Check the difference between US and Australia. The first has actually reduced physical emissions quite a bit, by switching to gas, and has now brought population growth to a near-standstill. The second hasn't really reduced emissions, yet dreams of 100% renewables, with the government smearing any criticism of the massive immigration as "hate speech".

WTF?

This bloke again with his broken record "Wind turbines and solar panels only generate electricity" trope. He pushed this in an article just a couple of weeks ago. High school students know this.

The discussion about electricity generation is much more mature than the black and white stance of the author. Supporting R&D on 'renewable energy" and its uptake by both producers and consumers does not magically put someone in opposition to other benefits of fossil fuels.

I first learned about the Haber-Bosch process in year 9 science and can't help but think that might be the author's target audience.

Yes we need fossil fuels for many things.
I won't be surprised if the US attacks Venezuela and tries to rob the country of it's oil, it's getting desperate financially and Trumps been leading that charge since his first term.
California data centres have placed a huge strain on the states water resources, silicon valley and a race for AI, and don't forget Americans love of 6 liter gas-guzzlers like its an integral part of their identity and culture.

Exactly, WTF.

It’s a strawman in that it pretends supporters of renewable energy think we’ll replace all fossil fuel use with wind and solar generation alone.

If if people need reminding that solar panels can't synthesise fertilizer or fabricate plastics.

No one's is making that claim, yet this joker keeps recycling this same “gotcha” article as though any continued use of fossil derivatives invalidates the whole project.

Next he'll be arguing that we shouldn’t phase out coal power because we still need graphite pencils.

The author is an American who writes about America. He couldn't know what a weird, contrary people the Australian political class consists of. Australia is an international joke,

Good post Steve S.

Yes, it's obvious that oil and natural gas are the feedstocks for thousands of products (just Google "6,000 products of fossil fuels") needed by modern society to function.

But it's also obvious that this fact is widely ignored or downplayed. Does that matter? Almost certainly.

Primarily it matters to the politics. By first tackling the easiest problem, generating electricity, the suppliers (and supporters) of "renewables" have gained a huge political advantage. It's easy, and obviously very popular, to supply clean electricity. The nasty parts, manufacturing the generating equipment and materials, are undertaken in countries prepared to tolerate emissions and waste products.

That business advantage cannot last forever. The problem will become crucial for the fossil fuel feedstocks at the core of production processes rather than the periphery.

Fertilizers and mining explosives are two major examples. There are literally thousands of others. And the severe barriers to making and using fossil fuel replacements are routinely brushed aside.

What's missing for policy makers to take notice is vigorous campaigning by the largest fossil fuel users for manufacturing. Global businesses must loudly proclaim that they simply can't provide essential plastics, fibers, mining explosives, nitrogenous fertilizers, solvents, adhesives, coatings (the list goes on) if their fossil fuel starting materials are prohibited.