The June 21, 2008 issue of The Economist includes a 14-page special report entitled "The Future of Energy." (You can read one of the articles here (http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=115656...), but then you have to purchase the full set).

The trouble begins right away on the front cover, which declares "The future of energy: It's closer than you think." So far so good, except that the headline surrounds a graphic of a gas tank showing a needle that is still hovering near full. The schizophrenic cover reflects the editors belief that, while the days of Big Oil and King Coal may be numbered, there are plenty of new energy oligarchs ready to take the throne.

The report is a mesmerizingly misleading ode to the power and glory of technology which, The Economist is convinced, will save the day. Even more distressing is The Economist's editorializing against conservation as "gleeful hairshirtedness." The report concludes, "The world of energy must change if things are to continue as before." They're right on the first count, but are deluded to believe that things can continue as before, no matter how many of The Economist's beloved nuclear power plants are built.

I wrote a letter to the editor and encourage you to do so too (letters@economist.com). Here's mine:

Sir:

You're right to caution readers that "a fundamental change [in energy markets] is coming sooner than [they] might think." The soaring price of crude is but one indicator that global oil production can no longer keep pace with demand. But your reporting on the techno-fixes to the energy crisis is far too sanguine: Many of the alternative fuels you hype have been stuck in the R&D phase for decades, not only for lack of government investment, but because of the (perhaps insurmountable) technical obstacles to scaling these fuels up for commercial production. It's one thing to grow algae-based bio-fuel in a test tube, quite another to generate enough to fill the world's 790 million gas tanks. As for plug-in hybrids, it will take twenty years to replace the U.S. vehicle fleet, and it's not like we're getting started on such a transition tomorrow.

We're headed for a liquid fuel crisis that no technological breakthrough can solve. The only way to mitigate the impact is extreme conservation, a concept you glibly dismiss as green "hairshirtedness." Every ounce of fossil fuels burned today hastens the onset of what is shaping up to be a very difficult transition. The U.S. Department of Energy's risk management consultant, Robert Hirsch,says we need twenty years lead time to avoid catastrophic economic damage, yet here we are at the dawn of peak oil with no Plan B underway. The only way to stave off disaster is to start conserving what's left.