The arguments go both ways. I have heard a lot of anti peak oilers who build up a straw man based on the false assumption that the problem is oil 'running out'.
No, we're not going to wake up tomorrow with no oil, but the way I see it...
- Oil higher in price therefore large new deposits become profitable. But, higher prices mean less commuter travel, higher prices of petroleum-based products (fertilizers therefore food, some plastics (e.g. computer parts)), less air travel hence less tourism $.
- Massive destabilisation in countries where economy depends on oil, e.g. commuter lifestyles and car ownership, agriculture, tourism. E.g. here in NZ our economy is largely based on tourism and shipping meat to the other side of the world.
- Exploitation of oil-rich protected areas = ecological damage, conflicts, species loss
- Failure of countries that previously had oil and new conflicts in countries which now have the biggest oil deposits - i.e. what's going to happen to the middle east and the when the US, Europe, China and Russia decide it's no longer strategically important from a national energy security pov?
- Exploitation of large tracts of land for short-term alternative energy sources, most likely invasive species of crops for biofuels. This is already happening in Africa, resulting in higher prices for local food (because food crops are being replaced by biofuel crops) and the export of $profits overseas.
- Excess waste and pollution, and changing economy from petroleum-based to coal in many places, as well as damaging alternative energy projects (e.g. three gorges dam)
- Rushed process of countries moving to nuclear power - political instability, possible accidents.
Put it this way. According to the Good Lord Wikileaks, there were 806 million cars and light trucks on the road around the world in 2007, not to mention the agricultural and factory machinery, and consumer items (lawnmowers, generators, chainsaws, etc) that use petrol. Nuclear power isn't going to help unless we get Mr Fusion. Even if there was a coordinated global effort to move to clean, green power (e.g. electric cars/wind/solar) the world could only produce a fraction of what is needed to replace these.
Also consider a lot of the clean, green power equipment needs to be created from petroleum-based products or processes.
And what's going to happen to the billions of tonnes of global machinery (above) that runs on oil - retrofit??
It's ok in the 1st world suburbs to sit and wait for the petrol station to be replaced by a new electric car re-charge station (or expect the boffins will "come up with something in time"), but a large %'ge of the world is based on either major cities where food needs to be trucked in for long distances (currently cheaply) or more isolated areas where the economy depends on commuting in beaten-up pickups and mopeds, and where the locals can hardly afford even cheap fuel.
