@jackofalltrades @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green I would add that current measures of economic activity only imperfectly capture the externalities associated with pollution, so the GDP growth that you now see is partly the result of ignoring real costs of fossil pollution.

@jackofalltrades @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green Roberts, David. 2020. Air pollution is much worse than we thought: Ditching fossil fuels would pay for itself through clean air alone. Vox, 2020. [https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/8/12/21361498/climate-change-air-pollution-us-india-china-deaths]

@jackofalltrades @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green Finally, embedded emissions for manufactured products are almost always small compared to direct emissions from their use, even for products created in the current system.

@jackofalltrades @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green There are some embedded emissions from creating certain materials (e.g. aluminum, cement, steel) but in each case there are ways to produce these materials without those process emissions.

@jackofalltrades @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green No, H2 is problematic for many reasons. Even if generated from electrolysis, H2 itself is an indirect GHG.

In any case, the idea that embedded emissions are a transient phenomenon follows from that fact that almost all embedded emissions come from energy use, and in a zero emissions system, that energy use would have zero emissions.

@jackofalltrades @coffee2Di4 @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green People with houses and EVs powered by solar PVs + batteries is the simplest example. The embedded emissions are a transient phenomenon, once we’ve decarbonized supply chains that issue will be solved.

@coffee2Di4 @jackofalltrades @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green PS. Anyone talking about this issue needs to distinguish between absolute decoupling of ENERGY USE from economic activity and absolute decoupling of EMISSIONS from economic activity. Achieving the latter is much easier than the former, given the many ways to power modern tech with zero emissions, but people often conflate the two.

@coffee2Di4 @jackofalltrades @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green Efficiency wasn’t the sole reason for its ascendence, and probably wasn’t the most important reason, but the lesson most people take from this “effect” is that efficiency causes increases in energy use. That conclusion is almost always false.

@coffee2Di4 @jackofalltrades @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green These reasons included higher power densities, the ability to store energy, the ability to locate motive power flexibly within factories, the ability to operate underground. Steam engines were what is known as a general purpose technology, which had wide and deep applications across society.

@jackofalltrades @urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @ajsadauskas @green What we have to do is unprecedented, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. And your judgment about what is “plausible” isn’t evidence either. My point is that absolute decoupling is possible, we just need to do it. Most people use historical examples to argue that it can’t be done, which is invalid and wrong. Will it be hard? Absolutely. But it is possible.

@urlyman @FantasticalEconomics @jackofalltrades @ajsadauskas @green Remember also that absolute decoupling of energy from GDP is harder than absolute decoupling of emissions from GDP. There are many ways to supply energy services without increasing emissions.

@urlyman @ajsadauskas @green There are people who are skeptical about ABSOLUTE decoupling, which means they think relative decoupling will not be enough to meet climate goals or even to reduce absolute energy consumption. I personally think there’s no reason why absolute decoupling isn’t possible, but those arguing for this point of view point to history and find very few examples of it.