Hydrocarbons are one of the most plentiful compounds in the universe – ask any astrophysicist. Entire nebulae are giant repositories of hydrocarbons. Are they “fossil fuels” too?

We understand the cynicism and the desire to make a point here about the misattribution of characteristics and the implications for fuel sources, and how they are viewed by differing parties who are often at war with one another. We are happy to see attention focused on this arena. It is an important one for human survival and normal functioning at this stage of human development and sophistication. It is useful to know what one is dealing with in order to get it right, so we are happy to address all your questions here—all have importance, all have value. This first one does make a point indirectly that hydrocarbons are plentiful and, in a sense, contain inherent energy within from the strength of the chemical bonds. This can be surrendered with combustion of many forms of hydrocarbon, but not all, so we would not make a blanket association between hydrocarbons and fuel—fossil or otherwise. But we understand the reason for the question being to point the finger at the reality of the gap between what is known about oil and what scientists and engineers want to derive from oil as a source of energy. So we would say: "All hydrocarbons are not alike. Some have more potential as fuel than others, so one must be careful about making broad and sweeping statements." In a sense, it is almost like saying: "The heavens are filled with chemicals." That tells you little about the deeper nature, the specifics of what one is dealing with and the implications, and this will require diligence and scholarship to fully understand and develop the knowledge you are accruing about having these reactive substances in your midst so they can be handled in a safe way and continue to be a benefit for a long time to come.