Only a part of our hydrocarbon consumption is substitutable by renewables. Power generation certainly but there are limits. The capital cost of wind turbines is high and probably requires subsidy at a time when national exchequers in the West are struggling to balance their books. Also the effective lifetime of a turbine is unknown as is the maintenance cost over time. Solar has its place but you cannot replace a 3Gw power plant with solar panels.
Some parts of energy consumption are oil or gas specific and cannot change within known technologies. Indeed international trade is dependent on container ships which run on oil. So do ferries and cruise ships and the rest. The big new giant cruise ship runs on LNG , hydrocarbon Gas in other words. Air travel is oil specific and is growing. There is no alternative to oil other than making jet engines more efficient which has been happening successfully for a long time.
Commercial Road Transport (lorries and trucks etc.) is also (realistically) oil specific. Personal transport (private cars) can switch to battery power but that would bring other raw material challenges. And the range problem has not yet been solved.
In short those nations with substantial oil and gas reserves will be in the economic and political pound seats for a very long time.
Paddy’s Blogs in a crazy world 
Since it has been established and accepted by science that hydrocarbons are contributing massively to the destruction of the planet I thought you might take a different view. Just because mankind has made itself oil and gas-dependent does not mean it should continue.
The alternatives may involve sacrifices and higher costs but the earth is our home. If we destroy it we destroy ourselves. History shows that we as a species have so far done our level best to actually achieve that destruction. We certainly have the means without oil or gas.
Mankind must decide for the sake of generations to come that hydrocarbons should be phased out. Not in 30 or 50 years but much sooner.
LikeLike