To oil world watchers and worriers, the words Twilight in the Desert are instantly recognizable. That's the name of the book by energy investment banker Matthew Simmons, who used hundreds of internal documents to bolster his case that oil production has peaked or soon will be peaking in Saudi Arabia—home to what the world trusts as the largest source of petroleum reserves. But it turns out that long before we learn whether Simmons's prediction pans out, the sun is setting on another resource in the kingdom.

Grain production in Saudi Arabia is now down 42 percent from the peak of 4.9 million tons reached in 1994 and is now on track to decline rapidly in the coming years. Thanks to Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute for compiling these figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:

With the first weekend of summer driving season approaching and gasoline closing in on $4 per gallon, Washington did the two paltry things it could do quickly. The administration stopped stockpiling emergency supplies of oil, after an overwhelming rebuke of that policy by Congress. And President Bush went hat in hand to the Saudis, who after initial balking, agreed to a modest production increase in a few weeks. The price of oil has wavered little in response.

Far from making progress on the nation's energy woes, there is evidence that we've actually regressed. No one summed this up for me better than a recent commenter to this blog who noted that he bought a Geo Metro that got 50 miles per gallon in 1992 for less than $10,000. No car is on U.S. highways today with that kind of mileage except the expensive hybrids (and then, only when you're driving slowly and in electric mode.)

Now that the price of crude oil has surged past $120 per barrel, let's revisit the December prediction of petroleum economist Philip Verleger, who said this was bound to happen and blamed the Bush administration's policy on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

As reported here, Verleger said that he believed last fall's run-up in oil prices could be traced back to the way the administration was stashing away oil in the SPR—taking off the market a crucial amount of the favored light, sweet crude oil, the easiest oil to refine. Furthermore, he said there was a risk that things could get worse because in the first months of 2008, the Bush administration had plans to increase the percentage of light, sweet crude it stockpiled while reducing the share that is heavy, sour crude—more plentiful, cheaper, and harder to refine.

Of the many ideas cheapened by this election year's campaign rhetoric, perhaps none has been devalued as much as the notion of a holiday. The "summer gas tax holiday" first proposed by Republican nominee John McCain and quickly taken up by his would-be Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, would put $18 more in the pocket of the typical driver this summer, says an analysis by the Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Of course, the antigovernment-waste group is relying on the analysis of Jeffrey Perloff, an economist at University of California-Berkeley, who says only half of the savings would be passed on to consumers. But let's assume he's wrong and motorists will see all of the savings. That's $36, and still sounds like a pretty cheap holiday to me.

Winter may be over, but for millions of families across the country, the heating bills remain.

The National Energy Assistance Directors' Association, which represents the state officials that administer the federal low-income energy assistance program, has compiled some early data showing more households have fallen behind in utility payments this winter. These are households on the edge, because in most states, after the cold weather moratorium is lifted at the end of April, they face cutoff of electricity or natural gas service.

Here are some of the states and the number of households in arrears:

How would you like to pay $1,000 for a fill-up at the gas station? If you drive a truck, you could well be forking over that kind of money a few times a week. The nation's average price of diesel fuel has ratcheted up 24 percent since the start of the year to $4.14 per gallon—that's up 45 percent over a year ago.

The price of oil may be annoyance or hardship for most of us, but it is an outright threat to the livelihoods of many of the people who bring us our food, clothing, electronics, and toys. If you find yourself behind slow-moving trucks on the interstate, flying the American flag, or if you see a convoy of rigs making their way around the streets of Washington, D.C., on Monday, it's the truck drivers' call for help.

The Washington, D.C., suburb of Montgomery County, Md., is aiming to become the first county in the country to require that new homes be built to federal Energy Star standards. That means good windows and tightly sealed and well-insulated walls—all things that we know can cut energy consumption by 15 to 30 percent. The builders don't like it; they say it will drive up costs. And before the Montgomery County Council's unanimous vote, the Bush administration weighed in with a letter from an Environmental Protection Agency branch chief, saying it does not advocate putting Energy Star standards into law.

This is the very debate we explored in our current cover story on energy efficiency.

In a way, the TV news producer was looking for the same thing we all are looking for. She was considering having me come on air to talk about our new cover story, "Why America Needs an Energy Diet." But she wanted to hear tips for the home that were unusual—something that people haven't heard before.

That's the thing about energy efficiency. We've heard before—time and again—that we could use a lot less electricity—but we keep using more.

Early in his call this week for the nation to halt the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, President Bush made clear how little leadership he intends to provide, even if it were now possible for him to do so in his administration's waning months. "We believe we need to protect our environment," he said. "We believe we need to strengthen our energy security. We believe we need to grow our economy. And we believe the only way to achieve these goals is through continued advances in technology."

I'd like to introduce the president to the McKinsey greenhouse gas abatement curve found here, a graph that nearly six months after its release is well known in the energy world.

Shell, which for 40 years has been writing future scenarios as a way of grappling with the forces shaping its industry, already has gotten a great deal of attention for its latest set—the first time the giant oil company has concluded that there actually is a preferred course. The scenarios are called "Scramble" and "Blueprints," and they suggest that from looking at current global dynamics, nations will either be fighting each other for dwindling resources or will chart a course for international cooperation on energy and climate.

I had an opportunity to talk to Shell's chief economist, Jeremy Bentham, about the scenarios. Although I'll share the bulk of the interview in a later post, I thought it was worth considering what he called the "three hard truths" that underlie both of the future scenarios, as Shell sees it.

Well, even if no one else in the government is admitting we are in a recession, the federal energy forecasters are.

Their just released short-term energy and summer fuels outlook assumes that gross domestic product fell 0.14 percent in the first quarter of this year and will be down 0.04 percent in the second quarter. Then, the economy comes "roaring" back in the third and fourth quarters, with GDP forecast to be up only 0.58 percent and 0.42 percent, respectively. But even with an economy that is this anemic—and with U.S. petroleum consumption falling as a result—the U.S. Energy Information Administration says that people will be paying an average of 40 cents a gallon more this year for gasoline.

Sometimes it's hard to get past the upfront cost of saving fuel.

Since I've been writing a lot about truckers, let's look at the new technology that is beginning to help them end the enormous waste of diesel that they burn while standing still. Truckers are required by federal regulations to take rest periods, meaning many long-haul drivers idle their rigs for hours to keep heat, air conditioning, radio, or TV on while they are at roadside stops. Also, they can be stuck in idle for long periods of time at docks or other loading sites.

It's estimated that more than 1 billion gallons of diesel fuel are burned annually in the United States by trucks that are standing still. That's 11 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year.

Big Oil executives have been called to testify on Capitol Hill several times during this four-year run-up in energy prices, but there was a marked change in rhetoric for this week's appearance.

There was this from Peter Robertson, vice chairman of Chevron:

"We've chosen by our policy to be dependent on oil from overseas. That's our choice. We chose not to develop our own resources in this country. That was our choice."

It's hard to know whether we should be more worried that consuming oil is killing the planet or that there's way too little of this killer oil left.

Joe Romm of Climate Progress has an article that is getting a lot of attention in Salon, called "Peak Oil. Consider it Solved" (subscription required). His argument is that if we do what is required to address climate change—greatly increase fuel efficiency, including a switch to plug-in hybrid vehicles, and find alternative, abundant, and affordable low-carbon fuel sources, we will have slipped out of our chokehold of dependency on a finite fuel source.

Corrected on 4/1/08: An earlier version of this blog post misnamed a Connecticut congressman. He is Rep. John Larson.

With some independent truckers planning work stoppages today over $4-per-gallon diesel fuel prices, and Big Oil company executives being called to testify on Capitol Hill, it's a good day to ask what the federal government can or should do. Expect more protests like the one Monday in my home state of Pennsylvania, where truckers rallied at the state Capitol in Harrisburg.

It is not likely to look like the worst of the truck strikes during the 1970s energy crisis, as described in this story from the July 2, 1979, issue of U.S.News & World Report: