Not even close.
You can look at this on the detailed level, or on the larger scale (
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...22184f27c35_story.html?utm_term=.59be0b881abe ) and the answer is always no.
Although - in favor of your argument, projections here are hard to make.
So what you do instead is, you make different projections. Here is one of them -
The most positive technological outcome you can dream of:
Key developments in our Positive Tech Scenario (2050)
• Fully electric car fleet, 65% of truck fleet and 10% (including hybrid) of shipping fleet
• Electricity dominant energy source in real estate and industrials
• Power demand increases from 20,000 TWh in 2017 to 52,000 TWh
• Wind and solar to account for 33% of power generation each, coal power (38% now) eliminated
• Other shifts: 10% of ships using LNG, 14% of aviation using biofuels
src:
https://www.ing.nl/media/ING_EBZ_technology-the-climate-saviour_tcm162-160146.pdf
Even in a scenario where we replace the entire car fleet with electric vehicles in the next 30 years, and have "electricity" be the dominant energy source for real estate and our main industries, and our power grids can keep up with the increasing power demands, and wind and solar account for 66% of power generation (never ever), and all coal based power generation is eliminated. And 10% of ships use liquified gas instead of crude, and 14% of aviation is using biofuels (whatever that means) - in the projection above, we are handily missing the 2030 climate conference target (imagine a child screaming into your ear "we've got to act NOW!"), and only just about reaching the 2050 climate target - on projection.
Now you've got to know two things. First - if your projections dont hit, it is a common practice to move the goal back a little further - which just raises uncertainty, but makes everyone think, that the goal is still attainable.
Second - the scenario above is never going to happen. It entirely glances over whats called "unintended feedback loops", meaning - if demand for oil sinks, it will get cheaper in price, so demand from other sectors rises, because its still there to be used - so we are talking about HEAVY state regulation at this point. (Carbon Tax, ...) and the projections that wind and solar would be able to generate 66% of increasing energy demands are - lets say "quite positive".
Basically, no one believes, that this is happening.
Which is where the abstinence and doomsday narratives come in, because we have to actually lower demand in society - to reach the goals we already said we want to reach (USA famously said fuck you instead). And thats the "how much less growth are you willing to take, and are you in for shaming your neighbors, into micromanaged - not drinking out of plastic bottles anymore" part that makes me climb up walls.
Because the negative feedback loops here are obvious as can be (*oh I so much reduced plastic use in my daily live - look at me instagram picture with a hemp bag from me vacation in bali*), and simply make me enraged - when I see them supposedly being championed. You are dealing with a "less is more" narrative, in a capitalistic society. Thats impossible. Before people actually change behavior where it hurts, they will make sure all the "voluntary changes" will be absorbed by the less affluent, who are already impacted most, by lower social mobility through less growth, and by high standards of living costs (also a direct result of low per capita income growth rates in relation to GDP). The entire thing is unjust as fuck. While marketing will tell you its "what you should strife to attain".
In the projections its then phrased as follows:
A rising middle class will increase demand for industrials products. Growth is lower than economic growth as the economy shifts from industrial products towards services..
Our Positive Tech Scenario allows for continued economic growth, absorbs increases in the global population and aspirational middle classes and relies less on nuclear energy to meet the climate goals.
First, f*ck services. (= "Millennials will never own a thing in their lives.")
Second, this tells you that an "aspirational middleclass" its whats actually subject of debate at the moment. ("How much can we shame them into consuming even less" by telling them they are doing it for their kids. In a no growth future, at least in Europe.)) because the techno optimist scenario is never going to happen as modeled (I'm sorry, but its not.), and allowing for a growing 'aspirational middle class' isnt set in stone.
So this is what your kids are on the street for. Because they heard something about nature and ponies, and have organized child entertainers making them jump.
I told you Cui bono wasnt fun to look at.
@
Psionic Roshambo:
