There are three principle counter arguments to the issue of peak oil. The first is that technology will save us - people are inventive, and when the shortage appears (if it does) then humans will figure out alternative energy sources. This is a seductive argument, especially in view of all the advances in technology we have seen in the past few decades. The performance of computers, communication networks, and telephones has greatly increased at the same time as prices have fallen. The problem with this comparison is that oil and gas are not inventions-they are finite resources. We cannot "invent" a substitute for oil. In addition, any technological solution will likely take years or decades to impliment.

The second counter argument is that market pricing will take care of the problem. As oil becomes more scarce, prices will rise and demand will fall. The problem with this argument is that Western society is so dependent on oil that rising prices actually have little effect on demand. In order for demand to significantly decrease, prices would have to soar, resulting in worldwide economic turmoil. (In fact that is one of the things that peak oil followers are concerned about.)

The third counter argument is that it has never happened before, so it won't happen in the future. Of course logically there is no merit to this argument. But since a large portion of our thinking is based on relating to past experiences, and we in North America have grown up with an abundance of energy, it is actually very natural to think this way. Natural it may be but it is also unrealistic.