Go read
"The Oil We Eat". It's an interesting perspective.
I don't question what he says on agriculture, and it's indeed high time we reformed our totally dysfunctional agribusiness eco-system (and France is one of the worst offenders here).
On the other hand, I would dispute the concept of "primary energy production". If I am not mistaken, this only takes into account solar energy converted into chemical energy by plants. It does not appear to take into account energy stored in oceans and the atmosphere, nor the energy in light which is simply reflecled off and/or not captured. These are also available to us, and the numbers so dwarf our current consumption that it is effectively infinite for the foreseeable future.
When easily accessible energy such as oil or carbohydrates run out, we will have to rely on solar energy more directly, whether via solar panels, wind mills or tidal/wave energy (this last one being lunar gravitational energy, actually - but it's cheaper than solar today...) - and we will be able to. It is already operational, and any requirement to actually use these sources will unleash a new wave of progress and improvement that will rapidly make the cost more bearable.
I do not see any role of oil that we cannot replace. Cars can use electricity. Plastics - we will recycle a lot more. Electricity will come from a variety of renewable sources, and for a while, from nuclear and coal (not quite renewable, some pollution issues, but still extremely cheap)
The most valid point is that article is that we are not currently valuing properly the resources that we "pick up", and thus we do not price them correctly. This was not an issue as long as we used only infinitesimal quantities of these resources, especially when renewable like "green energy". Now that we use a significant portion of the resource, we need to learn to treat it as a capital and not as an income. Oil being the most "liquid" form of energy", increases in oil prices are the fastest way to get there.
