Ah, 'demand destruction', which in sounds positive in theory but in practice will likely mean poverty, famine and 'population reduction'.

▲

lovich 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The majority of demand for fossil fuels is for energy. Switching to alternative sources for energy is not “demand destruction” unless you zoom in your analysis so much that you’re missing the forest for the trees.

▲

pibaker 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You cannot just switch an entire country's energy source on a finger snap nor do we have a viable alternative for making nitrogen based fertilizer. East Asia, which is heavily dependent on Middle East gas, is already bracing for energy shortages. What is likely to happen next is a fertilizer shortage in some poorer countries which will then lead to food shortages and social unrest.

	▲	ch_sm an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> You cannot just switch an entire country's energy source on a finger snap no one is suggesting that > nor do we have a viable alternative for making nitrogen based fertilizer nor is anyone suggesting that
	▲	lovich an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The switch to renewables isn’t expected to happen on a finger snap. And if we no longer need the majority of fossil fuels for oil, we will have more of our own ample local fossil fuels to allocate to production of things that still require them like your afore mentioned fertilizer or lubricants.