4 ms·

So instead of sprinting off the cliff, we are now merely going to run off it. There's lot of wishful thinking in the idea that emissions can be decoupled from

by smackay 13y ago

So instead of sprinting off the cliff, we are now merely going to run off it. There's lot of wishful thinking in the idea that emissions can be decoupled from GDP - in the same way that we can all return to ever-increasing house prices to boost personal wealth, without creating bubbles. There has to be a huge increase in efficiency and a huge decrease in demand for just about everything to bring this under some degree of control. The latter is probably unthinkable for most politicians, economists and pundits. It is just possible we can innovate a way out of this but that's going to need a whole lot of change in the next 30 years - not impossible but not easy either.

mathattack 13y ago
I agree - what's required is a wholesale conversion to low-emission energy. That will impact GDP. I used to think we'd run out of coal and oil and then work our way around it, but I think that will be too late.
mcv 13y ago
While an increase in efficiency would definitely be nice, it's not a requirement for reducing emissions. If we manage to switch to emission-free energy (solar, nuclear, fusion, whatever), then the problem is basically solved. We could be as wasteful as we wanted without increasing CO2 emissions (though it may still have other costs of course). And we have the technology required for this. We just lack the political will. Of course going completely emission-free will still be hard, but if we could just get rid of all the big coal and oil burning plants, that would already make a huge difference. (Disclaimer: I'm no fan of Uranium fission, but it's still much better than coal. While I'd prefer to switch to something better than Uranium, a switch from coal to Uranium is still a vast improvement. If that switch is easier, faster and cheaper to make than a switch to something more durable, I'm all for it.)

by smackay 13y ago

mathattack 13y ago

I agree - what's required is a wholesale conversion to low-emission energy. That will impact GDP. I used to think we'd run out of coal and oil and then work our way around it, but I think that will be too late.

mcv 13y ago

While an increase in efficiency would definitely be nice, it's not a requirement for reducing emissions. If we manage to switch to emission-free energy (solar, nuclear, fusion, whatever), then the problem is basically solved. We could be as wasteful as we wanted without increasing CO2 emissions (though it may still have other costs of course). And we have the technology required for this. We just lack the political will. Of course going completely emission-free will still be hard, but if we could just get rid of all the big coal and oil burning plants, that would already make a huge difference. (Disclaimer: I'm no fan of Uranium fission, but it's still much better than coal. While I'd prefer to switch to something better than Uranium, a switch from coal to Uranium is still a vast improvement. If that switch is easier, faster and cheaper to make than a switch to something more durable, I'm all for it.)