[rb12345]

The problem you're possibly missing here is that oil is used for a lot more than just fuel and energy production. It's used for everything else: road surfacing, plastic production, synthetic fibres, chemical and pharmacutical production, lubrication, fertiliser production (although you could switch to green hydrogen for that), and much more. None of that demand disappears if you stop burning oil and gas, although maybe you could use bio-oils as a starting point for some use cases.

[epistasis]

What's the problem there though? If it's not burned, for energy, then it's not causing emissions.

The one emitting use case you talk about is fertilizer, and the switch from the Haber process to using electrolyzed hydrogen is already starting. It will require a decade or more of tech development to make it cheaper than existing processes, most likely, but it's almost certain to happen as we scale industrial electrolysis.

An example hydrogen fertilizer project:

https://www.bloombergquint.com/technology/spain-could-become...

[fomine3]

Because you said that:

>> Petroleum products are a requirement for modern life.

> This is the most insidious and false lie that is spread.

Even if all energies become renewables, maybe some oil based products are still requirement (but not a big problem).

[epistasis]

There are alternatives for plastics too, from plant sources.

Modern life does not require that we get these end services from petroleum, it's just how we currently achieve the end goal.

Blurring this distinction between the way things are currently and what is possible is a very effective FUD technique. I want to be very clear that I'm not claiming the original poster meant to spread FUD, consciously or unconsciously, I don't know their mind. But it is definitely a persistent tactic among the fossil fuel propaganda that we are immersed in.