[PostPetroleumMan]

Many writers on peakoil.com and elsewhere advocate drastic oil consumption cuts as the only solution for peak-oil, and wonder why our governments (especially the US) have not taken action on this.
Are we sure that big consumption cuts are really a solution, and that they would would not actually make the situation worse? That may sound paradoxical -- let me explain.

Consider the problem from an oil producer's point of view. Normally when a commodity becomes scarce, producers increase their rate of production, both to take advantage of high prices and to service their customer's requirements -- otherwise their customers will look elsewhere. That option will not be available to oil producers when peak-oil arrives. And their future prospects do not good. Sustained high oil prices would force consumers to find alternatives -or collapse.
Either way, future demand for oil can be expected to be low. But 50% of the producers reservers are still in the ground, and it will be decades before they can pump it all out! Many producer nations are almost entirely dependent on oil revenues... they are facing ruin if consumers desert oil.

Ideally, producers would like to increase their prices gradually in order to produce consumption cuts that are in line with the projected natural rate of decline in production. And they would like to continue doing that all the way down the right-hand side of Hubbert's curve.

However, if consumers announce that they are going to implement measures to dramatically reduce oil requirements, then the producers will conclude that their future oil production cannot be sold for a good price. They will concentrate on selling their current production for the best price possible. No longer concerned about scaring consumers out of the market (because they are leaving anyway) the producers will raise their target price and cut production to force the market price up.

So it seems that this path leads to escalating consumption and production cuts, and eventually to the die-off scenario. Maybe that's why the US govt has not implemented it.

If you want to solve peak-oil, you have to solve it for both the consumers and the producers.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PostPetroleumMan', 'I')f you want to solve peak-oil, you have to solve it for both the consumers and the producers.

[NEOPO]

and eventually the poor will get tired of being shafted and/or dying and will rise up and kill the rich people

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gideon', 'O')il is much like food

[gego]

As far as government action, I agree with PostPetroleumMan that they should not act to curtail consumption. Consider that one of the immediate effects of peak oil is less oil to be consumed, hence consumption is forced to be cut. I don't see how government action to force consuptions cuts, virtually, on the eve of peak oil is going to do anything but what peak oil would due very soon anyway, but at an additional cost of bureaucracy and further destruction of freedom

Why not just let nature take its course and let the price, and lines at the gas pump cut consumption, so that people can deal with their own lives in the manner that reflects their own efforts and abilities, rather than listen to this incessant cry for mamma and daddy to take care of you.

And as Rogerhb indicates there is no solution to the demand side as long as there is continued economic and population growth. On the supply side, I would add that there is no viable substitute, contrary to much of the wishful thinking we hear frequently.