https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/nostalgia/manch...
That said, there are an innumerable number of side effects from cheap fossil fuels that would change present reality as we know it were they removed.
Removing cheap fossil fuel energy could have drastically slowed down emigration from cities to the burbs, so it’s also fun to imagine a different present where there’s dozens of New York Cities spread around the nation, connected by mass transport, and separated by vast swaths of mostly empty land. As EV tech and internet became widespread, it’s likely that the development of suburbia would only just begin to be happening now. Or not. Like you say though, fun thought experiment.
Metals would be much more expensive, so most structures would have stayed would or stone. I think electric street cars would have been possible based on hydropower and minimal metal usage. That means cities would end up with mid density suburbs based on row houses like san francisco. More dramatic is the lack of cars means dramatically higher density by default without parking etc.
Wind power would have been a much bigger deal never really falling out of favor. Eventually solar would have become a major deal which probably scaled back to most of what we are used to.
It's only free if you don't consider externalities to be a cost.
And what would China be like if they never got to grow by making so much cheap plastic stuff to get them up the ladder to making so much tech stuff.
Skin works a lot better with oil, for instance, and it isn't absurd to say that most cells in animals are made out of oil.
I’m just meaning without the in the ground stuff!
Given the likely biological origins of petroleum, you'd have to phrase your hypothetical in terms of extraction to avoid the question.