There is a large amount of uncertainty as to when 'Peak Oil' will occur. On one hand, there is Matt Simmons who has declared that the Peak occured in 2005, and at the other extreme are the Oil Companies who won't acknowledge that a peak would ever happen. Who do you believe? How does a person, or a political entity decide which direction to go in? In my opinion, it is best to follow the old adage: "Prepare for the worst, but expect the best".

Put in theoretical jargon, this adage is described as the 'Precautionary Principle"- See the Wiki definition below:
"The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.

The precautionary principle is most often applied in the context of the impact of human actions on the environment and human health, as both involve complex systems where the consequences of actions may be unpredictable.

As applied to environmental policy, the precautionary principle stipulates that for practices such as the release of radiation or toxins, massive deforestation or overpopulation, the burden of proof lies with the advocates. [8] An important element of the precautionary principle is that its most meaningful applications pertain to those that are potentially irreversible, for example where biodiversity may be reduced. With respect to bans on substances like mercury in thermometers, freon in refrigeration, or even carbon dioxide exhaust from automobile engines and power plants, it implies:

"... a willingness to take action in advance of scientific proof [or] evidence of the need for the proposed action on the grounds that further delay will prove ultimately most costly to society and nature, and, in the longer term, selfish and unfair to future generations." [9]
The concept includes ethical responsibilities towards maintaining the integrity of natural systems, and the fallibility of human understanding.

Some environmental commentators take a more stringent interpretation of the precautionary principle, stating that proponents of a new potentially harmful technology must show the new technology is without major harm before the new technology is used.[citation needed]"

This principle can applied to so-called 'clean coal' technologies, nuclear and any other technology-based innovation. The San Francisco city government has passed laws to acknowledge this principle, in order to protect the public from potentially dangerous technology. Perhaps our local governments should do the same?

Search for 'Precautionary principle' on this site for more information. Also, see www.worldwatch.org/ww/groundwork/ for more discussion.