"I doubt you've got the background to do so, from what I've read elsewhere, but I am willing to be shown otherwise"* author unknown, perhaps MG

MG,
You have accompanied the above quote, with words I have posted.
This suggests I also authored the above quoted material*. I don't believe I did.
Please do not mix my statements, with the statements of others when quoting.
Thanks.

On substance of above*, my statement is not (merely) that I can; but that I already have.
"blithely accepting 50,000 dead per year from fossil fuel use ..." MG

Correction:
It seems to me I am the first to have posted the number "50,000", as follows.
"Some say coal is the U.S.' most abundant fossil fuel.
But if we apply the -it might kill somebody someday- standard to that, the stats I've read indicate ~50,000 Americans per year die to the health affects of coal fired power plants. That includes, mercury pollution, acid rain, air particulates, etc." sear

So MG, I hope you are not as confused about this topic as you are about my position on it.
Your opinion as indicated by your posts is precisely the opposite of the position I've already posted.
"I just thought that this (original = "The science is beyond dispute") was funny in a new light of sciences infallibility. Still do " Druid

OK
But please be aware, there's an enormous difference between the meaning of the statement:
- The science is beyond dispute -
and
- science is beyond dispute -

They mean two very different things.
You seem to interpret the meaning as the latter.
It simply isn't. It's the former.
"I don't agree with your statement that there is a "societal status quo"(at least in any one particular country) and I did agree (with your assumption) that because Global marketing politics are driving oil consumption to outer limits oil production can not maintain the pace for world consumer demands and consumers seem disinterested in forcing a change." Druid

Automotive fuels may be an excellent example.
Compare the weight per private automobile in the U.S., with that of those common in Europe.
I believe you'll find those in Europe tend to be lighter, and more fuel efficient (more kilometers per liter, compared to the average in the U.S.).
In addition, I've read diesel is a more common automotive fuel in Europe.

Why? Some say it's because the cost of automotive fuels in Europe are so much higher than here. And the proliferation of diesel there is because diesel has more btu's per liter than gasoline. All other things being equal, a liter of diesel will drive an automobile farther than a liter of gasoline.
"I don't agree with your statement that there is a "societal status quo"(at least in any one particular country) and I did agree (with your assumption) that because Global marketing politics are driving oil consumption to outer limits oil production can not maintain the pace for world consumer demands and consumers seem disinterested in forcing a change." Druid

I regard the higher fuel prices in Europe, along with the more fuel efficient automobiles as elements of this "societal status quo". If you don't, what would you call them?
As I understand it, the U.S. per capita energy consumption is higher than that of most if not all E.U. nations. And I'd be astonished if these are not related; cause & effect. If Europeans could buy all the fuel they could burn for 10 cents a gallon, I wouldn't be surprised if they drove big fat SUVs too.
"I assumed (erroneously I suppose) that is what I was TRYING to do. (show how to reduce oil consumption)" Druid

Precisely as I thought.
And you seem remarkably resistant to the notion that science on an engineering level is relatively easy.
The U.S. put men & cars on the moon, back in the 1960's. And I've read, the average new car in the U.S. has more computer power aboard than the Apollo 11 lunar lander had.
It's not the science that's the problem. It's the societal traditions. Americans like buying things with plastic coverings on them. Etc.
There's no need to invent a means to recycle plastics.
The challenge to reducing the consumption of plastics lies elsewhere in the cycle.
"plastics were now being created without the overly large use of petrochemicals as they had been in the past." Red

I don't know.
But I've recently heard that the paper grocery bag is making a come-back.

And there are useful substitutes, celluloid, etc.

Note:
Though I am the one that introduced the 50,000 figure, it is obviously only an approximation. I don't know what the actual number is. But I believe the number came from a reliable source.
Updated information welcome.
Thanks

note: I thought I already posted this once. Evidently Yuku didn't take it, or something. Admin. / Mod. if this ends up being a double post, please delete the latter.
Thanks.