Probably because the mentions of peak extraction of any fossil fuel has a tendency of coming together with arbitrary non-sequiturs like this:
"Politicians cannot possibly admit that today’s world economy is headed for collapse, in a way similar to that of prior civilizations."
If the peak oil discussion do not divorce from Apocalypse fantasizing, it will never popularize. (What is not a big issue, the public isn't a very relevant party on solving that one problem anyway, and Global Warming already takes care of getting the public's sympathy.)
Didn't we already have peak oil in the 80s? Anyway, if an analysis of the worlds respurces starts with "citizens can feel" I have a hard time taking it serious, this is about numbers, prices, distribution, transportation and the like. It is about how energy markets work to come up with prices. It is not about how people feel.
That being said, gloval energy markets are screwed up right now, Russia is doing everything they can make it worse. And it is among the asiest way to generate clicks and traffic, after all we are still somewhat in the summer whole of news cycles.
Only the US peaked, IIRC, not the world. And even then only using the specifically limited types of oil that were common before fracking, which is a relevant distinction because "are we screwed?" is different from "did this model correctly predict decline of supply of $thing?"
The good outcome is we get alternatives (I've heard someone saying "the stone age didn't end for lack of stones", that is apt regardless of the original context of the quotation). PV etc. may be that alternative, I think they will be that alternative, but nothing is ever guaranteed until it is done.
The bad outcomes are like the trees no longer on Easter Island or the phosphate mines of Nauru.
One message is "One of our most important products will become scarce, what can we do to deal with it?" Another message is "One of our most important products will become scarce, prepare for the end of everything good!"
One of those is constructive, and will get people to try to help you. The other one is destructive, and the best reaction people can have for it is to ostracize the message (and the messenger if he only has this to say).
And about the outcome, well, the destructive one is lying, because the outcome is not certain.
Efficiency is publicly discussed in my experience. Generally in the form of people suggesting it can solve all our problems (be they energy efficiency or bureaucratic efficiency) without giving much consideration to the ever-present pressure to be as efficient as possible even in the absence of serious shortages, because "scarcity" is why energy isn't already zero cost.
I would get away from the social media statements and more into research papers on this complex topic; even investor literature picked well will speak openly about pros and cons, with quantitative evidence to support it.
check the writings from Rocky Mountain Institute / Amory Lovins for less scary, more quantitative view on energy and the economy.