> We’d be better off suing ourselves. That's what accountability in politics is all about. > It’s we consumers who ultimately burn the oil for our homes, hosp

> We’d be better off suing ourselves. That's what accountability in politics is all about. > It’s we consumers who ultimately burn the oil for our homes, hospitals, schools, cars, and general electrical needs. This implies a willingness to ignore the entire complex context why humanity as a whole has ended up in this spot in the first place. Consider this thought experiment. Try cutting out as many aspects as you can out of your life that depends on oil or it's derivatives. This includes the use of goods based on fossil-fuel based polymers, plastics or the combustion of oil for the generation of heat, light and movement. The end result of that exercise would be you living a very different lifestyle and society being organized in a very different way. The vast majority would dismiss the idea as "reverting back to Medieval times" while a small niche is totally into homesteading. Of course, there's a middle ground here when it comes to reducing the dependence on fossil fuels. But to be frank, it's a so-called Wicked Problem that comes with far more challenges then first meets the eye. In fact, the more you - or society - wants to try and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, the more deeply altering changes to your lifestyle you - or society - is going to have to accept. Beyond electrical cars, this implies changes to public infrastructure, how public space is being used, renewed thinking regarding the use of natural resources, agriculture, supply chains, construction of housing, packaging of goods, etc. etc. etc.