One of the questions this diary motivates for me is how the cost of building an alternative productive infrastructure factors into the "fair" price of a non-renewable resource. Also, what the value of the non-renewable resource should be in the first place. The correct answer cannot be that a non-renewable resource has to be too valuable to use at all. It's probably correct to expect the total (all the way to depletion) value of the resource to be infinite, but just because something is not renewable doesn't mean it shouldn't be used.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?