I was referring to parts of Europe regarding the vast (Ireland comes to mind). And I question whether it was renewable because when you wipe out a whole forest it may change the ecology of the land. Technically you are correct on a long enough time scale the trees may grow back.

Well hold on, how much money did we pump into the economic system to keep it afloat? Do you remember the stimulus checks and the insane loans handed out that were forgiven? Let’s not pretend that 20% drop didn’t involve governments giving handouts to almost everyone.

Drop in the bucket compared to bailouts to banks in 2008, and the Trump tax cuts for the wealthy. Isn't it odd how people obsess over a stimulus check to people, but don't care at all about tax cuts and subsidies for the wealthy?

I think China has taken the lead building a sustainable energy society, and I think we should emulate it worldwide.

China hasn't done so well on this in the last few years. They've built a lot of coal power plants in the last few years and are currently running them at max right now to make up for a lack of oil imports. What they're doing to reduce oil dependency has a lot of strategic rationale to it, not so much trying to save the world. They were worried about the US doing to the Strait of Malacca what Iran is currently doing to the Strait of Hormuz. So they're just employing their Malacca contingency now. It's basically the only reason global oil prices haven't tripled.

China is building a lot of EVs and Solar panels not out of altruism, but because EVs have made ICE obsolete, and Solar is the cheapest form of power. Once sodium-ion batteries are mass produced there just won't be much reason for other forms of electricity generation.

So in short, China isn't altruistic, they just aren't being stupid about this. I guess they don't have massive oil companies putting their thumbs on the scale saying EVs are bad, heat pumps are bad, solar is bad.

The oil dependency is a strategic weakness. It's a national security concern. China understands this. The oil companies understand this too, just they benefit from continued oil dependency, and they have big pockets for lobbying and running internet influence campaigns.

That was a demand side shock, where a supply side shock of 20%, hell even 10% is a different beast. From my macroeconomics understanding the economy may need to contract relative to the oil supply that has been cut off.

We know that we can reduce a lot of oil usage by just having office workers WFH. Companies around the world put into place all of the infrastructure and software needed to accomplish this, used it for a while and then... just threw it away, I guess?

Burning oil is not a luxury, it’s how everything in modern life exists and this is the inconvenient truth.

I take public transit into work once per week. HR has sent out emails saying the policy is that people have to be in the office three times per week, going onto four times per week... this week I think? Whatever, I just don't do it. Best I can do is once per week. Anyway. when I'm riding the bus into work, there's very few people on the bus and I see the roads filled with cars. Most of the cars I see are fairly large SUVs and there's usually only one person in each of them.

Given the fact that we haven't gone back to WFH, and most vehicles have only one person in them and are much larger than necessary to transport a single person, I always think to myself "well I guess gas must still be really cheap."

I'm not saying 100% of oil consumption is a luxury, but a significant percentage of it is definitely a luxury. I take the bus into work, my co-workers could be taking that same bus too. Probably about a hundred people where I work could be 100% WFH, but they aren't because lazy managers just want their jobs basically like a homeroom teacher.

Are you really saying that driving by yourself in an SUV instead of taking the bus isn't a luxury?