Nobody who travels ‘wants’ to burn oil. Capital decided oil is the most profitable way to deliver that. There was never a point where individual personal consumption habits could have changed this course.
I’m not defending the continued dependence on fossil fuels, but let’s be realistic about how (externalities aside) fossil fuels are very, very good at what they do. The problem is those externalities have turned out to be pretty bad, and our economic systems have been slow to respond.
Your car or plane can't tell the difference between fossil hydrocarbons and biofuel hydrocarbons. (Though you might adjust a car to use ethanol instead of longer compounds.)
> Recently, a 5.54 fossil energy ratio (FER) was reported [1] which means one unit of fossil energy input is required to produce 5.54 units of biodiesel energy output. This FER shows a stunning energy return of biodiesel that surpasses other fuels [2].
Seems fine. And that's probably without even trying to use all electric equipment.
The problems are much more specific and blatant than that:
* The externalities were known to be bad by the oil companies and this knowledge was suppressed.
* Our economic system is incapable of responding because there is no direct fiscal cost of the externalities that would make alternatives cheaper at the point-of-purchase decision point.
* Fossil fuels being good at what they do is exactly why external regulation is needed to get us out of that unhealthy addiction.
I was only trying to push back against the idea that we’re only using fossil fuels because of capitalism. We’re using fossil fuels because with our initial naive inspection they appear to be an excellent, bordering on miraculous, resource. I’m not denying that they’ve turned out to be very harmful and/or that people have done bad things to preserve the naive interpretation.