Productivity gains only come marginally from optimization. Most productivity gains are from bigger machines (that eat more energy than smaller ones).
80% of our energy is from carbon, we have to cut 4% of this every year starting last year to have a chance to barely stay below 2C.
This mean cutting what's feeding our machines by ~3% per year. So productivity losses. By cutting less productive sectors first we might manage that without entering recession for a few year, but even with that, thousands of people will be left over.
> without entering recession for a few year
Isn't the problem we can't keep growing when there's only finite resources?
We need to change our definition of what it means for the country/world to be improving.
Of course, you can in our universe for an estimated 1e38 years.
The point being that if there is a big enough supply of something that doesn't renew to last until the next breakthrough there is no problem. Never in the history of the human race has this failed.
Will oil last until we get fusion figured out? It seems to me pretty likely that's a yes.
Considering that commercial fusion is nowhere near us for the next ~100 years, we're in for a very bad time.
I've seen people point out that emissions haven't dropped much during lockdown but isn't that because manufacturing, mining, shipping, animal farming etc. and everything else that supports our personal unsustainable lifestyles would have largely been continuing as normal ready for things to restart?
E.g. maybe you're not going to launch a cruise ship during lockdown or go on a cruise, but cruise ships are still getting designed, ordered and built during lockdown.