Short, medium and long-term this will spur the world to move off of fossil fuels. I'm not a fan of war, especially this stupid one, but that one benefit may be, unintentionally, worth it.
no one is suggesting that
> nor do we have a viable alternative for making nitrogen based fertilizer
nor is anyone suggesting that
I assume your understanding of "demand destruction" is mixing concepts.
GP said switching to alternative sources isn't demand destruction when it IS technically and relatively.
The parent's point: until you get those renewables online (decade long process now with permitting), prices will go up. You'll have people using less energy (in general) and less O&G -- both are quintessential demand destruction.
For nitrogen fertilizer (ammonia), there's already demand destruction with people cutting back due to price shocks. That's less food and ag.
My point was that the OP was myopically focusing on fossil fuel do demand when the real demand that would lead to switching to renewables is the demand for energy.
Recursing back up to the original level then I’d say who cares if demand for oil specifically goes down? We still get energy from renewables and there will still be an oil industry working at a reduced capacity for the products that are oil derived like fertilizers.
Honestly I’d be more worried about niche resources that are a minor side effect of fossil fuel extraction like helium that might skyrocket in price if the extraction was being done only to acquire.
"How" it happens is the nuance.
The point above was that people would get priced out (not by choice), lowering (read: destroying) demand. They experience lower quality of life, can't afford fertilizer for crops, lack capital to build reliable renewables, lose jobs, etc.
And if we no longer need the majority of fossil fuels for oil, we will have more of our own ample local fossil fuels to allocate to production of things that still require them like your afore mentioned fertilizer or lubricants.