Let me whip out a napkin and parse the propaganda to extract the actual real data...
When you are on a fishing boat at sea, 100% of your power comes from combustion. For riding a Segue in the city batteries are fine. There isn't enough lithium in the world to make the billions of car batteries a complete change over to EV's requires. Therefore promoting the complete cessation of infernal combustion isn't promoting EV's, but people without private transportation at all.
What prospect does civilization have that is leashed to it's overlords of being free and prosperous?
None.
Free people will always require, and have, combustion to power their enterprise. Fire is perhaps the fundamental technology that separated humans from other animals, and eliminating human control and possession of fire eliminates humanity, and replaces our human rights with slavery and chattelization.
My question was what the percentage of the total out of all combustion was that cannot be replaced.
My napkin comment was my reply. You'd have to parse the requirements of all industries involved. People make careers doing that. I was snarky, but there is no end of propaganda involved in the constant pressure to reduce the quality of life people expect and enjoy in the West today, so that snark wasn't misplaced.
What I pointed out next was that some things will not be able to be done with batteries, like commercial fishing. The power requirements and rigors of the sea will simply not allow such endeavors to be undertaken without infernal combustion and vastly higher power density of hydrocarbon fuel.
Edit: I don't mention rigor offhand. During a good storm in the Bering Sea, fishermen can go to 24/7 shifts, because they need to go topside and smash ice accumulating on the superstructure with hammers until the storm breaks. Not only can the ice break things, but it can accumulate so thickly that it can outweigh the boat itself, and cause it to become top-heavy and capsize. The reliability of electronics and batteries in such conditions is not sufficient. Many boats have a powerhead, a motor turning a winch on a boom. They have made electric motors for a long time, but on all fishing boats with powerheads you will find they are hydraulically powered, because electric power is easily disrupted by corrosion.
Hydraulics are extremely robust and the only power source for such devices that can last at sea.
Unfortunately, none of your answers contained an answer to the question of what percentage of the totality of oil (and gas) use in ICUs can be replaced with the use of electric motors.
I was being very careless in my wording of the statement that ICUs can be replaced by electric motors. That led to us wasting time. By doing a bit of googling, I found out that the aviation industry represents 7.8% of all oil consumption and maritime shipping represents 6.7%. There is very much room for bringing down the total figure if the electrification of the land transportation sector continues and if hydrogen is no longer sourced from natural gas but produced using electrolysis.
If the ambitious goals of Green Transition are met, the hydrocarbon industry can expect lose a great deal of business.
No. They will only add to it. There isn't enough lithium to make enough batteries to make a Green Transition. Reducing use of oil and gas will only end peoples' access to fertilizer, which will deprive them of food, deprive them of the ability to heat their homes in winter, so we will freeze, cut off our access to fuel, so we will be trapped in the 15 minute cellblocks the WEF promises to keep us in when they take away everything we own. They will still own the hydrocarbons, and they will still use them to fuel their jets, limousines, and yachts. They will still have fertilizer for their premium produce and grass fed beef, while they'll only allow us to eat bugs. They will still sell oil, gas, and coal to the industries they need to rule and live their sybaritic lifestyles, including bombs and bullets, to keep us helpless.
They will just sell it for higher prices, over a longer period of time. They will make more money from oil and gas, not less.
Giant wind farms offshore are killing whales. They cost more in carbon dioxide to construct than gas turbines consume during the lifetime of the windmills, and there isn't enough rare earth for the magnets to build even a fraction of the windmills necessary to replace hydrocarbons. The cobalt necessary for the batteries EV's require leaves open pit scars in the Congo, where it is mined by hordes of child slaves, and they won't use that cobalt to allow us private transportation. They need it for industry. The lithium salt pans in Uyuni become toxic ecological wounds where nothing lives when they extract the lithium, and there isn't enough of that to afford us private transportation. CO2 does not regulate temperature. The oil industry created the AGW lie starting back in the 1970s, through Maurice Strong.
I have researched each of these things and that is what I have discovered about them. Since the harm to the environment is worse from immediate transition to 'green' industry, why are the oil industry pushing it? Because the basis for all life on Earth is a more valuable prize than anything else they can acquire. Carbon credits are the prize they seek, because owning all the CO2 on Earth makes them gods that can decide who lives and who dies, who flies in jets and parties in Cabo, and who has to whore out their kids for a handful of mealworms.
Scroll up a little and look at those pics of plants grown in different levels of atmospheric CO2. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more productive poor farmers are. The less dependent we are on them the more productive our farms and gardens are. CO2 is the basis for photosynthesis on Earth, upon which all ecosystems we live in depend on. Did you know that below ~180ppm plants starve to death without CO2? Do you know where all the CO2 that comes out of oil and gas came from? Earth's atmosphere. Coal, oil, and gas is where CO2 ends up when it's removed from the atmosphere. The optimum CO2 level in the atmosphere is ~10x higher than it is today for plant productivity, and if you scroll back up and look at the graph that shows the entire history of Earth, you can see that it is lower today than at any time before.
During the LGM, CO2 in the atmosphere barely stayed above that ~180ppm where plants suffocate from lack of CO2. Only the warming of the oceans released enough CO2 to prevent global extinction of all the ecosystems we depend on for our lives. We're not in danger of global warming at all.
We're in danger of ice age conditions returning. That's what that chart shows, sea level. When sea level goes down, that's because water that was in the ocean gets frozen into glaciers. Over the last half million years sea level has reached to about where it is now, and then plunged as temperatures did, and the glaciers covered the N. hemisphere in ice age conditions. When the oceans cool, they can dissolve more CO2, and when they warm they hold less, and release it into the atmosphere.
What this chart shows is that as temperatures rise, and sea levels rise, Earth gets better for people to live on. As temperatures decrease and Earth gets colder, life is harder, civilizations collapse, and people die in hordes. Global warming shown in these charts was not caused by CO2 coming out of smoke stacks. That only started very recently during the industrial revolution. CO2 didn't cause all that climate change in those charts, and it isn't causing any climate change now.
Have you compared their predictions to actual climate? Have you ever heard of Tony Heller? The Green Transition is nothing less than genocide of the Earth's population of good people. I bet you believe Earth is overpopulated and think reducing humanity is a good thing. Is that true?