I'm not so sure.
I agree that there is massive demand for fossil fuels, and John and Jane Treehugger aren't going to change that. But then I look at someone that might change that - Elon Musk - and I'm not as convinced that our future is so certainly bleak.
The electric car is a viable - some would say likely - disruptor of your inevitability. Considering that even today, 25% of fossil fuel burning is done by the US, most of it to run cars, the conversion of even that market would be substantial.
In every other case besides cars and plastics, fossil fuels are a means to an end. Factories and cities are powered by electricity, and there are numerous ways to make electricity that will become much more viable should fossil fuels jump in price. Even now, we burn coal because it's generally the most viable, not just because it's the cheapest. We will naturally start building other things when governments start to see risk in securing fuel in the 10-15 year span. Those "other things" aren't risky solar and wind ventures - they're nuclear and hydro projects that exist everywhere already.
It is possible right now to generate electricity in a "clean and safe" manner. Here is Canada right now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_production_in_...
What actually bothers me most is that if we shift cars onto electricity, that jump in price/lack of availablity will likely be delayed.
Even if one must rely on fossil fuels to produce electricity though, the effect of the Hubbert curve on any one country is much less pronounced when vehicles are not directly burning gas - It's a matter of finding a way to generate electricity, not finding something to run your car on. While that is an issue, it's a solvable one.
There will be some tough times ahead, that's for sure. However if we are going to blow ourselves to kingdom come, it will likely be more related to water (which will be exacerbated by climate change) than it will be to fossil fuels directly.