John Holdren and others assailed Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist for, among other things, daring to suggest that there was continuing concern about energy scarcity. The real issue, Holdren wrote in Scientific American was not supplies of carbon-based fuels, such as oil, but rather the environment's ability to withstand their continued use. To contend otherwise, Holdren claimed, was to attack a straw man. (The full Scientific American critique and Lomborg's response is here.) Funny how this "straw man" refuses to die.

Claims that oil scarcity is on the way were common before Lomborg wrote his book -- even in the pages of Scientific American -- and remain common today. See, for instance, this round-up of such concerns at Gristmill. Nonetheless, Scientific American editor-in-chief defended the initial charge against Lomborg (see correspondence here).

It is inevitable that the costs of oil discovery and extraction will some day exceed the comparable costs of alternative energy sources -- but this is not a problem. Absent political interventions in energy markets, this price disparity will drive the switch from oil to alternatives. Indeed, if oil prices are likely to increase in the near to medium term due to supply disruptions and other economic factors, this alone will be sufficient to fuel investment in and investigation of potential replacements. Overcoming scarcity and calibrating supply and demand are things markets due indisputably well. So a hypothesized "end of oil" is no cause for more political interventions in energy markets. Indeed, such policies can only make things worse.