For a person with very low discount (suppose one prepared to live for 1000 years, like in Bible) it is true indeed. Even Mendeleev told that burning oil is like heating oven with banknotes.

However, current world is driven by economic forces. Too many countries are willing to sell oil (also because they need money for current budget) and few of politicians (and even businessmen) think about the periods longer than 5-10 years. Then even arrival of Peak Oil (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil ) that may come already this century (most likely in the first half) does not work as generator of too high prices to limit consumption.

In the transition period (maybe just 20-40 years are left) we should learn how to replace hydrocarbons by renewable energies, but this is not an easy task. With many technological and socio-economic barriers. That is why the demand for hydrocarbons as energy source is likely to remain high in the coming decades. More R&D is needed to find energy substitutes, but currently low oil prices give opposite incentive.

Biomass cannot fully replace currently consumed oil, even if we will use all land for its production; but we also need it for food.

If we are talking about energy source for all purposes, it is almost impossible now to ignore the consume of fossil fuels to support the activities carried out by the human beings.

If we are talking about the generation of electricity, the use of oil can be substituted by other energy source, including gas or coal in many countries. The trend is not to use oil for this specific purpose in the future.

If we are talking about the use of energy source for electricity generation that do not affect the environment ,then we should exclude coal and oil as energy source.

If we are talking about energy source used in the transport section, then oil can not be exclude at least for the next decades.

As a Philosophy Marxism is part of the History of this subject. However, it is an ideology defeated by Mankind

Fossil fuels as energy source still destroying earth and atmosphere. Biofuels and natural fuel sources such as wind and solar energy that so called renewable energies are the best key solution of the world problems and can save environment but unfortunately they have restricted application. In the next decades and may be few years I think that some uses of fossil fuel will be decreased or disappeared and may be replaced with green sources in the light industry, but till now no other fuel will replaces fossil oil in the heavy industry.

Fossil fuel is a general term for buried combustible geologic deposits of organic materials, formed from decayed plants and animals that have been converted to crude oil, coal, natural gas, or heavy oils by exposure to heat and pressure in the earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years.

The burning of fossil fuels by humans is the largest source of emissions of carbon dioxide, which is one of the greenhouse gases that allows radiative forcing and contributes to global warming.

A small portion of hydrocarbon-based fuels are biofuels derived from atmospheric carbon dioxide, and thus do not increase the net amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

I agree  Prof.Yuri Yegorov's opinion, till today, we can not find another energy source to replace the fossil fuels , which enough  abundant, cheap and easy to obtained!

Mahmut,

Depends on the technology and energy economics of the sources when that actually happens. Isn't it a bit premature, because both technology and energy economics depend on too many externalities ?

-Sanjay

Your real question seems to be not about the wisdom of continuing to burn fossil fuels (probably we already agree that this is unwise, in the long term), but really about which alternative has the greatest potential to replace fossil fuels as the carbon input for our various industry needs.

Biomass from conventional agriculture is the most obvious option and already works today to replace fossil fuels (eg bioethanol, biodiesel, hydrothermal liquefaction), but there are problem ahead because of limited arable land -- growth of biomass in algae ponds and greenhouses could possibly scale in non-arable areas, longer term (look up Sundropfarms in Port Augusta, South Australia). Processing of carbonate rocks to extract carbon seems unlikely to me to have a net exergetic benefit, but I haven't read the literature on that. In any case, we shouldn't release additional rock/fossil carbon into the ecosystem without also having a plan to re-capture it. Finally, extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere is attractive but you are dealing with low concentrations which is likely to always make the process costly and inefficient (ask the plants). There is much work on artificial photosynthesis currently, which may yet lead to some breakthroughs on this front, certainly an exciting prospect.

Alongside these measures, we must consider that some carbon-intensive products might better be replaced or recycled, to reduce the demand for primary carbon inputs to industry.

Absolutely Not ! Not because of depletion of fossils fuels but because of stringent world wide emission norms particularly in case of hydrocarbon fuels. The technologies may used in future is solar, fuel cell etc 

For now fossil fuels are the predominant energy sources available to most economies of the world. The movement from these source of energy especially in developing economies will take quite some time.