3 ms·

> Has the correlation between fossil fuels and energy consumption ended (decoupled) ? It seems: no. https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Decoupling-Debu

> Has the correlation between fossil fuels and energy consumption ended (decoupled) ? It seems: no. https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Decoupling-Debunked.pdf https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Decoupling-Debunk... Although the decoupling mentioned there relates to emissions and economic growth (not just energy consumption), it covers a wide range of examples. Problems caused by disproportionate and continually increasing resource consumption are not limited to securing energy supply. And energy consumption is not limited to electricity. E.g. to make an electric car, you will create a lot of pollution and environmental destruction, before it has even got its first battery charge.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
Your article is a variant on the tiresome "X won't save us" articles that point out, rather boringly, that one single thing isn't enough to lead us into some eco-nirvana. It gets bonus points for explicitly pointing this out itself at the end of the introduction.
- moritzwarhier 3y ago
  No, the end of the introduction is a friendly and carefully watered down summary of the content: CO2-neutral growth is not happening as claimed, and it is not scientifically sound to claim the opposite. The paper lines this out in detail, e.g. for the GDP of Denmark. I'd suggest you read it instead of going in attack mode. And honestly, I find this kind of statement very tiresome, too: > Your article is a variant on the tiresome "X won't save us" articles that point out, rather boringly, that one single thing isn't enough to lead us into some eco-nirvana. Information value zero. It seems you refuse to even try and understand the science and the problems. If you read the article, you'd know that "Green growth is not feasible as the sole strategy to reduce emissions" is basically sugar coating for "Green growth is a lie". It is sugar coated in an attempt to reach people in power who, just like you, refuse to think about basic facts and instead retreat to partisanship. And sorry, but another thing I have to add: this is not "my" article, and it does not need "bonus points" by people who obviously haven't read or understood it (based on the absent content in your response and the time you took to write it)

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

Your article is a variant on the tiresome "X won't save us" articles that point out, rather boringly, that one single thing isn't enough to lead us into some eco-nirvana. It gets bonus points for explicitly pointing this out itself at the end of the introduction.

moritzwarhier 3y ago
No, the end of the introduction is a friendly and carefully watered down summary of the content: CO2-neutral growth is not happening as claimed, and it is not scientifically sound to claim the opposite. The paper lines this out in detail, e.g. for the GDP of Denmark. I'd suggest you read it instead of going in attack mode. And honestly, I find this kind of statement very tiresome, too: > Your article is a variant on the tiresome "X won't save us" articles that point out, rather boringly, that one single thing isn't enough to lead us into some eco-nirvana. Information value zero. It seems you refuse to even try and understand the science and the problems. If you read the article, you'd know that "Green growth is not feasible as the sole strategy to reduce emissions" is basically sugar coating for "Green growth is a lie". It is sugar coated in an attempt to reach people in power who, just like you, refuse to think about basic facts and instead retreat to partisanship. And sorry, but another thing I have to add: this is not "my" article, and it does not need "bonus points" by people who obviously haven't read or understood it (based on the absent content in your response and the time you took to write it)