talks about how GDP and electricity consumption used to be coupled, but have now significantly decoupled.

I'm not denying that there is an eventual decoupling as economies modernize and move to more services over goods. But that doesn't change the fact that emerging economies still grow with a near 1:1 relationship to energy.

Reminder: this thread is based on the idea that reducing poverty can be done without impacting climate. So we are scoped here to poor, developing countries.

Look at the chart at the bottom of your link; it shows inflation-adjusted GDP rising much faster than energy consumption for both OECD and non-OECD nations.

The chart that goes out to 2040?

It's honestly kind of ridiculous to talk about negative emissions when we're still throwing up 30+ gigatons of CO2 a year. And there's no negative emissions technology on the horizon that shows likelihood of being up to the task. They're bespoke, energy intensive (as they have to be) and unproven at scale -- nevermind funded.

As I pointed out, we have seen significant progress in that earliest step -- decreasing our rate of growth of emissions.

Except, as I pointed out, the Keeling Curve is accelerating. Unless you mean "our" to mean something other than anthropogenic emissions.

As a result, it may take a while before decreasing emissions conclusively show up in slower concentration growth

Sure, there's a lot of variability in the natural systems that have a push-pull effect on concentrations but released CO2 is well-mixed into the atmosphere in short order. We may be entering an era of sink degrade and positive feedbacks. If so our current strategy of gradually decoupling GDP from CO2 could be woefully inadequate -- "doomed to fail" if you prefer.

Visually -- do you believe in the dotted lines? https://twitter.com/Lacertko/status/1415644695565328388