Petroleum Is Needed To Make Roughly 6,000 Products We Need. What Would Life Be Like If We Had To Leave It In The Ground?

Guest Post by Fred Willis, 

For additional information on the importance of petroleum to human life see `If We “Keep It In The Ground, We Won’t Even Have Any ‘Green’ Energy!”  Posted October 13, 2020

 

 

Click here or above for full article.

Click here for previous post:  “If We Keep It In The Ground, We Won’t Even Have Any Green Energy!”

We are a group of roughly 150 ordinary citizens who mostly live near Atlantic City, New Jersey.  We volunteer our time and money to maintain this website. We do our best to post accurate information. However, we have made mistakes. If you see any mistakes or inaccurate, misleading, outdated, or incomplete information in this or any of our posts, please let us know. We will do our best to correct the problem as soon as possible.

If you agree with this post, please share it as much as you can.  Please simply click the Twitter or Facebook icons below.  Or better yet, please copy the link, or all or part of the content for this post, and paste it in the “comments” section of your local newspaper, your local “micro-newspaper” like Patch.com, or in any of the unwanted articles from CNN or other “mainstream” spammed into your Facebook feed before an election.  Thanks.

Seth Grossman, Executive Director

LibertyAndProsperity.com

info@libertyandprosperity.com

(609) 927-7333

 

3 thoughts on “Petroleum Is Needed To Make Roughly 6,000 Products We Need. What Would Life Be Like If We Had To Leave It In The Ground?”

    1. This question should be directed to “Keep it in the Ground’ advocates. It is their position that any use of petroleum or fossil fuels is catastrophic and must be prevented. Your question implies there some uses of petroleum which are advantageous or desirable. A cost benefit analysis is the starting point for evaluating energy use but these are rarely used in the environmental discourse. At present, energy forms are defined as either all good or all bad which is ridiculous.

  1. This question should be directed to “Keep it in the Ground’ advocates. It is their position that any use of petroleum or fossil fuels is catastrophic and must be prevented. Your question implies there some uses of petroleum which are advantageous or desirable. A cost benefit analysis is the starting point for evaluating energy use but these are rarely used in the environmental discourse. At present, energy forms are defined as either all good or all bad which is ridiculous.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *