This is very nice. It is also what Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan... and every president since has "called for." Meanwhile we have gone from being a net oil exporter in the 1940's to importing more than 60%. I can "call for" the ability to fly unaided, but it won't make it happen. I’m sure you noticed that all these miraculous transformation milestones happen >after< the current president is no longer in office. It's like betting on the day that the end of the world will occur, you'll never get a pay-off, but you'll be distracted for a while.

All joking aside, does anyone have a guess why Saudi Arabia was the one country who pushed for tangible financial penalties for missing Kyoto Protocol targets? Maybe they are trying to extend their 150 year window while their product runs the world since consumption should go down if Kyoto is embraced by the huge new consumers in the developing world. After that, we're all in the same very low HP boat.

I AM doing it! I always seek ways to use less. I never do more unless I use less, then I do IT. I don't really give two shkts about that which I do not control like you, America, wife, parents, kids, energy, etc., because I DO control myself. Get it everyone. I!

Wow!
What planet am I on?
I read three posts and they all state..."Homeowners should be REQUIRED TO..." or "FORCE UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE TO WORK ON...." or "MANDATE COMPANIES TO BUILD...."
Move to Venezuela!
Chavez is doing all these things and more.
Live it up.
I'm sure Venezuela with its food shortages and 30% inflation rate is a swell place to tell other people what they can and can't do. You will fit right in.

A gasoline tax which increases $1/yr for 10 years. Hopefully the scale of demand destruction would eventually bring our use into equilibrium with future reduced supplies.

There will always be oil, and oil will remain the transportation fuel of choice. But we've exhausted our nation's oil endowment and must channel what's left into food production + not making the lives of our decendants even more impoverished.

Breakthroughs? All for them. Unfortunately our society doesn't do "sacrifice now for the future good". Breakthroughs don't fund themselves.....remember that super collider?

Solar, wind, ethonol, "endless natural gas", are and will remain fantasies fit for those too lazy to read. Energy subprime - and we're lapping that up too! The truth is less pleasant. With you, without you, in spite of you - Mr. Scarcity *will* reduce your living standard. "How much do we share with the following generations" is the only real question.

We can't, at least not without a public that would become outraged.

Foreign oil is the cheapest way to fuel our habits. Alternative fuels are great for some of us, but most of us won't give it second thought until gas and energy becomes too expensive. Then and only then will we buy the fuel-efficient vehicles of tomorrow. So, how do we maintain that interest? Taxes. But of course that's not popular.

If we were to tax oil (gas and its derivatives) substantially to keep prices high even when the market pushes it low, we would maintain the incentive Main Street needs to make that plunge into the eco-friendly technologies. Because at that point the alternative fuels suddenly are more attractive for the buyer and the supplier.

Drilling domestically is a pipe dream (no pun intended) that will never happen. One, nobody wants a stinky refinery in their backyard. Two, nobody wants an oil well next door to sink their already tanking property values. Three, it takes years - at least 10 to explore, finance, build, and start producing oil. Four, even if we got all the necessary oil rigs up and running, they still won't produce the amount oil we consume annually, not even 10%. Fifth, there's no guarantee that the oil we do have is all light sweet crude. It could be brent crude or some other sludgy oil that does not produce the energy we are accustomed too.

I'm not a fan of taxation, but this would work.

If we stopped all dependency on foreign oil, where would that put the oil-producing countries, and what would be the social outcome in those nations and on the US? It seems to me that reducing the use of carbon-based commodities needs to be placed squarely in an economic model that addresses many facets, including the environment and including economic consequences for the world economy. A facile attempt at overcoming foreign oil dependency is probably impossible and undesirable. It is a new economic model we need, with multiple positive side-effects.