"Which means it cannot be used to undermine emissions data, GDP figures, or the existence of decoupling."

Oh good. Lucky I did make those claims then. Its rather hilarious. You admit I didn't say it and then tell me I shouldn't have said it.

"Show economies with sustained GDP growth and falling emissions without meaningful fuel switching,"

Define meaningful. Because no matter what evidence I show you'll assert it wasn't meaningful and adjust the meaning of meaningful to suit whatever assertions you care to make..

You’re still mischaracterising what was said, mhaze - ironically.

//Lucky I did make those claims then.//

No one said you made those claims. The point was about relevance, not attribution. If the battery discussion was off-topic, then it cannot be used to cast doubt on emissions data, GDP figures, or the existence of decoupling. That’s not telling you what you said; it’s explaining why that line of argument doesn’t advance your case. Those are different things.

//Define meaningful.//

Gladly.

"Meaningful" does not mean "zero renewables" or "no policy at all". It means that the factor in question is large enough to plausibly explain the observed emissions reduction.

In practical, testable terms, "meaningful" includes things like:

- A substantial shift in the electricity mix away from coal toward lower-emissions sources
- Electrification of end uses that materially reduces fossil fuel demand
- Policy or regulatory constraints that change investment or operating decisions
- Structural changes large enough to register in national energy and emissions accounts

By contrast, "not meaningful" would be marginal or incidental changes that are too small to explain sustained, economy-wide emissions declines.

This isn’t an adjustable standard. It’s the same evidentiary standard used in every serious energy or macroeconomic analysis: does the magnitude of the factor plausibly account for the outcome?

So the challenge stands, clearly defined:

- Show economies with sustained GDP growth and falling emissions where fossil-fuel efficiency alone, without substantial fuel switching, electrification, or policy constraint, plausibly explains the reduction.

- Or quantify how much of the observed decoupling is attributable to fossil efficiency, and show that renewables, fuel switching, and policy are secondary.

If you can do that, you’ll have made your case.

If not, complaining about "meaningful" is just another way of avoiding the burden you’ve set for yourself.

"you’ll have made your case."

I've already made my case.

You're just trying to find a form of words which will allow you to claim that what you don't want to be true isn't true. And you've failed.

As to the definition of "meaningful"... you failed the task badly. You see if I showed you actual stats you'd say that no matter the numbers, they weren't meaningful based on whatever criteria you then conjure up. Which is why I wanted it quantified. But all you did was substitute one wishy-washy term with a few others..."material", "substantial".

No matter what the numbers are, you'll assert they weren't substantial enough or material. Not playing.

mhaze,

Simply asserting "I've already made my case" doesn't make it so. What you've done is state a hypothesis without demonstrating it.

Your claim is not modest. You've argued that:

//The phenomena of falling emissions and rising economic output would have occurred … quite apart from … the take up of renewables.//

That is a causal counterfactual. Making it stick requires evidence, not repetition.

On "meaningful", you're now objecting to a problem you created yourself. You asked for quantification, then refused to engage once the criteria were explained. So let's remove all alleged wiggle room and be explicit.

Here is a clear, falsifiable standard:

If fossil-fuel efficiency is the primary driver of absolute decoupling, then you should be able to identify economies where:

1. GDP rose and territorial emissions fell over a sustained period, and
2. Fossil fuels remained dominant in electricity and final energy, and
3. Low-emissions generation (renewables + nuclear) grew by less than, say, 10 percentage points of electricity share over that period, and
4. There were no major climate or energy policies materially constraining emissions.

That is not "wishy-washy". It is concrete, measurable, and drawn directly from national energy and emissions accounts.

If you can produce multiple examples that meet those conditions, then yes - you'll have made your case.

If you can't, then what you've offered so far is not evidence but insistence, followed by a refusal to engage once the claim is pinned down tightly enough to be tested.

//Not playing//

Of course you won't. Not anymore, at least. Not now that you've been cornered and your tricks exposed.

The burden here is simple and unchanged:

either show that fossil-fuel efficiency alone plausibly explains observed absolute decoupling, or concede that renewables, fuel switching, electrification, and policy are doing non-trivial work.

Everything else is just noise around that unanswered question.

"Low-emissions generation (renewables + nuclear) grew by less than, say, 10 percentage points of electricity share over that period, "

Why 10%. See this is what I mean. You pick the criteria that suits your pre-judged wants and then demand that I live by those criteria.

In Australia emissions have fallen. A lot that that is due to renewables (at a monumental cost) but some is due to the uptake of more technologically advanced coal plants like the supercritical (HELE) coal plants which achieve up to 15% better efficiency than older subcritical plants, reducing Co2 per kWh, by a similar margin. Equally the uptake of gas, while still a fossil fuel, reduced overall emissions.

My original point was that "Whatismore, the efficient use of fossil fuels has improved over the past century such that each unit of GSP requires less energy input and therefore less emissions." You haven't laid a glove on that fact. And we both know why.

Why 10%, mhaze?

Because a threshold is required to test your causal claim. You demanded quantification, quantification requires a cut-off.

What you're doing instead is objecting to the existence of any standard that would allow the claim to be tested. If you prefer a different threshold, propose one. What you can't do is insist on quantification and then dismiss every quantified standard as "pre-judged".

//In Australia emissions have fallen… some is due to … HELE coal plants … Equally the uptake of gas …//

None of this is new, and it doesn't rescue your original claim.

Yes:

- HELE coal improves thermal efficiency
- Gas displaces higher-emissions coal
- Both reduce emissions intensity

But those are fuel-switching effects, not "efficiency alone". They're well-documented contributors alongside renewables and policy. You've described part of the standard decoupling explanation, not an alternative to it.

Australia is also a weak example for your argument, because emissions reductions here are recent and modest, electricity decarbonisation has been dominated by renewables growth, and HELE deployment is limited and insufficient to explain economy-wide trends.

You've narrowed from "this would have happened anyway" to "some fossil efficiency helps at the margin".

//My original point was that … each unit of GSP requires less energy input and therefore less emissions.//

No one disputes that. That's been true for over a century.

What you claimed (and still haven't supported) is that absolute decoupling would have occurred regardless of renewables, fuel switching, or policy.

But efficiency improvements alone did not prevent emissions rising with GDP for decades. The historical record is clear. Something additional changed.

//You haven't laid a glove on that fact.//

Because that fact was never in dispute. What's disputed is the leap from "efficiency improves" to "therefore renewables and policy don't matter".

You've retreated from a counterfactual claim about what would have happened anyway to a partial description of mechanisms everyone already accepts.

Until you can show sustained GDP growth with falling emissions explained primarily by fossil efficiency, without substantial low-emissions generation growth or policy pressure, restating efficiency gains doesn't change the conclusion - it just circles it.