The peak oil concept is fine, and we may have already passed it, depending on exactly how it's defined. But the important point is not the passing of a supply peak, but the results of doing so.
The demand for oil is very elastic, although arguably not as elastic as it was in 1970. I don't know about Europeans, but in America there is hardly anyone--I claim, without statistical support--who "must" drive long distances in an SUV to get to work. There are plenty of options: Carpool, bus, bike, train; even bay foot. There are plenty of inexpensive, efficient cars available new and used, so people can park their SUVs. Many in the engineering and information fields can work from home part of the time. Working hours can be re-adjusted; even school schedules can be changed from five to four days a week to reduce travel expenses. http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin279.shtml Approaches like this, and others, were implemented in the 1970s and will be used again as short term price peaking takes place.
And while these are only short term "solutions," they lead to long term solutions, including not only changes in lifestyle, home ownership patterns, and work habits, but improved energy consumption efficiency like that touted by the Rocky Mountain Institute. (Not that I support Lovin's ideas completely; some of them are beyond practicality and/or simply misguided.) http://www.rmi.org/
The market will indeed solve the problem in the long run. The only question is about how we handle the short term irregularity in the price and supply.
Can not disagree with that but in the long run we are all dead too (as Jerome rightly keeps reminding us of the great John Maynard Keynes with this). Not to discredit your remark, really, but to me it is not the most important question if or when markets solve problems but how.
Still I disagree with this: The only question is about how we handle the short term irregularity in the price and supply. because "we" are not the market in the first place but beside that in my opinion it tends to avoid the need to make it clear that the western societies will have to give up some of our lead. One of the reasons to come up with this post here is that I found out that among Dutch Green it is argued that the message of decreasing consumption is not attracting enough voters and so (!) they should better suggest that technology will solve environmental problems. Overestimating the possibilities of biomass and wind-energy for example.
