Jevon's Paradox is often misunderstood and is becoming an abused notion. In the context of the @pmarca interview, this misunderstanding is acceptable, but it is often misused by doomers and other well-intentioned, yet very misguided, climate extinction activists and its becoming the pillar of a very dangerous ideology. In the case of AI in movies, for example, CGI is not a consumptive primary resource. You're not using the same resource more efficiently; it's a tool that has enabled entirely new things, which inherently comes with higher costs for research, development, and production. There are market demands for these new things. This is a very benign abuse of the concept. A dangerous abuse of Jevon's Paradox is, for example, when people claim that using nuclear energy instead of coal won't solve anything because the increased efficiency in energy density will mean people will just build many more plants and use even more energy. The problem here is that the energy is not the primary resource, and the secondary resources associated with nuclear energy are not at all the waste product of coal consumption; they have very different impacts on the planet. Again, it's an entirely new thing. Jevon's Paradox can only be used to describe systems where: A) there is a primary finite resource that can be consumed B) you are dealing with efficiencies in consuming the same primary resource. Otherwise, nothing can be said about the secondary resource or byproduct.

Who do you think will be hated more in a decade, terrorists who lost everything that meant anything to them by environmental collapse or Just Stop Oil snowflakes? Today's innocent children won't forget tomorrow's consequences.

He is right about DACC, but wrong about everything else. Virtually all carbon capture is from industrial processes, if you are going to burn fossil fuels or produce cement, doing carbon capture and sequestration will result in a net reduction of CO2.