The politics of oil are particularly tricky for Democrats, whose chances for victory in next year’s elections can hinge on whether young, climate-focused voters come out in big numbers.
The politics of oil are particularly tricky for Democrats, whose chances for victory in next year’s elections can hinge on whether young, climate-focused voters come out in big numbers.
Changing things via broad policy takes a long, long time.
Especially when your broad policy reinforces the status quo.
Petroleum fuel will diminish due to technological, not political reasons. While it’s still valuable, we will still extract it and sell it.
The technology to completely replace it with better options has been available for decades. It’s being kept in use purely for political reasons.
Well, political reasons and blinkered greed reasons. Then again, those are usually one and the same with US politicians, including the Senator from MBNA himself.
The energy density of gasoline is still ridiculous, batteries are getting better but they’re still catching up
There are other options. A lot of petroleum consumption comes from transport and we have electric trains on some scale for a century. That is a really good option to help out with freight transport and a longer distances passenger transport. HSR can even compete with flying fairly well. Proper urban design enables more walking and cycling. Lead based batteries have been used for small trucks for quite some time. It works, but only for very short journeys.
For the rest we have ethanol for example. Brazil did that on a huge scale and developed a special kind of sugar cane, which makes biofuel not all that insane. Oil based chemistry is really just organic chemistry. We can do not with plant based non fossil fuel oils or biogas. Btw biogas and biodiesel are also interesting options, which we have on some scale for a long time.
For replacing oil boilers for heating we have district heating systems using industrial waste heat and things like electrode boilers for a long time. We have had nuclear for decades and hydro is pretty much the oldest type of power station.
Most of these options are bad today, as we have better ones. But getting rid of oil was always possible. Especially with the lower populations we had a few decades ago. It would have been hard work and cost a lot of money though.
Sure, but batteries aren’t killing millions if not tens of millions of people a year and they aren’t the main reason for the planet becoming increasingly uninhabitable and difficult to traverse regardless of fuel source.
When you consider more than just energy density, gasoline looks like the turn of the (20th) century solution it is, whereas more modern ones consider other factors as well.
Like, CO² taxes for oil production?