Well yes and no. The research in the news is the type that requires a lot of fancy gadgets and intricate science, and in the end is a subtle way for the universities and governments to show off what they've invested in. However, many colleges are developing (or expanding) environmental engineering programs. (I just found out we have one here at Purdue.) And much of what's getting done there is *very* worthwhile in preventing our 'ultimate demise', such as studies on how to better purify contaminated water, how to fish farm without causing massive pollution (and how to fertilize a garden with the water so you don't cause pollution *and* you conserve water, and you're not dependent on petrofertilizers, etc.), stuff like that.
The truth of the matter is that even if oil peaked last year, we still have 10-12ish years where something like the status quo can be maintained. I can't really fault the people looking for alternatives - I think every bit helps. But I do think we'd all be better served by a massive education and conservation campaign, that way it won't be just the intellectuals concerned with PO. To my mind, the biggest problem is that "what needs to be done" is very region- and person-specific, so I have a hard time getting my head around a single grand Plan for a changeover.
I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on what things could/should be done on a large scale. (I'm actually slated to give a small class on all this at the community center next spring, so I'm trying to get all the input I can.)

For what little its worth, I offer you what encouragement I can, and ask that you look at this again in a year. Remember: for a lot of the US, the only time they started *really* hearing PO in the news was when Katrina hit, so they'll need time to absorb, process and get over their first panic reaction before people start asking "What's the plan?"
Looking forward to reading your thoughts on this,
Melissa