[jyl]

As discussed in another thread, improving US passenger vehicle MPG by 20% would reduce US oil consumption by 2MM bbl/day.

That is more than all possible new oil fields in the US, combined, could produce if they all produce as much as the optimists hope and if they all hit peak production levels together, many years from now.

Why is it so nutty to think that reducing consumption is the best solution, followed by increasing use of non-oil energy like wind, solar, nuclear, tidal/geothermal?

What is nutty is to continue unabated dependence on oil. The US cannot, under any scenario, reduce our imported oil to less than appx 60% of consumption. And oil, whereever produced, will always be a globally traded commodity, with a volatile price determined by factors out of our control.

So continuing to emphasize oil as the solution, by hunting ever more feverishly for it in every last corner of the country, is like saying you want to dig your grave a few feet deeper. Better to start climbing out of the grave, so to speak.

The part that I think most Americans don't get is the "globally traded" part. It doesn't matter where the effing oil is produced - the price gets determined in China, Nigeria, Saudi, Russia, etc.