>>SNIP
>>>>>>>There's something on the order of 1.7 trillion barrels worth of oil shale in the US. It can be profitably extracted when oil is above $70 a barrel and with the advancement of technology it is expected to reduce that margin to $30 a barrel within 10 years. That's an actual solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not everyone thinks so - http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html
>>>>>
>>>>>The problem with the peak oil theory is it assumes we've already peaked.
>>>>
>>>>Not at all - see the chart at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report and then go read the report. FWIW, heavy oils may be part of a solution, if we are prepared for the costs. Personally, I think we need to curb our consumption, particularly in transportation.
>>>
>>>Personally I think we should increase our consumption of energy as thats what drives the economy. I believe all sources should be examined and expanded. Nuclear, coal, oil, hydro, geothermal, solar, wind...
>>
>>And I agree with that. However, not one of those energy sources you cite would have any impact on our +40% usage of petroleum in the form of gasoline.
>
>Tapping our resources will.
>
>>Personal transportation habits in this country must change.
>
>Make a convincing argument and let individuals decide for themselves. We already have too much government interference in our lives.

It's easy enough to say transportation habits must change, but it would be nearly impossible to implement. We are too large a country to depend solely on public transportation. The procrastination of auto makers to make more energy efficient vehicles is disturbing.

If I want to pay for the extra gas for a 4x4 all year just to take advantage of it only in the winter when I have to plow through a foot and a half of snow to get off of my street, I should be able to do that.