>avoided [entirely?]

You're making different/absolutist arguments. Even the most ardent electrification proponents agree that you can't replace downstream chemicals/materials.

As for subsidies, you're thinking too narrow if you feel it necessary to only spend limited government budget on energy to improve lives.

> As for subsidies, you're thinking too narrow if you feel it necessary to only spend limited government budget on energy to improve lives.

But, its perfectly okay for govt to spend on fossil fuel subsidies? You draw the line when the subsidies are for solar, heatpumps, etc?

At no point did I make an absolutist claim. If I meant “fossil fuel use should be eliminated”, I would have used those words. Do you agree that it should be avoided and/or curtailed? If not, there is little point in continuing to discuss here, as we will likely never see eye-to-eye on this.

> you're thinking too narrow if you feel it necessary to only spend limited government budget on energy to improve lives.

I also did not use the word “only”. Governments are quite capable of doing more than one thing at once. Should governments not consider spending money on energy to improve lives?