There's a lot of rhetoric there, CM! Let's separate it out from what little substance you've posted...

//There isn't enough lithium in the world…//

Global lithium reserves are sufficient for massive EV deployment, and battery chemistries are already shifting. LFP batteries use no cobalt and less lithium per kWh than older designs. Recycling rates are improving. Resource constraints drive substitution - that's how markets work.

We were told we'd run out of oil in the 1970s too.

//Hydrocarbons are the best solution we have…//

For some applications today, yes. Especially aviation and heavy industry. But passenger vehicles? EVs are already cheaper to run over their lifetime in many markets. That's not ideology. It's just operating-cost maths.

No serious transition plan claims hydrocarbons vanish tomorrow. The debate is about marginal replacement over time.

//Innovation needs to create value, not artificial value mandated by bureaucrats…//

Energy markets have always been shaped by policy. Oil depletion allowances. Highway funding. Nuclear underwriting. Land grants for coal rail. The idea that fossil fuels emerged in a policy vacuum while renewables are uniquely "artificial" isn't historical.

//But mhaze is also right when he implies (paraphrasing) "Woke/ Marxist's say that we will find the answer without knowing how".//

No, he's not.

Most net-zero roadmaps are full of engineering detail: electrification, efficiency, grid interconnection, storage, nuclear, hydrogen for hard-to-abate sectors. You can debate feasibility and cost. But pretending there's "no plan" is just caricature.

"wOkE mArXiSt!!1"

And the zombie scenario? Every major energy transition in history looked destabilising to incumbents. None ended civilisation.

If the argument is about pacing, supply chains, and avoiding overreach, that's serious. If it's about vampires and collapse, that's mood music, not analysis.