Here's where we don't completely agree, even though our disagreement seems to be about tactics.
I don't think an emphasis on peak oil is about oil running out. It's about limits to growth. We can't assume that every time we need more oil, we'll find it, pump it, move it, refine it and deliver it. So, you're right we should emphasize how damaging it it to keep on our current course.
I suppose some people do view a peak in production as a cliff at the edge of an abyss. I don't hold that view. In fact I get a little impatient with people who insist on substituting "impending extreme shortfall" for "observed production peak" in every conversation about Hubbert's Peak.
Emphasizing a peak in production is, imho, politically astute, because it demonstrates a grasp of reality without the histrionics of the deniers or the doomsayers. Acknowledgment of a peak in crude oil production is already a mainstream idea, I think, and shouldn't be avoided in political conversations. There's no sugar-coating or side-stepping needed anymore.
By emphasizing the range of possible post-peak scenarios we might be able to actually engage in a political conversation about the value of conservation which can lead to better debates about distribution, growth, advantage and other more interesting topics.
Keith