Theoretically, yes, but fast enough, in time to prevent potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change? James Hansen says:
[W]e have at most ten years -- *not ten years to decide
upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the
trajectory of global greenhouse emissions.* Our previous
decade of inaction has made the task more difficult,
since emissions in the developing world are accelerating.
To achieve the alternative scenario will require prompt
gains in energy efficiencies so that the supply of conventional
fossil fuels can be sustained until advanced technologies
can be developed. If instead we follow an energy-intensive
path of squeezing liquid fuels from tar sands, shale oil, and
heavy oil, and do so without capturing and sequestering
CO2 emissions, climate disasters will become unavoidable.
(Jim Hansen, "The Threat to the Planet," NYRB 53.12,
13 July 2006, <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131>)
We won't run out of oil, but we can very well run out of time to prevent the worst climate disasters if Hansen is correct. That is especially the case since there is no Left to speak of in the USA, the US working class are mostly politically inactive, and the US power elite have not sense of urgency of action. How do you propose to change these political facts and begin to "alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions" in ten years?
-- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>