From wiki: "In 2008, oil, gas and coal generated approximately 69 percent of New Zealand's gross energy supply and 31 percent was generated from renewable energy, primarily hydroelectric power and geothermal power."

Yes, that's including transportation. 80% is the electricity figure.

Also, the government you spoke of is authoritarian, not socialist.

I was talking about methods of production, not who sits on the top. Different, compatible things.

Explain about the transportation, please? I don't get it.

"Gross energy supply" in a country includes energy used in transporation. We don't have any oil-fuel power plants and we have very few electrically-powered cars.

Hrrm. Very well. I think it was a bit misleading to use that figure, however. Additionally, I laughed because you specifically mentioned "American Middle Class", instead of "Middle Class". When you focus on the American Middle Class about an issue that will hurt most countries far more, it's not being balanced.

And, though, yes, the US is more susceptible than some to rising prices of energy due to the suburban phenomenon, it's certainly nothing the economy can't handle. As prices go up, cities will expand to match that. And America remains the country in most ways most capable of adapting to such an occurence. Maybe less so than France, which is largely nuclear-powered, but America also has a significant technological lead in most spheres, and will be able to shift to other sources of energy quicker than most other countries. The real losers, I would say, are those in countries that are poor - it'll be more difficult to catch up to Western countries with high energy prices.

Thorium reactors and hydrogen cars, please.

I suggest you try reading the articles I linked to, as well as other posts on that site, Cent, and you might not be quite so optimistic. It's pretty clear that you haven't read any of it, given the interval between my posts and yours.

This article suggests that by 2050 if we continue resource consumption at the current rate, we'll need to colonise another two planets. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/07/research.waste?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

The bigger they are, the harder they fall, Cent.

That article is from 2002, I wonder what their projections are now?

Projections still on track for the world economy to collapse in the 2030's: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/next-great-depression-mit-researchers-predict-global-economic-190352944.html

Oil is finite. Doubt it's ever going to run out fully though. Current strife is for Cobalt, Lithium, and other rare elements. Look at China in Afghanistan. Our waste will be mined for hydrocarbons before those elements are depleted. Future goals point to catalytic generation with Platinum, Palladium, Vanadium, and Rhodium, which all are super rare. Until simple infinitely renewable energy or fusion is commonplace there will still and always be demand for previous methods. Germany is burning coal releasing more CO₂ and radioactive material than nuclear power. Even a Dyson sphere society will burn dinosaur squeezings because the technology to harness that energy is simplest. We'll keep killing people for oil or Yttrium or H₂ forever because that's easier and cheaper. The clathrate gun is passed anyway and we're doomed even though I killed some brown people that lived near inflammable fossils. We'll all burn.

None.