>>1654341Idk man we live in an increasingly global yet competitive economy, and it is pretty damn dependant on oil.
The rate at which this finite resource is used increases year by year, as do the number of basic amenities depending upon it. Where nations and even regions within them once produced much of what they needed locally, even food security has come to depend upon on vast quantities of fossil fuel. The embodied energy of even the most innocuous items, like fresh veggies and potable water, continues to rise while local resilience continues to sink.
I'm increasingly skeptical of the 'as soon as oil becomes unsustainably expensive we'll switch to nuclear/wind/solar with no serious disruption' argument. Refitting merchant shipping, on shore logistics like trucks and vans, air carrier services and even housing or industry built in urban food deserts or isolated areas is a massive task. One that would need to begin soon if not now to be effective, and would likely require austerity measures and other disruptions to the relative comfort and convenience first world people have come to enjoy. It could also render whichever nation(s) went first vulnerable or even unstable both economically and militarily. Even proposing it would be political suicide for a centrist and would guarantee irrelevance for any minor party.
Imagine running an election campaign promising hard times, economic disruption and possible negative growth. All on the basis that our way of life is 'unsustainable' and that 'our nation needs to go first, hoping our geopolitical rivals will follow instead of taking advantage of our perceived weakness.'
Whichever major or minor party adopted it would hand a landslide victory to its opposition. And any non-democratic government worth its salt would shrink in horror from leaving itself so vulnerable on so many fronts.
I've gone on long enough already so I'll leave it there.
