Agree EROEI is profoundly important for planning the next century. However, your point doesn’t change the core criticism of the “skeptic” audience. Yes we use

Agree EROEI is profoundly important for planning the next century. However, your point doesn’t change the core criticism of the “skeptic” audience. Yes we use petrol for plastic but if it disappeared we could use plants. Yes we use petrol for heavy machines but if they disappeared we could use batteries. And yes, there’s not enough petroleum available to build all the batteries and plant plastic fabrication facilities we’d need to replace the petroleum economy. So that sounds bad. Except it’s only bad if all that happens quickly, at the same time. And it won’t. Batteries will become economical before we run out of petroleum for plastic. I’m not saying they’re right, but the skeptic argument is that the economy will adapt to these challenges one at a time. What’s the counter argument?