The idea that Communist states are prepared to manage their environments appropriately is laughably absurd. They've never cleaned up their act until after the fall of Communism.

Yeah, but why did they burn so much coal and oil? Because it was cheaper and they didn't care about the environment.

When solar and wind are cheaper they'll use that -- and still not care about the environment. They'll be polluting their land with heavy metals, sure, but not the air with CO2.

You see the change already with islands changing to solar and wind. Hawaii for instance is increasing solar because even with batteries it's cheaper than coal/oil - way higher at 18% electricity from solar than other states (CA is higher only because they're horribly mismanaged). That will propagate to logistically cheaper places as the cost of solar/wind continues to decrease.

carbon is only going to be the primary source of energy from humans this century and if you want nuclear or fusion power you're going to have to wait for it's mass planetary adoption well over 80 years from now.

Energy is not immune to disruptive technology, in fact it's prime for it because electricity is totally fungible. It doesn't matter the source and the speed of change is determined by the price difference.

It's not a case of oil having too much inertia behind it. Once the price of other energy is cheaper than extraction oil use will crater in the span of a decade or less, and when that starts could be 80 years or it could be next year. And this is the point, that you can't predict when it will happen but we know it will.

extra billions of humans need energy, but they will need and want more energy than any of their predecessors.

Irrelevant. What matters is the cost of energy sources. Whatever amount is needed, they won't be getting it from far more expensive oil.

The idea that Communist states are prepared to manage their environments appropriately is laughably absurd. They've never cleaned up their act until after the fall of Communism.

Yeah, but why did they burn so much coal and oil? Because it was cheaper and they didn't care about the environment.

When solar and wind is cheaper they'll use that -- and still not care about the environment. They'll be polluting their land with heavy metals, sure, but not the air with CO2.

You see the change already with islands changing to solar and wind. Hawaii for instance is increasing solar because even with batteries it's cheaper than coal/oil - way higher at 18% electricity from solar than other states (CA is higher only because they're horribly mismanaged). That will propagate to logistically cheaper places as the cost of solar/wind continues to decrease.

carbon is only going to be the primary source of energy from humans this century and if you want nuclear or fusion power you're going to have to wait for it's mass planetary adoption well over 80 years from now.

Energy is not immune to disruptive technology, in fact it's prime for it because electricity is totally fungible. It doesn't matter the source and the speed of change is determined by the price difference.

It's not a case of oil having too much inertia behind it. Once the price of other energy is cheaper than extraction oil use will crater in the span of a decade or less, and when that starts could be 80 years or it could be next year. And this is the point, that you can't predict when it will happen but we know it will.

extra billions of humans need energy, but they will need and want more energy than any of their predecessors.

Irrelevant. What matters is the cost of energy sources. Whatever amount is needed, they won't be getting it from far more expensive oil.