My gut instinct is to agree. I also feel the same about the fossil fuel industry for the most part.
I am curious which one of those two death wishes would lead to more negative economic impact in the short term.
Based on my ignorant googling of relative values, I think erasing the fossil fuel industry would be much less devastating to investors in general, correct?
I do think that for both industries a multi-decade phase out would give people plenty of time to change their investment portfolios. This would do less economic damage in the short term. That’s a good thing.
In the case of fossil fuels, we still need to go all-in on alternatives for two functions: air travel and sea travel. We can do that in the time scale of 2 to 3 decades imho.
But look up synthetic derivatives as part of the global economy. It is crazy. Such a huge piece of the economy. So crazy that it makes me have crazy thoughts like maybe let it be, with a Tobin tax of sorts assigned to novel anti-poverty solution attempts.
However, no new wells sounds like a great lever to pull.
Forget CO2 for a moment, just the economic flourishi of all those very smart people released from oil exploration duties would be very interesting.
Yes, fossil fuels created the amazing world that we live in, but they are obsolete on this planet. We have alternatives now.
When I look at what oil companies have engineered, I am truly in awe. Sub-sea well heads are nuts! Rigs are gonzo engineering / operations in the coolest ways! Those people should be working on asteroid mining, or civilization scale geothermal, or 2-story-house-sized PV panel laying robots roaming the deserts. They could pull it off, and it is already 2023 ffs.