I first saw the famous "6,000 list" about 8 years ago and promptly included it in a slide for an energy policy talk I was about to give. The big question today should be "how many of those items have since been replaced by alternatives not reliant on fossil fuel ingredients"? I suspect the answer is zero. And how many manufacturers of "the 6,000" reckon they're on track to producing such alternatives? Again, I suspect the answer will be silence. The big issue today is, what policies should we adopt to deal with this disruptive threat to modern living, taking into account the negligible success rate to date? And "what about EVs?" is not an answer; the requirement of a brilliant breakthrough step in lithium battery development was well recognized decades ago.

They are sacrificing the people on the altar of ideological purity ..my favourite . And/or:

* “Ideology has eclipsed common sense.”
* “They are putting ideological purity ahead of the public interest.”
* “They are pursuing an ideological agenda at the expense of those they were elected to serve.”
* “Political dogma has become more important than practical outcomes.”
* “They are putting the interests of the ideology before the interests of the nation.”
* “They are governing according to doctrine rather than reality.”
* “They have become prisoners of their own ideology

A couple more poignant and fitting for the occasion:

“When ideology becomes more important than outcomes, the people become collateral damage.”

“The tragedy is not that they cannot see the wall; it is that they would rather drive into it than change direction

What the author has said is true. Quote;

"Without a backup source to replace refineries, removing crude oil and the refineries that convert it into these products, with no substitute at hand, could be the greatest threat facing the world's 8 billion people, civilization scaled from 1 billion people to over 8 billion in less than 200 years because these products became available." The World's population growth is slowing rapidly. Following the Industrial Revolution there was exponential growth, but that has slowed, and most likely will lead to a population decline. The exponential growth was not solely due to fossil fuels, but a combination of improvements in medicine, sanitation, food production etc and the increase in the use of fossil fuels.

There is an unfounded assumption that demand for those products now produced from fossil fuels will continue at the present rate, or that alternatives or better utilisation of materials will not happen. If that was true, then we would still be burning whale oil in our lamps. There will be a transition away from the present dependence to a different future environment, and we'll no longer need to kill whales for their oil!