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."

We currently have a controlled study going on as to how societies fare without oil.

Cuba, following the fall of Maduro, is currently running out of oil and has no near-term prospects of getting more.

We'll see how they get on without the dreaded liquid gold.

Cute, mhaze - but again, no one's suggesting a world without oil.

mhaze,

Linking to Just Stop Oil doesn't change the argument. You're making the same category error the authors are.

Protest groups aren't policy, and no government transition plan is "stop oil tomorrow."

Oh so we've gone from "no one's suggesting a world without oil" to there's "no government transition plan" without even the slightest hint of embarrassment. Good ol' JD at it again.

There's no shift there, mhaze.

I've said from the outset this is about emissions policy, not abolishing oil (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23851#401675). Pointing out that no government plan proposes oil elimination isn't backpedalling - it's restating the same point in policy terms.

//Good ol' JD at it again.//

At what again? None of your accusations have ever landed. You learned that the hard way just yesterday.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2173126236826103
Never mind California, this is in Australia !