Running out of oil is not what should scare us. It's very easy to make the stuff, and we have tons of it, even now. What we're losing is the cheap energy that came with the easy-to-exploit stuff that's dwindling. (Making oil, as any physicist would intuit as per entropy, will generally cost more than it's worth.) The energy ROI on Pennsylvania surface-level oil was 30:1 and up. That stuff's gone.

So-called "peak oil" (which we are probably at) isn't about "running out". It's a behavioral effect (peak production) insofar as we have some choice (as a collective) in how much we produce. The Hubbert model says that "peak" occurs at the 50-percent point. Based on what I've read, I'd guess that (a) we are at peak production and will be at-or-near this plateau of 80-85Mb/day for ~20 years, but (b) decline will be slow and some of that will be the good kind (alternatives), and (c) we've used less than 50% of the world supply (meaning the symmetry of the Hubbert model isn't the case).

Either way, we need to start working on alternatives. Global warming is a lot scarier than "peak oil". Markets work, and the bad case of "peak oil" that I consider credible is that our standard-of-living becomes like that of Eastern Europe (say, Hungary) for ~20 years. I've been there. It's not that bad. You have to hang-dry your clothes; you get used to that stuff. Climate change could kill off the species. That's much scarier.

Personally, I'm a fan of modern nuclear technologies, as a bridge until we're all-green. Most of the anti-nuclear prejudice in the US comes from known design flaws in plants that are over 30 years old that were built before people knew what they were doing. Modern, passive-safety nuclear plants just don't have those TMI/Fukushima/Chernobyl risks. There are dangers (perfectly safe energy production does not exist) but they're much less severe.