3 ms·

> This is nonsense. The consumptive, energy and material intensity of GDP, as well as GDP/capita, have varied greatly across time and countries. It's not nonse

> This is nonsense. The consumptive, energy and material intensity of GDP, as well as GDP/capita, have varied greatly across time and countries. It's not nonsense. In overwhelming majority of cases GDP is tied to energy consumption. We have not yet learned how to decouple it. With renewables, there is faint hope, but the transition is slower than we would ideally like. It also remains to be seen what % can be decoupled by pure solar and wind (hydro is already tapped out, mostly). > Degrowth is an extremist dead end. If an environmental movement falls for it, it should be ignored. So is growth at any cost.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> So is growth at any cost Yes. It is. We deeply regulate growth in every economy.
ben_w 1y ago
> It also remains to be seen what % can be decoupled by pure solar and wind That's entirely dependent what % of the planet we feel like tiling in PV; wind is ultimately solar powered, and there's more places we can usefully put PV than wind anyway. Environmentalists will be Very Unhappy if we tile the Sahara with something as close to black as PV is; but that location alone (we have more deserts), using middling quality PV (20%, we have stuff more than twice that good), and the current global average capacity factor (13%, but it's a good latitude and could plausibly get 23%), would still be 11.8 times current global primary energy demand, which itself is 6-7 times current global electricity demand. > hydro is already tapped out As a source, yes; as storage, no. I only mention this because it's very easy to mix them up.