I think the general public IS aware of the finite (if inexactly calculated)  nature of oil and coal resources and of the need to develop alternatives. The problem is that political/economic/financial debates tend to be reactive and deal in very short policy-spans whereas the peak oil/climate change debate is necessarily more long term. The problem for political change is as ever: "when you are up to your neck in crocodiles, you forget that your original objective was to drain the swamp".

However there is almost no public realisation of the interconnectedness between peak oil and the banking crisis, and this is perhaps where the longer term energy debate can link into the shorter term crisis management debate. The proposals to eliminate FITs is perhaps one of those wedge issues where the long term world of science and short term world of politics and business collide. Nobody is suggesting that Germany isn't in a better long term strategic position as a result of the development of its alternative energy sector, so why aren't more following Germany's lead in alternative energy rather than its lead in regressive banking and fiscal management practices?

Index of Frank's Diaries