British economy switched from relying on coal to relying on hydrocarbons, which when burned generate less carbon dioxide. Britain also learned to use energy more efficiently over time. But more recently a big factor has been the rise of renewable energy,
Britain didn't have to stop economic activity to lower emissions; it just swapped out coal for cleaner energy sources like wind, proving that technology can split production from pollution.
environmental protection is incompatible with economic growth.
If businesses can make money selling clean technology and services, why can't the economy keep growing without relying on pollution and burning resources?
Environmental experts I follow believe that it’s a very big deal, which, if successfully implemented, will greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It’s not quite as aggressive as the climate plans in Biden’s original Build Back Better legislation, but modelers estimate that it will accomplish about 80 percent of what B.B.B. was trying to do.
By using tax credits and subsidies, the IRA lowered the price for businesses and families to build and buy clean energy (like solar panels and EVs). By lowering these costs it encouraged billions in new investment, making green tech cheaper and driving down US carbon emissions.