> Now the question is does the exponential growth of renewables allows for stopping CO2 emissions before they undo our civilization? I know this is not equival

> Now the question is does the exponential growth of renewables allows for stopping CO2 emissions before they undo our civilization? I know this is not equivalent by any means, but the most pressing aspect of it is answered by CO2 (and other GHG) emissions, and relative savings compared to fossil alternatives. The key thing here is that most pollution is more or less local. Burying turbines we can't recycle yet, releasing chemicals during the mining, all those other fair criticisms which are slowly being addressed, as much as they suck, don't suck as much as emitting GHG that affect the planet as a whole and every living being on it. The other big one is plastics pollution, specifically micro plastics, but let that be a separate topic for now. The rapid change in CO2 levels fucks with every environment in which life exists. The acidification of the oceans, desalination through glacier melt, its long term warm up, warm up of the atmosphere and the resulting changes to climate and weather will grind down every ecosystem we rely on to not have our civilization undone. Food supply, quality of life, long term stability will deteriorate as time goes on, that's the risk we are dealing with when it comes to emissions. The longer we do nothing, the greater the risk that these things spiral out of control. Another forest gone, or another lake poisoned, as much as it sucks, and it really does, is a drop in the bucket compared to Pandora's Box being opened by polluting the atmosphere and fucking with the oceans to the degree that we are. That's why we focus on reducing emissions and why I think the emissions question has enough overlap with the 'undoing civilization' question that, to answer your one question, you may want to look for answers to the other question, which is much better explored.