The commenter above has been very vague about what they meant about these predictions. To take a more specific example, cited in the international energy repor

The commenter above has been very vague about what they meant about these predictions. To take a more specific example, cited in the international energy report as "the pessimistic take" in 1998, the "end of cheap oil" and the start of the decline in production of conventional oil before 2010 has been correctly predicted by peak oil theorists (at that point the price of oil was $15/barrel and still going down) : https://www.resilience.org/stories/1998-02-28/end-cheap-oil/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/1998-02-28/end-cheap-oil/ They might have underestimated the possibility of tight oil providing a temporary relief valve though, not even mentioning it in their discussion of unconventional oil (tar sands and kerogen). (They do mention technical evolution, though maybe not revolution ?) But then, even though the tight oil industry has produced oil, it seems to be more of a kind of fraud, a bubble bolstered by easy Wall Street money, now starting to pop (?), even though collectively supposedly it is still deep in the red, with only a few quarters in the green during more than a decade. And this despite the fact that it has been selling its oil when the global price was much higher than $15/barrel ! And so, one might wonder whether it has not been a net waste of oil too, as building and operating all that machinery is certainly not energy free. (Not to mention the costs of environmental cleanup.) Has the US failed badly at capitalism here ?!?