[lovich]

Using less of any resource because it’s been blocked doesn’t mean the demand is destroyed. The demand can remain perfectly the same or even go up.

My point was that the OP was myopically focusing on fossil fuel do demand when the real demand that would lead to switching to renewables is the demand for energy.

[caminante]

I suggest revisiting the definition [0]. IMHO, your understanding is at odds and I suspect you're intending to say people will replace with energy from elsewhere (which still qualifies as demand destruction).

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_destruction

[lovich]

Alright I guess this is a preexisting term but it seems as poorly named as the academic definition of racism when it comes to using existing English words in highly specific contexts.

Recursing back up to the original level then I’d say who cares if demand for oil specifically goes down? We still get energy from renewables and there will still be an oil industry working at a reduced capacity for the products that are oil derived like fertilizers.

Honestly I’d be more worried about niche resources that are a minor side effect of fossil fuel extraction like helium that might skyrocket in price if the extraction was being done only to acquire.

[caminante]

> I’d say who cares if demand for oil specifically goes down?

"How" it happens is the nuance.

The point above was that people would get priced out (not by choice), lowering (read: destroying) demand. They experience lower quality of life, can't afford fertilizer for crops, lack capital to build reliable renewables, lose jobs, etc.

[lovich]

I've learned enough from this thread to give me pause and the impetus for research, for anyone finding this thread later, I am not as confident in my original reply as I was after this thread.