This is the first I've heard that Harris is anti oil. I have to agree we are nowhere near replacing oil. All food is grown, harvested and packaged with the help of oil and gas with 10 kJ of fossil fuel input for every 1 kJ calorific value to humans. When oil is no longer affordable due to depletion it may humanity's greatest crisis. The International Energy Agency says there will be a global oil glut by 2030. Somehow they see that 2 bn internal combustion engines will be switched off in the next few years. I expect as you fly in a battery powered plane Sydney-Perth over the wheatbelt looking down you will see hydrogen powered tractors spreading organic fertiliser.

This could be the start of a revival in Peak Oil discussions. Whether PO was 2005 or about now the question is when not if. If Harris knows how to replace oil before it runs out she should spell it out.

She is now ‘officially’ a Marxist according to the media. So, she will be against just about everything, except playing the race card. She is either brown or black, according to which group she is talking to. No policies whatsoever.

The sort that could win on DEI only. God help America and the West if she does win.

Any “ridding the world of oil” would be ridding the world of most things useful and vital to life as we know it now - including the people voting for such a moron, who rely on the government to look after them.

It seems those who make the real decisions in the Democrats might actually realise what a dill the woman is by providing her with Tim Waltz as running mate. Waltz, a real person with a real previous life and background, would actually run the show.

Does anyone really believe that a showpiece, first-woman-of-colour, strictly DEI President would actually be allowed to run America any more than Joe Biden in his demented state was? The woman is a Laughing Lunatic.

A society of homeless hobos awaits, you better believe it.
And the choice of a crude alternative living rough in the bush is a door that is closing fast as vast swathes of usable land is gifted to Native inhabitants to “manage” by locking out the commoners; this tsunami of undemocratic madness, don’t forget, includes sea claims including you favourite recreational beaches and access tracks right now in a phase of closing of access to public use.
Under this regime we as a society are doomed!

Absolutely correct. We all depend on critical products made from crude oil. Chemistry is the underlying science, not physics/energy. People who have no science often cannot understand this simple truth. One fact they might understand more readily is that only about 40% of fossil fuel usage is for generating electricity. That 40% is easily replaced by other generating technologies; Australia is working towards just that, though it has foolishly selected the wrong technologies. The other 60% will be harder to replace, much of it either impossible or barely feasible. The solution? Don't stop oil until replacements are available. And don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

So the author is proposing we keep burning oil and go back to a climate 4.5 Million years ago, when no humans or agriculture were about. Seems a risky idea, way more risky then abandoning fossil fuels, especially when many of the experts are suggesting thats a workd where civilization as we know it is impossible.

Therein lies the problem, the choice to keep doing what we're doing is literally suicidal. Humans were alive in the 1800s, no one was 4.5 Million years ago.

Ronald Stein's article is filled with inaccuracies and oversimplifications that skew the reality of energy policy and the role of fossil fuels.

Stein's claim that renewables "only exist to generate occasional electricity" misrepresents what renewable energy can do. Advances in energy storage are making wind and solar increasingly reliable sources of power, and are key to cutting greenhouse gas emissions - an important point Stein overlooks.

The article exaggerates the need for crude oil, suggesting that "everything that needs electricity is made with petrochemicals." While petrochemicals are used in many products, innovations like bioplastics and recycling are already reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Stein ignores these developments, giving a skewed view that overstates our dependence on crude oil.

Stein’s suggestion that eliminating crude oil would push society back to the 1800s is a baseless claim. The shift away from fossil fuels is happening gradually, driven by technological innovation and supportive policies. This fear-based argument misses the benefits of cleaner energy, like better public health and less environmental harm.

His argument that "Tesla's are 100% made from crude oil" distorts the environmental benefits of EVs. Yes, some EV components come from petrochemicals, but EVs significantly cut emissions and reduce fossil fuel dependence. Additionally, Stein’s selective use of data on California’s oil imports ignores the state’s major investments in renewables.

Stein also fails to acknowledge the broader benefits of transitioning to clean energy. Beyond reducing emissions, this transition helps lower pollution, improving public health and reducing healthcare costs. The economic opportunities in renewable energy and green technology are also significant, creating jobs and fostering innovation.

Finally, the idea that "to rid the world of oil usage, STOP using the products made from oil" is overly simplistic. It fails to recognise the complexities of transitioning away from fossil fuels, which requires innovation and sustainable alternatives. Stein's approach doesn’t address the real challenges and opportunities in this global transition.

Stein’s article is more about pushing an anti-renewable energy agenda than offering a balanced critique. It relies on fear, oversimplifications, and selective data, failing to provide a credible analysis of Kamala Harris’s energy policies.