[dotancohen]

> The predicted number is much closer to around 650 ppm, and that's assuming no change.

Though solar and other non-carbon energy sources are coming down in price, world energy needs are outpacing them. Out CO2 emissions are increasing, not decreasing. I doubt that we'll see 1000 ppm by the turn of the century, but if the "no change" projection is 650 ppm then by simple matter of inference, due to increasing CO2 output, we should be higher than that.

[stale2002]

What I am saying is, that we will get to the point where it literally doesn't matter if world energy demand is increasing or not.

Why? Because if solar power and others, continue to go down in price, as they are doing now, then solar ect will be cheaper than coal.

From a purely economic stand point, countries will eventually just stop burning coal, because the alternatives are just flat out cheaper, even when you ignore the costs of global warming.

That point in time, when alternatives are just straight up cheaper than coal, isn't too far away.

[dTal]

From a certain level of abstraction, if countries always did the economically rational thing, we wouldn't be in this mess at all. Building out solar capacity requires planning and foresightedness and political will. Hell, America could transition entirely to solar power for a fraction of the price of the Iraq war - in that sense, sustainable power is already cheaper than carbon-based, once you factor in the externalities of middle-eastern instability. If you factor in all the externalities - pollution, environmental destruction etc - then sustainable has been "cheaper" for a very long time.

The trouble is that countries are not purely rational, and do not factor in all externalities.

[jodrellblank]

Or maybe Solar will never be the environmental fix-everything that people hype it as - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak