“...for the next 535 years”
~~~
The counter argument that I have heard, which actually makes some sense (cents /pun) is that some types of petroleum are not cost effective to extract. So, the old oil fields were relatively easy, but the oil shale incurs more expense to pull, as well as fracking, and there are many sources that are even more difficult. If you get to the point where you are relying on those most difficult sources, you’re looking at higher gas prices anyway.
That being said, I agree. I have absolutely no idea why “climate change” is the reason why want to use Saudi Arabian, Iranian, or Venezuelan oil over our own! Carbon Dioxide as a significant green house gas is a hoax in my opinion, but even if it isn’t, the atmosphere doesn’t care whose gas you burn.
? “..... but the oil shale incurs more expense to pull .....”
That gripe has been around for decades.
Meanwhile, wildcatters ignored the “experts” and went full bore drill and pump making the USA energy independent, so much so that America became a net exporter of oil under Trump.
Meanwhile again, after the shale was developed (and cleanly), there was an oversupply so large that ranchers turned their oil pumps off.
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”.” — Ronald Reagan
The technology of oil extraction is always improving. Shale oil today is much less expensive to extract than it was 25 years ago. The guys who do this for a living have it figured out.