Sorry Tom but I think you have mangled this quite badly. As Taswegian points out, the oil production issue has and is changing dramatically. Since the threat of Peak Oil has been one of the primary threats tabled in support of taking action urgently, this now has to be taken out of the equation until at least 2150, even on worst case scenarios.

Tom, most of the Peak “something’s” have been offered as rationale for taking all sorts of urgent action, peak population, peak food production, peak development etc are now seen for what they really are, pure Sustainable Development hype.

A tax on carbon dioxide is now opposed in Australia by 66% of the population. This is because the majority is no longer swallowing the BS. If a CO2 tax is the answer, what was the question?

Sadly when this question is asked of the warmertariat, none are able to give a satisfactory answer. Repeating the old mantras is just confirming that the warmers have nothing left. All we get is rising sea levels, drowning polar bears, severe weather, melting polar ice and more warming? All of which is Greenie rubbish according to Hansen and Lovelock.

So you need to get something new on the table, preferably some real data rather than more modeling. If the warmers don’t like it they can always take the matter up with Hanson and Lovelock

While Dr. Holland makes a good point about the potential effect of carbon pricing helping us from our dependence on hydrocarbon fuels, Peter Lang is quite correct in asserting that this was never a goal of the current carbon tax regime, and indeed that it is very poorly designed to achieve this.
Look at a couple of important specifics.
The carbon tax excludes petrol - my local service station has the same pump price today (Monday 02 July 2012, after the introduction of the carbon tax) as it had a week ago (before the carbon tax). The carbon tax will have no direct or indirect effect on our dependence on petrol for travel.
The carbon tax does not apply to hydrocarbon exports as such. Thus we have Minister Combet stating on Sunday while standing on a coal mine site that "the coal industry has a very bright future" with only a slight increase in production costs (mainly through use of electricity) to affect it. Thus our dependence on export income from hydrocarbons (both gas and coal) is likely to further increase rather than diminish, with negligible and basically incidental effect from the carbon tax. It is important to remember that we consume domestically only 33% of the hydrocarbon energy we produce - most is used to pay for flat-screen tvs and small cars. This is our main hydrocarbon energy dependence.
Certainly the carbon tax will dampen increases in domestic carbon emissions by general damping of industrial activity and increases in power costs, but its main effect as currently designed is substantial income redistribution via the compensation mechanisms to certain population and industrial groups. It will have a limited effect on the move away from dependence on hydrocarbon fuels, particularly petroleum - at least as currently designed.

FYI

(where Y= anyone who believes that a carbon tax will stimulate clean energy development)

<<Europe's emissions trading scheme has failed to create incentives for utilities to use cleaner energy fuels, meaning that governments will have to switch to simpler tools, such as subsidies and regulation, to enforce emissions reduction targets>>
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=analysis-co2-market-has-failed-to-p

Perhaps Tom has been too busy with emergency cases to keep up with the world of oil discovery. That does not give Ludwig & you others any excuse.

The US has found enough oil for over a hundred years at expected usage growth, & gas for twice as long. This does not include all the known reserves of oil that fool Obama is refusing to let them get at.

Argentina has now proven reserves adequate to supply most of the worlds requirements for a similar time. Add to that Russia & traditional suppliers, plus the snowballing gas supplies, & the world is flooded with Hydrocarbon fuels.

I am sure most of you actually know all this, but your ideology makes you not want to admit it. This is just lying, in another form to our dear Julia, but lying none the less.

As for global warming, there is nothing left of that fraud, even European countries have given up on it. All but those fools the poms are running away from their crazy subsidies of alternate generation, that an Olympic sprinter could never keep up with them.

Ocean acidification was another attempted con job, now failed. I await, with baited breath, to see what the shonks will try next.

Well having done my bit today to save the world from the AGW mob, I think it's time to save the trees, they are looking a bit lean & hungry. A 100Km or so up the mountain for a coffee & back, should give them a nice snack, don't you think.

spindoc

Normally I would be impressed by the figure of 66% opposing the carbon tax but in this case I believe it is a function of Gina Rinehart bringing the arch-charlatan Lord Monkton to Australia, Alan Jones' militant denialism (did Exxon-Mobil pay him?) and the same for Andrew Bolt. Add to that journalists thinking they needed to provide 50:50 balance when 97:3 ratio would have matched climate scientists' views or 99.9:0.1 for the literature. Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman once called for denialists to be charged with treason. In the case of Jones and Bolt, I couldn't agree more.

Peak oil and carbon! We can do something about both by exploiting our own hydrocarbon supplies? Which leave the ground as virtually ready to use diesel or gas. Because it requires no refining; produces four times less carbon than the extensively refined Middle East product!
There are compelling reasons to believe, we may have to our immediate north, hydrocarbon resources to rival or even eclipse the entire known oil and gas reserves of the Middle East.
The Greens endlessly lecture us lesser mere mortals, that we must reduce our carbon output, but act to prevent/block any attempt to explore then exploit our own energy resources, which would allow us to reduce our own transport based carbon output, [half of our current output,] by as much as 75%!
Does anyone actually believe the pragmatists in Labour ranks would have been sitting still while plans were hatched to lock up vast tracts of oil bearing sea bed, except that they need the greens to stay in power.
Fortunately, and I didn't ever believe I'd hear myself propose this! Most of the harm done to our economy can be reversed by a change of government and a much more pragmatic approach.
Perhaps Tony might resist some of the essential changes, but, the Nats could force the proposed changes; by tearing up the coalition agreement, particularly if that then gave them the balance of power in both houses.
This would mean, the bush could keep, and or, amplify those things labour gave to them.
The NBS, better health and education outcomes, roads and infrastructure!
[Much cheaper lower carbon transport/farm fuel! Rapid rail.]
And more of the money earned or created in the regions, staying and prospering the regions; and or, the Nats, [currently dying a death by a thousand cuts,] power base.
And wouldn't that make a very pleasant change from the seemingly usual tail between the legs roll over and beg for a tummy rub, that seems to be the standard modus operandi, of today's verbose or motor mouth; or sleep through sessions, Nats?
Rhrosty.