| > GDP is related to fossil fuels Not in any consistent way. Not only does energy mix change over time (becoming less fossil-fuel heavy), so does energy intensity: US energy intensity (energy consumption per $ real GDP) was halved between 1983 and 2020. [0] [0] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48976 > and we are passing the global peaks. [citation needed] From the 1970s to about 2006, predictions of an oil production peak between 1999 and 2004 were common (yes, some of those were predictions the peak had already been passed), and predictions have moved out considerably since then (as have estimates of the likely post-peak curve shape.) > Fossil fuels will go down, and therefore the GDP will follow. US fossil fuel consumption has gone down since about 2006, GDP has not followed. > Either we will degrow by force (without having prepared anything, it will mean a lot of poverty and instability), or by choice (which hopefully will look more like sobriety than poverty). There is no reason to believe either is necessity. I know it gives people a feeling of superiority to cosplay being willing to face harsh realities that others aren't, but that's all it is—fantasy cosplay. |
Do you account for the fossil fuel consumption of everything that the US imports? Or does your own fantasy cosplay make you feel superior by thinking that the fossil fuel consumption of everything you import from China does not warm your climate?