I believe global crude oil production is declining about 6.5% a year. Production of ethanol and oil from tar sands has hit a plateau. Despite recent falls oil must return to high prices as it runs out. What is happening now with oil is a trap for the unwary. While for now Australia has natural gas, coal and coal seam methane the rest of the world wants it so we will pay world prices even at home. In future coal layers will be deeper and thinner and thus more expensive to exploit, with or without carbon taxes.

Having said that I'm not sure that some of the proposals like battery cars are the answer. For Australia it may be better to run heavy vehicles on natural gas if necessary cutting back both on LNG exports and using gas for electrical generation. There is not the slightest sign from Canberra they are thinking that far ahead. We should attack the problem on several fronts including using less energy period. Since Rudd is like a rabbit blinded by headlights perhaps the Obama administration will give us a lead. I think Canberra should give us an energy options paper updated every year that sets out prospects for the likes of liquid fuel imports and substitutions, renewables and carbon emissions then comparing those targets with actual performance. Currently we are getting ever closer to the edge of a cliff.

Taswegian, I'm also sceptical of battery-powered cars in the short term. We need to accept that that private cars will become expensive and public transport will be the way to go in cities. This raises the hard problem of urban sprawl, but there are solutions (e.g., Smart Growth http://www.smartgrowth.org/).

Whether we like it or not, oil will run out relatively soon; my calculation was for all fossil fuels. Once oil gets too expensive (it will never actually run out), things will get really tough. Doing what we do with oil is much more expensive using any of the alternatives.

I strongly recommend reading MacKay's book. I didn't agree with all his solutions but it's an excellent starting point for getting a handle on what's possible.

The thing that worries me is that the pollies all think about the next news cycle, rather than the next 10 years. If we move slowly but deliberately now, we'll find solutions, and the economy will be able to withstand a slow transition. The longer we wait, the more chance there is that we will have little option but to act very fast.

Exponential growth in demand for fossil fuels (the main point of the article) means that the endpoint in resources will happen a lot faster than most expect.

Another fact often overlooked: CO_2 accumulates in the atmosphere, because we are pumping it out faster than the environment can absorb it. Nearly 20% of the excess will still be there in 1,000 years, according to the well-tested Berne model. If we hit a point where CO_2 levels are clearly dangerously high, we will have to go to ZERO emissions. The longer we take to slow down on emissions, the sooner we reach that point.

The only way this will not be a problem is if the science the Rudd government claims to accept is actually wrong. It is therefore very troubling that the government claims to accept all this science, and continues to act as if it doesn't.

In summary: every issue except short-term expediency points to slowing down on fossil fuels.

One thing that is rarely considered is changing our life styles so we need less energy.

There are many ways this can be done. Zoning changes can put people closer to work and mandate energy efficient buildings. Changes in depreciation allowances can make it more profitable to repair old buildings than to put up new ones. Changes in personal consumption habits such as making things do longer, impressing others by ingenuity in use of objects rather than in amassing them, making meals from scratch rather than buying prepared food etc. Engaging in sports rather than paying money to watch other people do it. Taxation rewarding people and companies for effective conservation practices. In Australia we could have a cabinet Department of Conservation that would suggest methods and government policies to further conservation of resources.

Good article. I hope the book is as good as Phil's says - I am downloading it now.

The statement that the pollies don't take sustainability seriously (or AGW, or water supply, or oil - put whatever rocks your boat here), is self evident. I'll take it as a sign they are getting a clue when they start talking about sustainable population densities.

Right now they are saying on one day we should halve our total CO2 emissions, and on the next day making decisions that will lead us to double our population by 2050. Until they show some sign of connecting the two, I assume they are off with the pixies. On the ecological front, if they promise reductions in our ecological footprint while ignore population growth they might as well be promising to turn the sea into ginger beer.

The only possible response I see is ridicule - because they are acting like idiots. Or liars. Or pollies, I guess.

The only realistic long-term source of energy in the distant future is nuclear fusion. With the raw material being sea water, it can produce all the energy we can use into the indefinite future. The world's first fusion power station is under construction at present in southern France, and may be producing power within ten years. In addition, it does not produce nuclear waste (the waste product is helium gas), is fail safe, and would be very cheap to operate. Let us hope it is operational before the shortage of fossil fuels triggers a major crisis.

plerdsus, I think you may be talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER ... unfortunately it is only a technology demo and won't produce significant usable power.

The main downside of this sort of fusion reaction is that it produces heat, an inefficient path to electricity.

Here's another idea to contemplate: polywell fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell). It looks promising but needs serious funding to explore more fully. One of its key features is that the fusion reaction produces charged particles, so the energy can convert directly to electricity (95% efficiently, claimed). More detail here: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/index.html