The drawbacks of petrochemicals and plastics are widely publicized by “news” media, singers, actors, professors, and most anyone else with a megaphone. But the black-sheep facts of the alternatives are quietly herded out of sight, especially by Big Tech censors. (below)

Yesterday (Part I) reviewed the use of carbon-based energies for synthetic polymers, chemicals, lubricants, and pavement. Part II today discusses the original “natural” things as a substitute for petroleum. Three areas are wood, metals, and bioplastics.

Wood

First, let’s examine wood as a substitute for making three-dimensional parts:

• Huge areas of forests will be wiped out to get enough wood to replace plastic. This means thousands of miles of logging roads gouged through the mountains, causing erosion into pristine streams. Alternately, vast land areas will be converted to monoculture tree farms requiring pesticides and fertilizers for fast growth.

What are the most critical non-fuel uses of fossil fuels? What are the most viable “natural” and “renewable” alternatives to these uses? Are there any of these critical non-fuel uses of fossil fuels for which there are no viable “natural” or “renewable” substitutes? (below)

When I heard Joe Biden say in a presidential debate that he wants to “transition away” from petroleum by 2050, I wished I were there to respond. Here’s what I would have said: “We have to make things, Joe!”

There is an inconceivable truth for the renewables crowd, and it is this: Fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal) are used in more ways than just burning for energy. They have important non-combustion uses… billions of tons per year of them worldwide. They are used to make things.…