While you may justly have felt like Cassandra for the fifteen years since the publication of your book, the tide does seem to be turning.  To see ideas you have long championed become more accepted is some consolation, even if it is not accompanied by the recognition your book deserves. Time for an updated 2nd Edition?

Amory Lovins, founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, has long been another such voice crying in the wilderness.  His 2005 book, Winning the Oil End Game: Innovations for Profits, Jobs, and Security lends support to your thesis. (Link is to a summary of a Wilson Center Event with Lovins.)

From Wilson Center summary

Lovins maintained that business-for-profit and military innovations to increase fuel efficiency and to utilize energy alternatives could greatly benefit U.S. security and economic interests.

Lovins asserted that pure economic incentives will sharply reduce the use of oil in the United States in coming years, since "it is cheaper to substitute oil than to keep buying it." He also cited two additional reasons for eliminating U.S. use of oil. First, national security is threatened by a variety of oil-related factors, from supply instability and geopolitical competition to the environmental costs of oil use. Second, U.S. competitiveness in the global transportation market is at stake, so long as other countries continue to produce cheaper and more fuel efficient vehicles and airplanes. Therefore, there are sound economic, and well as political and environmental reasons to stop using oil.

In order to compete in the global marketplace successfully and reduce security threats, the United States must double the efficiency of oil use and increase its reliance on alternatives sources of energy, such as biofuels and natural gas reserves. The average cost of ending the use of oil would be $15 per barrel, significantly lower than the official Energy Information Administration's (EIA) forecasted cost of $26 per barrel by 2025. The cost of making the transition from an oil-based economy would be about$180 billion; however, the transition would entail 2 million new and preserved jobs and it would generate $150 billion in gross returns per year. This process can be accelerated through favorable policymaking at the federal, state, and local levels, as well as by educating industry leaders about the economic advantages of making the transition.

Lovins has also developed a method of "forging" composite carbon structural elements with significantly improved strength to weight factors for use in automobiles. I recently saw a video clip but have not been able to find a reference.

For more on Lovin's vision circa 2005 see this

But you have properly identified the major problem in the USA, which is undoing the damage to the industrial infrastructure done by the Financial Sector.  What is needed is a generalized understanding by the voting population of the importance of an industrial base appropriate to present conditions, how bad policy and financial regulations can encourage destruction for profit, and how to prevent a replay of the current disaster at least for a couple of generations.  This requires leadership and a receptive public.  The current problems may be creating a receptive public.  We can only hope that the requisite leadership emerges.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."