> But if you take monetary considerations out of it, it's always better to stop emitting sooner rather than later.
No, it might or might not, depending on (a) the embodied emissions of creating the new product and (b) how soon it will be replaced by something even more efficient.
It's easiest to understand the importance of point (b) by going to extremes: Suppose that, every week, a new model of EV comes out that uses 99% as much energy as the previous year's model. If some nonzero proportion of electricity is generated from fossil fuels, then ignoring point (b) would imply that the rational thing to do would be to buy the new car each week, regardless of how much CO2 went into building it.
No, it might or might not, depending on (a) the embodied emissions of creating the new product and (b) how soon it will be replaced by something even more efficient.
It's easiest to understand the importance of point (b) by going to extremes: Suppose that, every week, a new model of EV comes out that uses 99% as much energy as the previous year's model. If some nonzero proportion of electricity is generated from fossil fuels, then ignoring point (b) would imply that the rational thing to do would be to buy the new car each week, regardless of how much CO2 went into building it.