Apparently this needs to be stated more than once, since no one in authority has ever conceded that humanity could not survive if oil and gas were no longer available. The famous list of 6,000 essential products of the petrochemical industry should be compulsory reading for those folk. And Big Pharma should produce their own list of the top 100 medications whose production relies on a continuous supply of raw materials with similar origins. A loud wake-up call could work wonders. Powerful officials are mainly elderly and survive on medication. They'd notice!

Good ol' Ronald - still arguing against a position that no serious energy planner holds.

No one claims wind and solar must "replace crude oil as a molecule" or instantly eliminate petrochemicals. Net-zero is about cutting emissions, not pretending aviation fuel, shipping, plastics, or hospitals stop existing.

Yes, wind and solar generate electricity. That's the point. They displace combustion for power, which is one of the largest and easiest sources of emissions to remove. Hard-to-electrify sectors are addressed separately via efficiency, electrified transport where viable, synthetic fuels, SAF, hydrogen, and managed fossil use during transition.

Repeating "5,999 other products" isn't an argument, it's a category error. EVs reducing petrol demand doesn't require EVs to magically replace jet fuel or plastics.

Refinery closures and supply risks are real. Pretending that makes decarbonisation impossible rather than something that needs sequencing and planning is not analysis, it's fear-mongering.

Energy transitions are messy. That doesn't make them optional, and it doesn't mean clinging to the status quo is "realism."