the value of the suburban mansion by an equal amount.If oil is unavailable at that price, the suburban home will be valueless unless the resident is a farmer.
will oil cost 6 dollars a gallon? if a commodity is even marginally in short supply, we are willing to pay an exorbitant cost for it.(the last baseball seat, the last icecream, the last gallon of oil)if having that last gallon permits commute to work, some may pay 10 dollars a gallon.(considering that we already pay a dollar for 12 oz of water- with or without sugar - the same price)

"I don't think folks who take a conscious step toward efficiency are interested in merely driving more miles."

Agreed, but the issue was not what choices consumers were to make, but the mandating of efficiency by Congress.

If this is truly an issue of national implications, perhaps they should mandate big fuel taxes like in Europe. Most of Europe has efficient numbers on creating GDP per barrel. That measure would hurt the poor the most of course, but that idea is not going to fly anytime soon anyway.

"Imagine if we doubled transportation efficiency "

Efficiency is not the same as frugality. People with more efficient cars may then drive more miles in them.

"And, yes, I am looking at buying a Prius to do my part."

Might want to buy one soon. The tax credit goes away after 2007.

"Our preoccupation with letting the free market determine our national energy policy is wasteful folly and not in the public interest."

Although an excellent article overall, the author errs in suggesting that recent ethanol production and use increases are market driven. They have been driven, rather, by government subsidies (in R&D, tax breaks, etc.).

This governmental assistance resulted from enormous agribusiness pressure, not the market.

There is no such thing as "market driven" outside the context of governmental/legal support. Oil, gas, photovoltaic, wind, coal, nukes, etc. all exist to varying degrees because government created favorable business climates for them (to varying degrees). That support includes tax benfits, R&D subsidies, infrastructure support, etc.

We won't have photovoltaics, wind, geothermal, or even basic conservation and efficiency on a large scale until our government completely transforms the business/legal environment favoring them and penalizing fossil fuels. "Free market" has nothing to do with it.

Trains, planes, automobiles, computers, electronics, countless medicines, shipping on the Mississippi or Erie Canal (going back 150 years) and pretty much all other large-scale, technological innovations exist because government provided the appropriate incentives and climate.

"Free market" implies natural, normal, good. But the ethanol market is about as unnatural, abnormal, contrived, and ecologically bad as the old fossil fuels.

We need to contrive -- create -- renewable energy systems better for the health of the planet and ourselves using many of the same tools and biases used for the creation and maintenance of the fossil fuels industry.

The problem is right in the title - "the ROAD to Energy Conservation". Roads are the major part of the problem.
It should be 'the RAIL to Energy Conservation".
Europe and Japan use 3 times less energy per capita than the US. A major reason is that they have mass transit and long distance rail. We need to resolve not to expand another major highway instead investing in rail lines or mass transit lines to replace the median or existing lanes. We need to restore long and mid distance rail so that anyone can take a train to all major cities and so that rail is faster than air travel for medium trips.
The only working rail system is in the East Coast where the Acela high speed trains have been so successful that trains carry more passengers from New York to Washington than all plane flights combined.
We need to change zoning ordinances to encourage more dense mixed use neighborhoods and discourage McMansions.
Here in New Jersey we have mass transit which is wasted.
People I work with would LOVE to take the train to work.
But they can't.
Why?
Because there is a 7 year wait for a parking space at the train station!
Just increasing car mileage is like a bandaid - it will not seriously resolve the problem.

I contend that the whole ethanol thing is a fraud, and is backed (anemically) by the federal government to benefit Archer Daniels Midland. I have completely failed to comprehend how burning anything is going to reduce global warming gases. Further, we cannot produce enought ethanol to meet our drinking needs (joke), let alone make a serious dent in the importation of fossil fuels.
However, using American corn for ethanol is not depriving anyone of food. Most American corn is used to make "high fructose corn syrup" which may have calories, but is certainly not food. I have a sweet tooth, but examine labels carefully and will not knowingly purchase products containing "high fructose corn syrup."
My car is a Civic Hybrid. My bulbs are flourescent.

The technology for hybrid and electric cars already exist's. Many places in our country have enough sun to charge electric vehicles eliminating the need for most oil use. For longer trips either hybrids or charging stations for electric's would suffice.
I see the main problem being elected [some fraudulently] officials beholding to special interest's [oil,manufacturing,financial] steering the country away from progress. Also they are just not up to the task mentally, they are just plain stupid. Most of your Congressman seem to know less on any given topic than your average person on the street.
Given the right leadership we could hugely cut our oil consumption without any sacrifice in our living standard. Less air polution, less money going out of country for oil, more good domestic jobs building the infrastructure.
We are being slapped around like a red headed step child. The people running this place don't have our interests in mind, in fact their intent seems to be to destroy the place. In that they are succeeding and are killing a lot of innocent people in the process.

Excellent essay, kacster @ 7:42 pm.

To which I would only add that the indirect subsidy for gas/oil use amounts to somewhere between $5 and $15 per gallon.

Yet we have not heard of one single, self-styled free-market conservative who supports elimination of the subsidy.

I read a few years back that at least 3 different people were completing work on a device that injects small amounts of hydrogen into the fuel mixture increasing mileage and reducing pollutants to virtually nothing by having a very complete combustion. Every car was supposed to be getting one within a few years. I have not read about that again. Anybody know anything about it?

Lizard - there are lots of things like that would help mankind a lot, but the ruling elite keep them locked up in safes - so that the staus quo is not upset. They don't want to change the world. They're very attached to their Lear jets, limosines, servants and power.

Bill Bradley said that we would not need any foreign oil if we produced cars that drive 45 miles/hour and fine those who insist on driving Hummers of SUV's.

I drove a sunbeam- a 4 seated sunroof car made in England and it got 45miles/hr and that was in 1962 when I was right out of college and I loved the car!

metamorph: I assume you meant 45miles/gal and not miles/hr.

Here's a thought: why not go back to the 55mph national speed limit? Nobody even mentions it anymore. Not even "greenies." The truth is, nobody wants to make the slightes sacrifice to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and/or reduce greenhouse gases.

knowbuddee: driving slower isn't locked up in a safe.