The good reason to do this is that sometime this century the
world will have run sufficiently out of oil so as to be a large problem.
If we get a jump on that problem, then it is better for us.

You power all the fixed sites with electricity. You generate the
electricity from nuclear energy, (like France), and you defend
the nuclear sites and speed up regulatory hassles by locating
them in military bases, and the military gets a new and important
job. I know arch-conservatives would hate the fact that
such an approach violates their sanctity of “private enterprise”,
but it works.

We have about 1000 year supply of fissionale Uranium and
that can be extended to 5000 years by using Plutonium as
well, in fast breeder reactors (like France has).

In 5000 years, we’ll have had enough time to figure out what
comes next, like hydrogen fusion for example.

Now cars. Given a plentiful supply of electricity, hydrogen can
be produced as a fuel and it is simple enough to run a car
on hydrogen. Liquid fuels are better though, because liquids
are always better than gasses when it comes to a fuel tank,
but mybe we can invent a way to synthesize a simple alcohol
from CO2, H20, and energy.

Planes last. They are only a small contributor to carbon use,
mostly in the news because of greenies whose real agenda is
class war, nothing to do with “the planet”.

Conservation is not a way forward. Conservation only has merit
if you are doing something else in parallel and you need a bit
more time, like if you break down in the desert with not enough
water. Conserve it if you have a plan to get out, otherwise you’re
going to die anyways.

Science and engineering got us this far. Let’s not romanticize
going back to living in tents. The reality will be brutal beyond
anyone’s worst dreams.