None of this is about common sense or necessary hydrocarbons or energy security, Ronald. Net Zero is just another UN proxy for endless (population) growth, and anyone who objects to Net Zero is by definition A Racist.

Having said that, I have yet to notice the world (or Australia's) woke "left" abandoning their smart-phones and jet-flights, in favour of papyrus sheets and outrigger canoes.

Almost every mouthful of food we eat comes with the help of oil and gass. When they become unaffordable there will be a crisis. Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels will be too expensive and limited in supply. Think of thousands of hydrogen powered tractors tilling the WA wheatbelt that has been fertilised 5kg per square metre with synthetics. Makes sense to some, a fantasy to the rest of us.

Population growth advocates seem to think cheap oil would last forever. In a decade it will be the main issue.

Hi Steve,

For me it is a question of "Does it work?" and "What is the cost?". Wind and solar do provide cheap, non-dispatchable power, but making it dispatchable in sufficient quantities to run a nation causes massive environmental destruction and comes at a huge cost with ruinous economic consequences.

I keep waiting for the net zero death cult to have an epiphany and realise that life developed a brilliant and long lasting form of energy storage (hydrocarbons) billions of years ago. They might even have a more profound epiphany and realise that our world and energy was made in nuclear reactors.

Ah, this joker again with his fossil-fuelled fearmongering wrapped in a smug ignorance of how energy transitions work.

No credible Net Zero policy proposes "ridding the use of fossil fuels" overnight or without replacement. Yet Stein screams apocalypse if we even try to reduce our dependency on them - like an arsonist warning we’ll freeze without fire.

That electricity came “after” oil is historically and intellectually meaningless. So did antibiotics. So what? The order of invention has no bearing on what we should prioritise today. Worse, his claim that "renewables cannot make anything" ignores the fact that electricity powers manufacturing - and renewables increasingly supply it. Solar panels and wind turbines are made with fossil-fuel-derived materials today, yes - but that doesn't mean they must be forever. Recycling, bioplastics, and electrification of industrial processes are already advancing to reduce that reliance.

Stein romanticises crude oil as the irreplaceable cornerstone of civilisation, which is like crediting asbestos for modern construction. Sure, fossil fuels enabled massive growth. But now they’re also destabilising the climate, choking cities, and propping up petrostates. Continuing business-as-usual because the current system “works” is like saying we should never have banned lead in paint because it was so widely used.

The list of Net Zero targets from various governments is mocked without context - completely ignoring the immense economic opportunities in renewables, the falling costs of clean tech, or the fact that oil is finite. Instead, we’re told that without crude oil we’ll have no hospitals, no transport, and no electricity - because everything uses oil now. That’s like claiming we should never have invented digital cameras because film was once essential to photography.

Finally, citing coal use in China and India as a reason for inaction is a coward’s cop-out. These countries are also investing heavily in renewables - and their emissions don’t excuse ours. Stein’s vision of the future is a desperate clinging to the past, where oil reigns eternal and any move to transition is heresy. But clinging to oil in the 21st century is like worshipping steam engines in the age of rockets.

I think the respondents mostly missed the point.
Which is I think, that those things we use need crude oil as their source.
I will now remind you that

CRUDE OIL PEAKED IN 2005 !

It's not a false binary, Bezza. If oil has peaked, and we are well aware of that point, maybe that's an argument for more renewables. But it's certainly not an argument for eight billion lemmings bulldozing the planet, nor is it a probative argument that Net Zero makes any sense. Anyway, while it's hard to do without oil for certain purposes, it's gas that's the peaker for power.

Indeed, one of the accidental "benefits" of the renewables rush might be that its sheer drawbacks and complexities put the brakes on endless growth.

Nuclear energy could be used to make synthetic fuels.

https://www.neimagazine.com/advanced-reactorsfusion/nuclears-pursuit-of-synfuels-11460789/?cf-view

The Nuclear Industry Association beats this drum as part of its sales pitch.

What happened to the hydrogen economy?

It took the French 15 years to power their grid on and a half times fifty years ago. Germany has spent the past fourteen years destroying their electricity supply and economy pursuing wind and solar, which erratically meet about 20 of electricity demand.

https://www.iea.org/countries/germany

Australia is insane pursuing this lunacy.

Fester,

Your comment is a jumble of half-truths pretending to be insight.

First, France’s nuclear buildout wasn’t a 15-year miracle pulled from thin air - it was a massive, centralised, and state-driven effort following an oil crisis, with an energy monopoly (Électricité de France) and strong public backing. It’s not remotely comparable to modern decentralised renewable transitions - and even then, it required enormous investment, long-term planning, and decades of maintenance.

Second, Germany’s situation is endlessly misrepresented by people eager to bash renewables. Yes, Germany made mistakes - most critically by shutting down nuclear too early. But blaming renewables for "destroying the economy" is laughable when Germany remains one of the largest, most advanced economies on Earth. In fact, renewables now provide over 50% of Germany’s electricity generation annually - not 20%. Your own IEA source shows it. You just didn’t read it (or hoped no one else would).

Germany’s issues come from a messy, incomplete transition, not from renewables being inherently unworkable. Solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuels in most parts of the world. Their "erratic" nature is why grids are diversifying with storage, smart grids, and demand management - not retreating to coal and oil like frightened dinosaurs.

As for Australia being “insane” - the real insanity would be refusing to shift while the world economy moves toward decarbonisation. Clinging to the 20th century while your trading partners demand clean energy isn’t patriotism. It’s sabotage.

If you’re going to call the future "lunacy," at least bring arguments that can survive five minutes of scrutiny.