Reducing demand changes the rate of extraction. That, in turn, means reserves stay in the ground longer than they would if they were burned.
"Needs to stay in the ground" says extraction must stop. That is not the case.
"Needs to stay in the ground" says extraction must stop. That is not the case.
If burning it releases carbon which we can't viably recapture, which you acknowledge[0], then saying...
> That is not the case.
...is wrong. Unless you mean climate change causes by anthropogenic carbon release isn't happening.
[0] "you are correct there is currently no commercially-viable way to make it carbon-neutral" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21325863)
To me, GP is quite precise and also correct. I don't understand why you try to cast them as a climate change denier.
If 95% of energy is not burnt but extracted for other uses then it stays in the ground 20 times longer (ok, not forever).
But we have no way of replacing that huge energy source that is crude. So we will not stop because there's no alternative. What he suggests is a counsel of perfection - "precise and also correct", I agree, but it's not going to happen. So it's a useless suggestion AFAICS.
Basically I'm confused as to what he's suggesting.
"This demand for chemical products has a direct impact on energy demand (and consequently CO2 emissions). The sector accounts for approximately 11% and 8% respectively of the global primary demand for oil and natural gas."
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2018/june/commentary-from-...
So my 99% and 95% estimate was way off, if I'm reading this correctly - which I may not, as it seems to be referring to energy used to create chemical products, not necessarily the proportion of oil used as chemical precursors. Best I can find though.
It's tough to get more precise, because there are trace fuels, as well as some products like kerosene that are used as fuels and solvents.