Yes, of course we do. Regardless of the "debate" about global warming, it's intelligent to conserve a limited resource.

unequivocally, yes!!! but, at the same time, we need to shift our energy production from that which is oil-dependent to other means.

I think we need to look for renewable sources of energy to reduce our oil consumption.

We REALLY need to reduce oil consumption.Oil is used for many more things than just fuel.If we don't stop using oil as fuel and start using hydrogen,then plastic will become a really expensive material,or even cease existing.And that would be bad. The hybrid cars are a great stop to reducing oil consumption.We can't just jump from one type of fuel to another.There is always a transitive period,in which we currently are. As i said before,hydrogen is the most probable replacement of oil.Cars using hydrogen will exhaust...water.They would be more expensive than current cars,but would cost far less to maintain,as the fuel is more cheap,can provide better performance and lasts twice oil lasts. The only things that prevent us from creating a hydrogen car are that: 1)We need to change the way cars are created. 2)We need to reduce the cost of a hydrogen car. 3)This idea must be accepted by the great economical countries of the world.

I absolutely think we need to reduce our oil consumption.

We need to drill in Alaska, then prices will drop and we will be supplied for years and years

I found a way.........when 1000 dollars a month for gas was starting to make me go mad.

We already have ways

I do. We've made some small progress recently..prices at the pump were so horrendous that we've collectively reduced our consumption, which is why prices are lower today than they were a month ago. Hopefully the trend will continue. But the oil companies will do everything in their power..bribe our governments with lobbyists floating in cash..to subvert the attempt. Greed is always the bottom line..greed and power. :(

Sure. Stop the unnecessary driving and stay home more often.

i already doing something new. like using CNG N LPG as a fuel for my car n using solar power water heater n other things

yes, but reality says that even if the western world reduced its oil consumption 100%,to nothing... the emerging third world countries and billions of new consumers will still use tons more, total, worldwide and will not even notice our cutback and sacrifice. its practically useless.

Of course we do and big ole SUV's are just not needed for the urban environment. It's going to become a time when this gets to be at a critical stage and we run around like Mad Max and other movies like that. We need alternatives that are effective and quickly.

Let's take a look at America: Oil prices are rising due to low supply and high demand. Obesity has risen dramatically over the past 20 years, and is now at a rate of 51% throughout the country. (This is just clinical obesity. It doesn't taken into account people who are overweight or "borderline" obese) Let's take a look at the solution that solves two problems: Stop driving and start walking or riding a bike. Now, this may seem ludicrous to some people, but hear me out. I'm not saying to forgoe a car as a means of long distance transportation. Obviously we can't all walk 500 miles on a road trip. However, you can keep the car parked and walk half a mile to a public transportation site. If you live in a small town, you can bike 2-3 miles to get to work. Not only will this conserve gas, it will also deal with the latter issue of obesity. The simple fact is that we've become lazy. We don't want to consider alternatives because we're so used to what we are and how we do things. We need CHANGE. We need a different strategy, because it's fairly apparent that the current way of life is not working.

I do want to see our nation to be free of oil dependency/addiction but the big oil/energy cartels wants to perpetuate the addiction. They are doing anything possible to keep the gas stations open forever. The tecnology is present, but the patents were bought by them (big oil/energy cartels). My 2 cents.

of course we do. our current lifestyle is quite unsustainable.

Yes but look around you. Most Americans are really not self-concious living in the land of the free. SUVs, lots of bling, big homes...it's in our culture. It will take a lot of effort but the good part of this oil crisis is that it is certainly making us all think about how wasteful our lives have been recently and hopefully some of us will get a clue and start changing our lives and priorities to make this a better place to live. You have my vote.

Yeah, we do. But we also need to think alot harder about what we are doing. Our govt pays people to have babies and then warns that we have a shortage of oil, fresh water, forests ... like the kiddies will never need any of that stuff as they grow. With alot of effort we can halve our consumption. But in a few decades the population of the earth will double, making our effort meaningless. Meanwhile there will be twice as many people at risk of any accidental "over-consumption". Or I could shoot two people and drive a bigger car with my "oil savings". It sounds harsh when you say it fast, but think harder: Won't this happen? If you make people too poor to own a car, won't that be an "oil saving"? (Never mind that they still work as hard as they ever did for the "benefit".) If we're supposed to save oil then why are our roads designed with cul-de-sacs and single entry suburbs, thus guaranteeing excess oil consumption? And why is it so hard to find work within walking distance of home? (I've seen suburbs full of houses but no industry. Maybe there is something that I don't know but it looks strange to me.) And where is your nearest shopping centre? Our petrol is taxed. How much of that money actually goes towards developing alternative fuels? I can buy the idea that we use too much oil. But I've already bought the idea that the only "oil saving" strategies being implemented, or even talked about, are the ones that involve making the plebs feel guilty for living and taxing the f$#@&* out of them. Quit your job and go on the dole. That should give you enough carbon credits to exchange for food! ;)

We (UK) have found a way to reduce oil consumption - you make it too bloody expensive for most people to be able to afford.

Yes of course the Chinese need it more than we do. About the 'Oil Shortage' ... Why is this important to you? See here. It is kind of a "good news - bad news" story ... You might think of this as the 'bad' news: What we've learned during the past 100 years of the U.S. oil and gas business, is that the production from a well declines over time. The rate of decline varies all over the lot (it's different between crude oil and natural gas, between deep oil and shallow oil, deep gas and shallow gas, and by basin, lithology, rock type, completion, reservoir drive mechanism, etc. etc.) ... but the decline is inevitable. And you could think of this as the 'good' news: What's actually more critical than the decline in production, is what happens to reserves. And the surprising thing, is that in the majority of cases, reserves tend to increase! How can this be? There is a lot of confusion about "reserves". And no wonder! When a geologist's exploration prospect is drilled, and newly discovered reserves are categorized. The petroleum engineer's "recoverable reserves" may amount to only a third, or a quarter, of the geologist's "reserves in place" (in the case of oil: OOIP). Sometimes the geologist's projections can appear to be downright conservative, when compared to the projections macro-statisticians are sometimes obliged to guesstimate: things like probable future reserves, and possible future reserves and undiscovered recoverable reserves. When the economic limit of a field or a well is taken into account (for example, in connection with a bank loan), reserves must be classified as either "proved" or "un-proved" ... and then further classified as "producing" or "non-producing". In U.S., the guys who do the reserve estimations, are petroleum engineers, but the guys who make the rules, about how the quantity of reserves must be reported to the public, are the accountants and attorneys of the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). And of course each state has its own regulatory reporting requirements (in order to collect taxes on production), and there is also reporting to the Department of Energy (DOE). SEC rules are conservative. In fact they are so conservative that there is a phenomenon referred to as 'reserve growth' or 'reserve appreciation' (the reserves of a field tend to increase over time). In fact it is not any kind of "growth"; it is a reporting phenomenon. What happens is this: as more wells are drilled in a field, there are more and better scientific data on which to categorize the field reserves, and to then estimate the recoverable portion. As time goes by, the effect of this evolution is that the volumes of recoverable reserves in a field that are allowed to be reported under SEC rules, increase. (Of course this is not always the case; there are always exceptions.) Bear in mind that throughout all of this, the volume of reserves that are economically recoverable will depend on the price of oil and natural gas (at some time in the future) when the reserves are produced. (Higher oil and natural gas prices translates into more reserves.) And don't forget that right here in North America are the tar sands of Alberta Canada. They are estimated by many to conatin more oil than Saudi Arabia!

Well, lightening up on the oil makes garden salads much more healthy, no?! ;-)

Why do you think we're paying $4.00 a gallon yo?...