Yes, many politicians are exactly what you say they are. Some more than others. Yet still, despite of it, they are getting plenty of public support (many Republicans are a case in point). Which actually proves the assertion that humans really are not smarter than yeast. Unfortunately so.

How about this, then:

If there will be demand for a truly free market from consumers ( and I would argue that if it really is concern then there will be) then there would be incentive for a true free market to exist.

Cheers

Just as "time" was key question when americans gave up all their rights and go to any war. Then decision is always matter of time. Be quick because when you start to think then your head will hurt. FFS. Everyone assumes he is some kind of deity that is all knowing and can make decisions based on their own self-importance. Unless it is not voluntary and free market solution then agenda is the same as always – scare tactic to extract money from taxpayers. If peak oil indeed is the problem then government is worst solution of all – all it touches turns into bankrupcy, corruption and death. How can you trust lying, stealing and all-around worst kind of people (yeah that is about politicians) to such important decisions? When was the last time they delivered on their promise? I would argue that since socialist calculation problem aplies to governments it is not ever possible.

Assumption without proof or even evidence. Considering that we never really had free market I would argue impossible to prove.

"We would be better off preparing alternative forms of energy now that we have not hit the oil wall yet then wait for the shock before doing anything."

No. Since when government edict or intervention did any good? Why make exception now? If you think this is really a concern then start a business and provide service you think is necessary. People will then decide what your business is worth. You are making advice based on flawed assumption.

"Air pollution is an externality of your perfectly free market and its potential destructive effects does not get translated into pricing signals. There is nothing to deter the development of more polluting alternatives to oil that are slowly stifling us to death."

If there will be demand for clean air from consumers ( and I would argue that if it really is concern then there will be – we are not yeast) then there would be incentive for greedy capitalist pigs to satisfy it.

We are a bit like yeast in that the time horizon for business people to make decisions is 2-5 years, if that. Most humans are governed by decisions made in this short-sighted business realm. Scientists are trained to "see" longer, decades and even centuries in advance, and with typically much higher IQs than the population at large, scientists serve as the reconnaissance scouts for the future of human civilization. Scientists have egos and make mistakes, so the most important trends are subjected to peer review. Finally (and this is something often overlooked) scientific insights and forecasts are stamped and updated with a degree of confidence from the peer review community.

Does government have a role in all this, somewhere? Yes it does. When the scientific community, such as the discipline of petroleum geology, assigns a higher and higher confidence rating to predictions of peak oil (such as the last Petro Geology conference in London) this becomes something that as non-yeast, we should take prudent steps to mitigate. Private companies will remove any executives that take action to mitigate oil shortages 20 years from now, as this reduces shareholder value (earnings payout) in the near term. Policymakers, however, can take heed of scientific forecasts and based upon the degree of certainty assigned to a forecast, government can incent moves to mitigate forecasted problems. An example would be, gradually lowering income taxes while simultaneously raising taxes on liquid fuels. This is revenue neutral but can start a migration away from the at-risk resource bottleneck identified by scientists, long before it becomes a life threatening crisis.

But more importantly I think you are missing an important point in Heinberg's argument though: "So their numbers would proliferate until they … poisoned themselves with their waste product".

Air pollution is an externality of your perfectly free market and its potential destructive effects does not get translated into pricing signals. There is nothing to deter the development of more polluting alternatives to oil that are slowly stifling us to death.