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.