Hmm. You seem have missed the OP. Here’s the NYT headline:
It Isn’t Just the U.S. The Whole World Has Soured on Climate Politics.
DB2
Hmm, you seem to have not read it. The article speaks to a glut in leadership and effects of the pandemic related to higher interest rates. It does not speak to a newfound understanding of the effects of climate change.
Also from the article -
“It took almost 70 years from the invention of the solar cell, in 1954, for the world to install its first terawatt of solar power, in 2022. The second one came two years later. The third? Perhaps later this year. In 2024, renewables provided more than 40 percent of the world’s electricity, and twice as much money was invested in them than in fossil fuels — even though renewables offer, generally speaking, less return on investment. Ninety-three percent of new power worldwide came from clean sources, meaning that for every new unit of dirty capacity brought online in 2024, there were 24 units of the good, clean stuff. This is not yet enough to push global emissions downward. But in a battle between old energy and new, it represents an obliterating margin. As soon as next year, it is estimated, renewables will be the world’s largest source of electricity.”
Souring? Not really.
5 Likes
Some people are more quantity than quality.
Here’s how it goes:
- The climate’s not changing.
- The climate’s changing but it’s natural variability not human-caused.
- The climate’s change is human-caused but we can’t fix it, too hard or don’t know how.
- We can fix the human-caused climate change, but it’s too expensive.
- We can afford to fix the human-caused climate change, but China/India/Third World have way more people now so it’s their fault now.
- We can afford to fix the human-caused climate change, and we know a lot of it is our fault but we don’t want to because we have no moral imperative (“don’t want to”).
- All of the above.
We might have a case here of “All of the Above.”
6 Likes
My point was that what’s going on is global – as discussed in the OP article – while you were focused on the present US administration.
DB2
Global problems require global solutions. Global solutions require leaders.
I remember the good ol’ days when we were the leader of the free world. That’s not the case any longer.
2 Likes
Does anybody know how to share this bbc article?
1 Like
Here’s a link to the original Ember report:
H1-2025 global electricity generation:
Renewables 5072 TWh Fossil fuels 8373 TWh
It should be noted that solar plus wind supplied less than 10% of the world’s energy consumption.
DB2
And yet solar and wind growth exceeded energy growth for the first half of 2025 worldwide.
1 Like
That is a first. FWIW, note that your statement should read electrical energy growth.
Running to stay in place
DB2
You don’t - but I don’t think that’s the problem. We have pretty good empirical data about what measures would be necessary to keep temperature deltas below, say, 2.2 or 2.7 or 3.2 by 2100. There’s uncertainty, sure - and it’s not like we have an empirical analysis of every possible cost-outcome point in between. But as a general matter, we know what it would take (roughly) to keep temperature increases below certain limits.
We just don’t want to do it. Specifically, voters in the U.S. and Europe don’t want to impose whopping big taxes on themselves and send the money to China and India so that they’ll stop building coal and gas plants, and build more expensive renewable plants for base load instead. They either don’t want the taxes or they’d rather spend the proceeds on domestic programs.
Of course - these are examples merely to illustrate things that are impossible because of physics, that are impossible because of where our technological capabilities are, and that are impossible because of collective action problems. I think greens frequently ignore the fact that the latter category of things is just as impossible as the first.
Yes, but that’s not necessarily a knowledge gap. Most people in the U.S. responding to that poll are correct that climate change will not pose a serious threat in their own lifetime. The median age of people in the U.S. is just under 40; the median age of adults in the U.S. is probably somewhere between 45 and 50, with a life expectancy of only about 30 more years. Whether climate change poses a ”serious” threat during their own lifetime turns more on what people think is serious, whether they think the question is asking about a threat to them or someone else, etc.
The problem isn’t that people are in denial about the existence of climate change. Some are, but that’s not the hurdle. The problem is that people don’t want to pay a lot of money to get China and India to cut emissions. They’d rather either not pay the money (“low taxes!”) or they’d rather the money be used for something else (“higher taxes to fight poverty or provide universal health insurance or child care or cheaper housing or….!”). It’s much more enjoyable for green advocates to fight a war on denial, because that doesn’t require making any hard choices or changing the minds of people whose votes they actually need. But it’s the wrong fight.
2 Likes
I think you are painting a caricature of “the greens”. We may know collectively that we are now facing a 2.7C rise in climate by 2100 but too many of us either don’t understand the ramifications of that number or are in denial about the severity of the damage worldwide then, and thereafter when the gases continue to accumulate for centuries even if we find a way to stop. We will collectively continue to make multiple car trips daily and live in large homes and enjoy squandering the world’s resources because we are unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to stop. We are as addicted to our wealth as smokers are to nicotine.
Your son, or your son’s son will suffer because of our collective failure to make the hard choices. And it won’t be the fault of your straw man ‘greens.’
Now I have to stop breaking my promise to give you the last word
3 Likes
Or we’re aware of those ramifications and just think we’re better off not bearing the negative consequences today in order to avoid the negative consequences seven decades hence. Most people in the world are poor, earning less than $4K per year - and don’t have the luxury of worrying about what’s going to happen to their son’s sons since they’re desperately trying to keep their son fed, housed, clothed, and healthy. Most people in the developed world are not poor, but they’re not rich either, and have a financial and household situation that they would regard as precarious. Many people think society has a lot of immediate and pressing problems that are more important to solve, and need to be solved before addressing stuff that will happen seven decades from now.
Greens disagree with those value judgments - but they are value judgments, and they are more defensible judgment calls than the analogy to quitting smoking suggests. People aren’t necessarily ignorant of climate change, but instead are making the correct calls based on the value they assign to their current problems versus problems for other people in the far future. If green advocates want to change how people make those value determinations, that’s a much different campaign and argument than the one they’ve been making - at least in the U.S.
From Denmark in 2023…
This tiny island encapsulates Denmark’s success - and failure - at a clean energy transition
https://www.fastcompany.com/91000001/this-tiny-island-encapsulates-denmarks-success-and-failure-at-a-clean-energy-transition
Genuine communication would emphasize that Danes need to be willing to change their behavior to aid an energy transition, she said. This might mean eating less of certain meats, or paying more for certain products.
If this is a conversation that Denmark’s leaders aren’t yet ready to have, it raises the question of whether, and when, it can happen anywhere.
From New Zealand in 2024…
New Zealand to push through law to reverse ban on oil and gas exploration
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/new-zealand-push-through-law-reverse-ban-oil-gas-exploration-2024-08-26/
New Zealand said on Monday it would pass laws by the end of this year to reverse a ban on offshore oil and gas exploration, and take urgent steps to remove regulatory hurdles to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) amid energy shortages.
DB2
That is only partially true, but it will not make nuclear power plants cheaper than renewables or natural gas combined cycle power plants.
You quote 40-50 year old French information as a example that is not applicable any longer. Nuclear plants have changed, the regulations have changed, but costs have not come down. The best example is China - They are building more nuclear plants than any other country, but the are building 100 times more renewables (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass and more) and they are capturing excess renewable energy with batteries and pumped hydro. China knows that nuclear costs more in life cycle economic analysis, but they want to have about 10% base of nuclear. They do not want to be like France with 70% nuclear.
3 Likes
I can not find where you got these H1-2025 numbers. In 2024 Renewables were 9748 TWh and Fossil Fuels were 18,043 TWh.
Your numbers for HI-2025 show renewables/fossil as 5072/8372= 0.606
My numbers for 2024 shows renewables/fossil as 9748/18,043= 0.540
Which shows the huge gain in renewables generation over fossil generation in 2025.
And including total primary energy consumption in 2024 has nothing to do with electrical generation. Primary energy consumption is driven by oil consumption for transportation, coal consumption for steel and concrete, and some other non electric generation of fossil fuels.
3 Likes
They were from the Embers report linked to upthread.
However, they have a lot to do with greenhouse gas emission which is the name of the game.
DB2
3 Likes
You forgot a couple:
- Maybe climate change will be a net positive
- It’s all in God’s hands. If the climate is changing it is God’s plan
2 Likes
Yeah by the oil corporations.
2 Likes
How can they be building 100 times more renewables and have 10% nuclear?
Mike