Very good article, well done.

I too have been working on research which comes to similar conclusion, though I try to avoid standard “renewable” energy industry terminology, which sometimes seems almost contrived to blind by science, like any other subject involving money, especially finance and economics itself.

Studying pollution in terms of carbon has always struck me as something maybe similarly obstructive to useful analysis until your article here.

But the result you quoted showing a divergence between carbon emmission and gdp is particularly interesting.

Obviously it has been positively impacted by “green energy industry” perhaps going some way towards justifying such.

However, I still find it hard to understand why the term renewable was ever applied to energy, other than conclude it is a deliberate attempt to obscure how energy actually works, in order to continue making profitable business from it, beyond just digging it from Earth.

It seems much more useful to me to consider energy in terms of firsthand, and secondhand.

Firsthand is direct from source; the sun, and seconhand is via our planet, which got it firsthand from the sun.

When we put like that, we see the only solution is to convert all of our usage to firsthand.

Which invalidates a large sector of green energy industry.

This also aligns with the analysis of Kardashev, who classified civilisation in terms of how effectively a civilisation utilises the power of its local star, though he seems to have avoided stating clearly the meaning of stage zero, perhaps for reasons of preserving funding sources, which are almost always profit driven.

Which brings us to examining closely profit itself, and its relationship with energy consumption and pollution.

Profit, appears to bear a similarly intimate, and even more surprising relationship to energy consumption, than carbon consumption.

In fact, down that rabbit hole, we find the startling conclusion that profit appears to be the very process of secondhand energy consumption; it correlates directly, in real time, with the production of human debt.

Human debt appears to be actually an energy deficit to our planet.

There, we see the only way it can be paid back, is to replace the energy consumed secondhand, with firsthand energy.

In other words, all human energy consumption has to go solar.

We might think it is OK, we can carry on a little longer, converting over to solar is just fine, but it can wait until some time in the future.

But then we realise there is a further ongoing cost, in human lives.

And as the practice of profit naturally proceeds to take ever higher priority, the cost in human life increases, seemingly exponentially.

Now the final conclusion; we realise there is a war going on.

It is a fight to the death, the fight between a species, humanity, and an obviously deadly addiction; the addiction to profit.

We can see which side the media platforms are on, including even the current one, unfortunately, but perhaps things will change for the better.

I like to think so.