Thread by @homemadeguitars

I'm going to try this one more time.
This graphic.
All the lines are energy. All the boxes are sources or destinations.
If you increase any thing on the destination side, you have to increase something on the source side.
All the current destinations consume all the current src's

Manufacturing and installing renewable energy devices would be new activities or increased activities in the bottom to pink boxes, manufacturing and transportation.
The pink boxes would get larger. It would require more source energy to fill them.
Source energy is mostly emitting

For instance, burning one gallon of diesel fuel produces roughly 22.38 pounds of CO2.
I wonder if this process consumed any diesel fuel. 🤔

I am often told that we could reduce other uses of fossil fuels to "free up" the energy, fossil fuels, and emissions headroom to manufacture renewables without any of the pink boxes having to get any bigger.
We're not - and to do so would constitute, by definition, a recession -

But I will grant you that we could do that. We could shrink some of the pink boxes, which would shrink the required dark green, light green, black, and light blue boxes and stripes proportionally.
We could do that.
If we did it and *did not* replace that energy demand with making

A huge new renewable global energy overlay, we'd actually get ahead of this game.
Otherwise, nope. No reduction. Just permanent flows of fossil fuels and energy. If we gave up enough, drastically enough, we could build all the shit anybody can imagine, at our current emissions.

I've got a better idea. Let's shrink the pink boxes first, and then not inflate them back up.
That would be, unlike the other plan, a reduction in fossil fuel use.
But, you know. Whatever.