Lucky for me I have been attacked a couple of times for my postings. That gives me targets for provision of new information. Does anyone believe that our resources are infinite? They are finite! So we should use them carefully. Every human is entitled to some share of them or do some who have posted believe that the proper approach is, "To hell with anyone else."
Can we grow our fuel? Not likely! The world's liquid oil consumption is about 3.5 billion tonnes (all figures per year) whereas the total production of grains and sugar is less than half that (about 1.6 billion tonnes). World coal consumption is about another 5 billion tonnes. We are already using all of the best agricultural land and still cannot feed everyone adequately. Should some more people starve to death (already many thousands do each day) so we can drive monsters unnecessary distances or heat and cool oversize houses at will?
I too believe in human ingenuity but that needs careful thought, education in the sciences and careful co-operation rather than action by cowboys.
Foyle

What a passionate discussion. On the one hand, those that feel entitled to do as they please. On the other, those that want the heavy hand of government to punish the selfish.

The shortcomings of Mr. McMahon's article have already been pointed out and, really, one has come to expect more of the ISTP at Murdoch. I'll just add that it's 'affect', not 'effect'.

I could be described as an environmental crusader: not on the activism front so much as the action front. I am of the opinion that it is engineers standing on the shoulders of scientists who have made the world as it is, and I hold them personally responsible. I am also one of them.

This discussion seems to have missed the crucial point that most people use whatever they see lying around - be it a broken femur for bashing your neighbour with (ref: Mr McMahon's bio) or a 4WD vehicle down at the local Toyota dealership. No 4WD, no problem. A team of engineers designed that thing, employed by business interests supported by government policy and taxpayers' dollars. There is a subtle interplay between what we can do as a species, what we end up doing and why we end up doing it that way. Technology, commerce, government. There is no master controller. Governments cannot run countries as though they were fish and chip shops. Modern democratic theory sees government as a strategic device only, tweaking (and I wish I could think of a less technical term) control variables like subsidies, taxes and regulations. These things amount to encouragement and discouragement to commerce. Commerce is merely a formalisation of basic human instincts like survival, greed and status-seeking behaviours. Commerce takes action based on opportunities. In the modern world, where all pre-existing niches are filled, opportunities are created by innovative technologies and an engineer or scientist saying "yes, I can do that".

(continued)

(...)

So I am not concerned about peak oil. The raft of technologies that will replace the current dig-it-up-and-burn-it mentality are already in the lab. Movement from the lab to the real world, however, requires cooperation from commerce and government. Why isn't every roof covered in solar panels? They are too expensive. Why are we not all driving around hydrogen fuel cell cars using hydrogen sourced via non-polluting renewable energy systems? They are too expensive.

Your typical four wheel drive vehicle is OK in my book, provided that it runs on clean energy. What is missing for that to happen, however, is commercial incentive. We use oil because it is cheap. One day soon it will no longer be cheap, and other technologies will become attractive.

There is a choice to be made here, though, by every one of us and especially those in government: to be deliberately blind to the changes that will occur over the next 20 years, or to be prepared. Offload your four wheel drive or V8 vehicle if you can, because when petrol becomes so expensive that you decide to sell, rest assured that no-one is going to buy. Fork out for a hybrid: their re-sale value is excellent and it creates a commercial incentive. Don't complain about fuel taxes: they can save the world if properly channelled. Write to the government and request that petrol be made more expensive to everyone outside the transport industry (we do not want to tax the army of early morning people who bring our food to our local shop, as HasBeen rightly pointed out). While you're there ask the government to subsidise clean energy commercialisation so that when the Saudi's say "sorry, we sold all our oil to the Chinese", this country will not come to a crashing halt. Support the technologies that are going to save your behind with your wallet, whenever you can. Get ahead of your neighbours, because when things go pear shaped they're not going to hesitate to buy you out of the running if they can.

"Offload your four wheel drive"
Or buy a diesel 4wd which can run off biodiesel without needing any conversions. Or get an LPG conversion done. Or wait until coal liquefaction starts. Actually better hang onto that 4wd for now.

"Write to the government and request that petrol be made more expensive to everyone outside the transport industry"
Yeah sure...letter is in the mail.

"Fork out for a hybrid"
Too expensive.

Why buy a hybrid car that will do 45 miles per gallon when you can
buy a diesal car that will do 60 miles per gallon ?

Alzo makes a good point with respect to biodiesel. Biodiesel is one of the things that I would include in the 'raft of technologies' that I mentioned that will replace the current dug-up fuel supply. Biodiesel can't, however, solve the problem for us completely, as Foyle has already pointed out. Biodiesel will be a niche market, for those that require lots of power: trucks, heavy machinery and the like (because hydrocarbons are the best compact energy carrier we know about). Growing the crops that provide it also present a substitution problem: which crop does a farmer choose to grow on his or her land? The first requirement is obviously a crop that will grow in the region in question. The rest is down to knowledge and economics. If a farmer can get more money out of growing food, then what incentive is there in growing a crop suited to biodiesel production? Machinery, distribution, skilled worker, government subsidy and tax costs and benefits all have to be factored in to that decision. It's not simple, and it won't be cheap.

LPG conversions are a good idea, as long as you don't mind refilling all the time: there is only 66% of the energy in LPG as there is in biodiesel. Coal liquefaction? Coal is the dirtiest fuel there is (CO2,SO2,NO-wise). How about 'carbon tax'? If you think you're going to avoid carbon taxes then I wish you good luck with your 4WD. I'm still inclined to recommend offloading it and saving yourself a dollar or two, though. Of course, it's not about four wheel drive vehicles - it's about coping with peak oil without beggaring ourselves.

Alzo, you may not write to the government about raising funds to save the country's transport future - but someone else will. One voice heard, one voice not. Everyone is free to choose their ground in a democracy. Those that don't embrace energy consumption reduction strategies will subsidise those that do, that is all. It is when that happens on an international scale that we need to stop and think as a group.