Replies to post #20927 on The Rising Influence of Rising Affluence

[OakesCS]

the choice is to either use the resource or die. The people doing the squawking won’t be those doing most of the dying but the effects of mass starvation in impoverished places tends to eventually migrate.

Of course, the squawkers will say people will die due to the consequences of hydrocarbon use. Maybe but I’d bet that adapting to longer term climate change effects will b easier/less painful than politically imposed curtailments of petroleum/petrochemicals production.

In any case, such a scenario is wishful thinking. Western Europeans and North Americans might be able to cause political impositions on petroleum/NG production, refining, petrochemicals production but that would just displace that production to states that can’t afford alternatives. Western Europe and North America would quickly discover they can’t afford it either.

Most squawkers don’t realize how much of their comfort and health depends on petrochemicals.

[DewDiligence]

Re: Petrochemicals

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fossil-fuels-petroleum-refining-products-plastics-fertilizers-africa-food-shortage-grocery-energy-prices-costs-rising-russia-fracking-biden-climate-change-11649100123

The inconvenient truth for progressives is that petrochemicals are ubiquitous and indispensable. Replacing oil and gas as an energy source poses enormous technological challenges. Replacing them as a product feedstock would be next to impossible.

As much as progressives loathe fossil fuels, they can’t live without them. Drive an electric car or ride a bike? Streets are paved with asphalt, which is made from petroleum bitumen.