@jgkoomey @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

OK, "dude".

You sure explained the logical flaws to me.

Thank you for the discussion.

@jgkoomey @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

Economic growth is predicated on exploitation and ignoring externalities.

The biggest of which is obviously depletion of non-renewable natural resources, which includes not only fossil fuels, but also copper, aluminum, chromium, nickel, cobalt, etc.

@jgkoomey @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

I appreciate all the references.

They all count externalities though. The producers (and most consumers) don't pay for externalities in our current economic system. That's not the world we live in.

So unless you're suggesting to overthrow #capitalism I don't understand how that argument helps the point you are trying to make.

@jgkoomey @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

"embedded emissions for manufactured products are almost always small compared to direct emissions from their use"

This can't be right, it defies common sense. Most products' emissions come from their manufacturing, not use. In fact, most products don't emit GHGs at all: not my chair, not my pillow, not my carpet, not the roof over my head. Even EVs and PVs take years to pay back their manufacturing emissions.

@jgkoomey @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

That's the thing though: in a green growth scenario it is not enough for a solution to merely *exist*. It must also be cheaper and being able to be deployed worldwide very fast and without hindering economic growth in the process. If any of these conditions are not met, either emissions will keep going up or growth will stop.

@jgkoomey @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

"almost all embedded emissions come from energy use"

That's true if by "almost all" you mean 73%.

Even if you remove *all* emissions from energy, allow the economy to double in the next 30 years and you'll still be left with half the emissions that you started with. Not the place we want to be.

@jgkoomey @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

I see. By that definition hydrogen produced by steam methane reforming or biofuels are also "zero emissions".

How do you know that the embedded emissions are a transient phenomenon? Has a single EV, solar PV or battery been produced without any use of fossil fuels, even in a lab setting as a proof-of-concept?

@jgkoomey @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

What are "the many ways to power modern tech with zero emissions"? Can you list some examples?

@urlyman @jgkoomey @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

As William Ophuls described it, we sure are electrifying the Titanic though!

😉

@urlyman @jgkoomey @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

We agree then: we should fight for the conservation of the biosphere, and that should be our focus. Preserving GDP growth is what's killing us, and it should be abandoned as a goal.

In my view it's already clear what path we're on. Having hope for a "green growth" future requires, as Jonathan said, ignoring history.

@jgkoomey @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

In other words, absolute decoupling is a statement of faith that requires ignoring all examples from history in a belief that humanity will invent a replicator from Star Trek.

@jgkoomey @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green

Absolute decoupling would mean that all sectors of the economy that grow would be fully decarbonized, i.e. growth in the economy would not result in any additional emissions.

Given how our economy looks today (as explained above) and how little time our civilization has left (because of both effects of #ClimateChange and resource depletion) it seems quite implausible that absolute decoupling is a viable way forward.

5/5