My home computer is completely on the fritz, so I can’t do my usual slavish weekend work (darn it). However, let me echo Andy Brett’s comment that everyone should browse the New York Times op-ed page. There’s this piece by Beyond Oil author Ken Deffeyes, which points out that the debate over the Arctic Refuge is somewhat beside the point, since global oil production is going to start declining soon anyway, regardless. There’s this piece by Thomas Homer-Dixon and Julio Friedmann, which urges exploration of “a combination of gasified coal plants and geologic storage.” There’s this piece by Oliver Sacks on how much he hearts his hybrid (mentioned by Chris the other day). And of course, as mentioned by Geoff below, there’s this piece by Tom Friedman, revisiting his “geo-green” schtick. (Watch for an interview with Friedman in the pages of Grist in coming weeks.)

What should we take from all these? If nothing else, it appears that conventional wisdom is finally coming around to the notion that the age of oil is ending. Bush’s short-sighted energy policy — which is hurting this country’s security, its economy, and its reputation — is finally penetrating the Beltway Bubble’s consciousness. Despite my occasional contempt for the cozy Beltway politico-media scene, this is an unambiguously good thing. Now it remains for the green movement to be smart about this, positioning themselves as ahead of the curve rather than on the sidelines shouting “not enough! not enough!” More on that later.