One positive is that solar (and probably other renewables too) prices are plummeting and are now the cheapest way to generate power - so in economic terms, I hope this trend continues and accelerates even more to the point where even fossil fuel addicts can't resist putting a solar panel on their roof.
In the UK and other European countries, I see every month we're breaking records on the percentage of power generated from renewables.
Meanwhile, the US is paying the German energy firm RWE $1.2 billion to stop a off shore wind farm that was already under construction. Total payouts are over $4 billion to _stop_ adding electricity supply.
> the UK is currently generating 30%+ of it's power from solar
But at midnight last night it was generating 0%.
It is a well known issue that renewables can never provide 100% of the grids requirements because of peaks and troughs, and inefficiencies of storage.
Everyone who states this idea that solar is the saviour never seems to mention the manufacturing chain which requires a TON of energy and chemical processing, and the waste when the panels are no longer efficient enough or past their useful life. Every house in the world suddenly having having solar panels and every ICE vehicle being replaced by electric will cost us untold amounts of physical resources, energy, and create massive amounts of regular waste which cannot be recycled, forever.
There needs to be a managed decline and long term transition which manages both manufacturing and waste pipeline effectively or the shift will just increase the climate change rate.
Im not saying we shouldnt be moving to renewables ASAP, but people need to realise its not as simple as chucking a solar panel on every roof.
It would've helped a ton but it's not like electricity generation is the only source of emissions. You can't run a car or a plane on nuclear power. You can technically run a cargo ship on nuclear power but that's also not gonna happen. Yet transport is the second largest source of emissions.
Batteries have only recently-ish gotten energy dense and cheap enough for electric cars to be competitive, completely different solutions are needed for long distance shipping by sea or air.
It's the same situation across many other sectors like agriculture, construction and waste management. Lots of things causing emissions that's not electricity generation.
As Romanians will tell you in August 2026, you can't run nuclear power stations without a cooling mechanism. In this case, it's Danube which is failing to offer that. Fusion is almost nowhere to be seen.
We wanted to exploit all natural resources to maximum extent using our science and tech without any regard to the side effects. The advantage is free. It helps our business. Business gains are human progress. Tech is wonderful. What are you talking about?
I’m a capitalist, but the only conclusion I can arrive at is that neo liberal capitalism makes it impossible to « do the right thing ». What we have is the logical result of the incentives at play
Actually private equity have been accumulating stakes quickly in renewables lately. Makes sense. Talk bad of a future tech to own most of the cake early for cheap...
I honestly don’t know and feel very conflicted about my own ideology. I recognize how broken it is at scale, but also value the personal autonomy, entrepreneurship, nonconformity capitalism promotes.
Though my version of capitalism isn’t the libertarian free market one, libertarianism will always evolve into oligarchy or something fascistic given enough time, it’s just baked into the incentives.
My personal ideology aligns with a managed capitalism, markets are created by an authority that ensures the incentives aligns with its overall goals. Mixed with very liberal social values.
I don’t know if that can survive overtime though. And that would very likely degenerate into something else when under stress.
As I said, I feel conflicted. But I appreciate the question
You're not going to do anything at all without money as a fungible exchange mechanism (a sometime measure of 'value'). Capitalists see value in things and try to generate that value. Yes, politicians and the rest of us have the job of regulating that process and sometime fail to do a good job. Do you know the right thing to do? I doubt it. You seriously do not see this as an immensely complicated issue? Finally please give chapter and verse for the 'dying'. Maybe compare the world of 2026 with that of 1900 and the quality of life for people in general and our concern for the life on this planet. Concern isn't action but it's a necessary prerequisite for it.
China is the only country that is seriously doing anything about anything. They've single handedly built more renewable energy capacity than every other country combined, they've pulled millions of diesel and gasoline cars off roads, reforested one of the world's biggest deserts, this year they've finally reduced coal usage, and next year the long awaited Tokamak is set to fire for the first time.
The US is busy sending warships across the planet to blow up oil refineries which will be rebuilt. It's not bad enough we are busy grinding sand, but we are actively making things worse.
You can't really have this both ways. Closing Hormuz and blowing up Iranian export facilities has been massively decarbonizing. Chinese solar exports are massively up because countries have had to find new energy sources.
The argument that small countries don't matter in the equation is silly.
There are ~200 countries, of course on average your country will be less than .5% of emissions. Thinking .5% is small enough to do nothing is exactly the kind of thinking that leads us to inaction.
So yeah, china and the US need to get their act together, but so does every other country.
Come on, don't throw out decades-old lazy arguments like that. Everyone with above room-temperature IQ understands the concept of energy use per capita, and also that most other developed and developing countries take climate change seriously and have been reducing or capping their emissions for years. What is the point of wagging your finger at a non-existent problem like this?
There's way more to climate change than fossil fuels: consuming less and changing diet.
A single cow alone requires lots of crop, water, and produces tons of methane (which is 200 times more dangerous than carbon dioxide).
Fishing is another earth destroying endeavor. A single boat, a single one, practicing bottom trawling is more dangerous to the environment than the emissions of tens of thousands of cars. In a single day it can have the same impact of deforestation on an area big as a montain.
Seriously, stop believing the fossil fuels gaslighting. They are indeed a problem, but the cause for climate change is all of our toxic habits and our incapacity to say "enough", take the bus or eath healthier (for us and the planet).
By far the biggest source of carbon emissions is coal. The others make an impact too, but if we're not addressing coal, there's almost no point addressing the others.
China currently emits a third of the entire C02 generation of the entire planet per year, you taking the bus is going to do nothing.
What we need to do is all stop buying next day delivered pieces of plastic produced in Chinese factories. Boycotting Temu and Amazon and shopping at your local stores is the one massive thing the average person can do to help the planet.
You're dragging heavy nets on the sea floor releasing heavy amounts of carbon dioxide and destroying ecosystems that are net contributors to decarbonization like seaweed, seagrass, etc. A single boat with a single net can do insane damage in a single day.
The problem is: when it comes to industrial food production, both fish and meat are insanely taxing on the environment.
But people, we, *don't want to accept that how they eat destroys the planet*
I can understand that. I already have many thoughts and problems, do I also have to feel guilty for what I consume and eat?
But it's the reality, and focusing on transport alone is the narrative that keeps accelerating how fast we kill the planet.
Not true. El Nino (increases CO2) and Albedo (long term - it's decreasing) are problematic issues in this area. If it's settled science why bother to even consider other factors? Doubtful if humanity would survive the catastrophe resulting from a global interdiction of the kind you suggest and we're not dense for understanding that. Greening of the planet (plants need carbon to grow) which has contributed $trillions to world productivity would also taper off. Moreover the related sulfate emissions actually mask warming - reductions in these emissions is related to some of the recent temperature increases. So you could likely get a temporary spike in warming. All that said, there are sensible routes to reducing human influence on the planet.
There is currently a multi-billion, if not trillion, dollar industry (advertising and marketing) that is convincing everyone to behave the opposite way, i.e. maximize consumption with no regard to negative externalities. If we simply curb them, or better yet, use those same mechanisms to propagate a more rational message, yes, that that's all we need to do.
Granted fossil fuels are much more ubiquitous than CFCs and comparatively more difficult to replace, but we have prior art for changing industrial practices in the interest of improving climate conditions.
That was an awful lot simpler, int aht we (or rather governments) just had to lean on a small number of manufacturers and tell them to find alternatives for CFCs in their products. Nobody was up in arms saying 'my hairspray isn't the same without CFCs' or whatever. I'll bet the majority of consumers never even noticed the difference.
We couldn't have stopped using fossil fuels heavily until nuclear power was widespread and implemented, around the late 70s or 80s.
We could have traditioned our grids off of fossil fuels but we also depend on them for fertilizer to feed the world and for transportation which, until very recently, didn't have a viable alternative.
From a western european perspective, I can think of only one country where misinformation appears to have been a relevant factor for climate policy. Sure, until the early 2000s or so, it was all a bit nonspecific and seemed expensive, but latest by the 2013 paris agreement with falling renewable prices everyone knew what the solutions were going to have to look like for at least electricity, heating, and intracontinental mobility. Surely there'll be other examples too, but the USA is also the only country that both sits among the top emitters and easily had the resources to address their share. I have a hard time believing that "nobody really knew for sure" is what'll go down in history books as the underlying cause for most countries' inaction
Most people agree on basic values. It's really not that big a stretch to appeal to such common values, seeing as rapid global warming would cause mass relocation, suffering, adaptation costs for those who can stay put, etc.
Considering how current world powers are heavily increasing military spending as well as the heavy rightward shift in many governments, I'm no longer convinced we'll do the right thing. It feels more and more like poor countries will be left to fend for themselves, so the "developed world" can plunder the remains to prop ourselves up just a bit longer.
One positive is that solar (and probably other renewables too) prices are plummeting and are now the cheapest way to generate power - so in economic terms, I hope this trend continues and accelerates even more to the point where even fossil fuel addicts can't resist putting a solar panel on their roof.
In the UK and other European countries, I see every month we're breaking records on the percentage of power generated from renewables.
Check out https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live - it shows the UK is currently generating 30%+ of it's power from solar, which is incredible.
Meanwhile, the US is paying the German energy firm RWE $1.2 billion to stop a off shore wind farm that was already under construction. Total payouts are over $4 billion to _stop_ adding electricity supply.
I hope it continues but I hope we make it too.
> the UK is currently generating 30%+ of it's power from solar
But at midnight last night it was generating 0%.
It is a well known issue that renewables can never provide 100% of the grids requirements because of peaks and troughs, and inefficiencies of storage.
Everyone who states this idea that solar is the saviour never seems to mention the manufacturing chain which requires a TON of energy and chemical processing, and the waste when the panels are no longer efficient enough or past their useful life. Every house in the world suddenly having having solar panels and every ICE vehicle being replaced by electric will cost us untold amounts of physical resources, energy, and create massive amounts of regular waste which cannot be recycled, forever.
There needs to be a managed decline and long term transition which manages both manufacturing and waste pipeline effectively or the shift will just increase the climate change rate.
Im not saying we shouldnt be moving to renewables ASAP, but people need to realise its not as simple as chucking a solar panel on every roof.
Would have been doable if we could have switched to nuclear, but no.
It would've helped a ton but it's not like electricity generation is the only source of emissions. You can't run a car or a plane on nuclear power. You can technically run a cargo ship on nuclear power but that's also not gonna happen. Yet transport is the second largest source of emissions.
Batteries have only recently-ish gotten energy dense and cheap enough for electric cars to be competitive, completely different solutions are needed for long distance shipping by sea or air.
It's the same situation across many other sectors like agriculture, construction and waste management. Lots of things causing emissions that's not electricity generation.
It would indeed have helped a ton. It's important to not let perfection be the enemy of good.
If we just wait around forever for a perfect solution to appear, then we'll simply be waiting around forever. That's not the path of progress.
2 replies →
As Romanians will tell you in August 2026, you can't run nuclear power stations without a cooling mechanism. In this case, it's Danube which is failing to offer that. Fusion is almost nowhere to be seen.
Nuclear plants are being switched off because the droughts.
We wanted to exploit all natural resources to maximum extent using our science and tech without any regard to the side effects. The advantage is free. It helps our business. Business gains are human progress. Tech is wonderful. What are you talking about?
Solar and nuclear are also tech.
I’m a capitalist, but the only conclusion I can arrive at is that neo liberal capitalism makes it impossible to « do the right thing ». What we have is the logical result of the incentives at play
Actually private equity have been accumulating stakes quickly in renewables lately. Makes sense. Talk bad of a future tech to own most of the cake early for cheap...
https://www.cfainstitute.org/insights/articles/private-equit...
I have come to the same conclusion, but let me ask you, how can you still be a capitalist having had that insight?
Why would you support a system that you recognize makes it impossible to do the right thing even as we're dying from its consequences?
You can't be a neo-liberal.
Despite what people keep repeating on the internet, capitalism is a very general idea, and growth at all costs is not a value from it exactly.
I honestly don’t know and feel very conflicted about my own ideology. I recognize how broken it is at scale, but also value the personal autonomy, entrepreneurship, nonconformity capitalism promotes.
Though my version of capitalism isn’t the libertarian free market one, libertarianism will always evolve into oligarchy or something fascistic given enough time, it’s just baked into the incentives.
My personal ideology aligns with a managed capitalism, markets are created by an authority that ensures the incentives aligns with its overall goals. Mixed with very liberal social values.
I don’t know if that can survive overtime though. And that would very likely degenerate into something else when under stress.
As I said, I feel conflicted. But I appreciate the question
7 replies →
You're not going to do anything at all without money as a fungible exchange mechanism (a sometime measure of 'value'). Capitalists see value in things and try to generate that value. Yes, politicians and the rest of us have the job of regulating that process and sometime fail to do a good job. Do you know the right thing to do? I doubt it. You seriously do not see this as an immensely complicated issue? Finally please give chapter and verse for the 'dying'. Maybe compare the world of 2026 with that of 1900 and the quality of life for people in general and our concern for the life on this planet. Concern isn't action but it's a necessary prerequisite for it.
7 replies →
[dead]
If only China and US could get their shit together....
China is the only country that is seriously doing anything about anything. They've single handedly built more renewable energy capacity than every other country combined, they've pulled millions of diesel and gasoline cars off roads, reforested one of the world's biggest deserts, this year they've finally reduced coal usage, and next year the long awaited Tokamak is set to fire for the first time.
The US is busy sending warships across the planet to blow up oil refineries which will be rebuilt. It's not bad enough we are busy grinding sand, but we are actively making things worse.
And with that they built the manufacturing engine that is supplying the rest of the world with renewable tech
To be fair, closing the straight of hormuz has probably put a dent in carbon emissions.
2 replies →
You can't really have this both ways. Closing Hormuz and blowing up Iranian export facilities has been massively decarbonizing. Chinese solar exports are massively up because countries have had to find new energy sources.
2 replies →
The argument that small countries don't matter in the equation is silly.
There are ~200 countries, of course on average your country will be less than .5% of emissions. Thinking .5% is small enough to do nothing is exactly the kind of thinking that leads us to inaction.
So yeah, china and the US need to get their act together, but so does every other country.
Come on, don't throw out decades-old lazy arguments like that. Everyone with above room-temperature IQ understands the concept of energy use per capita, and also that most other developed and developing countries take climate change seriously and have been reducing or capping their emissions for years. What is the point of wagging your finger at a non-existent problem like this?
https://apnews.com/article/wind-solar-energy-china-climate-c...
Republicans are the bad guys right now.
Always have been
Per capita CO2 emissions in the US are down about 36% from their 1973 peak (https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions).
So? It’s still multiples more than other places.
7 replies →
[dead]
There's way more to climate change than fossil fuels: consuming less and changing diet.
A single cow alone requires lots of crop, water, and produces tons of methane (which is 200 times more dangerous than carbon dioxide).
Fishing is another earth destroying endeavor. A single boat, a single one, practicing bottom trawling is more dangerous to the environment than the emissions of tens of thousands of cars. In a single day it can have the same impact of deforestation on an area big as a montain.
Seriously, stop believing the fossil fuels gaslighting. They are indeed a problem, but the cause for climate change is all of our toxic habits and our incapacity to say "enough", take the bus or eath healthier (for us and the planet).
By far the biggest source of carbon emissions is coal. The others make an impact too, but if we're not addressing coal, there's almost no point addressing the others.
China currently emits a third of the entire C02 generation of the entire planet per year, you taking the bus is going to do nothing.
What we need to do is all stop buying next day delivered pieces of plastic produced in Chinese factories. Boycotting Temu and Amazon and shopping at your local stores is the one massive thing the average person can do to help the planet.
What are fishing boats doing that could cause so much emissions in a single day?
You're dragging heavy nets on the sea floor releasing heavy amounts of carbon dioxide and destroying ecosystems that are net contributors to decarbonization like seaweed, seagrass, etc. A single boat with a single net can do insane damage in a single day.
The problem is: when it comes to industrial food production, both fish and meat are insanely taxing on the environment.
But people, we, *don't want to accept that how they eat destroys the planet*
I can understand that. I already have many thoughts and problems, do I also have to feel guilty for what I consume and eat?
But it's the reality, and focusing on transport alone is the narrative that keeps accelerating how fast we kill the planet.
3 replies →
Not true. El Nino (increases CO2) and Albedo (long term - it's decreasing) are problematic issues in this area. If it's settled science why bother to even consider other factors? Doubtful if humanity would survive the catastrophe resulting from a global interdiction of the kind you suggest and we're not dense for understanding that. Greening of the planet (plants need carbon to grow) which has contributed $trillions to world productivity would also taper off. Moreover the related sulfate emissions actually mask warming - reductions in these emissions is related to some of the recent temperature increases. So you could likely get a temporary spike in warming. All that said, there are sensible routes to reducing human influence on the planet.
Ah yes it could have been so easy: All we needed to do was convince everyone in the world to behave a certain way.
There is currently a multi-billion, if not trillion, dollar industry (advertising and marketing) that is convincing everyone to behave the opposite way, i.e. maximize consumption with no regard to negative externalities. If we simply curb them, or better yet, use those same mechanisms to propagate a more rational message, yes, that that's all we need to do.
Exactly, kinda like what we did with CFCs!
Granted fossil fuels are much more ubiquitous than CFCs and comparatively more difficult to replace, but we have prior art for changing industrial practices in the interest of improving climate conditions.
That was an awful lot simpler, int aht we (or rather governments) just had to lean on a small number of manufacturers and tell them to find alternatives for CFCs in their products. Nobody was up in arms saying 'my hairspray isn't the same without CFCs' or whatever. I'll bet the majority of consumers never even noticed the difference.
1 reply →
It really was very achievable, the main reason we didn't was we had a bunch of people spreading lies about it for 100 years or so.
We couldn't have stopped using fossil fuels heavily until nuclear power was widespread and implemented, around the late 70s or 80s.
We could have traditioned our grids off of fossil fuels but we also depend on them for fertilizer to feed the world and for transportation which, until very recently, didn't have a viable alternative.
11 replies →
From a western european perspective, I can think of only one country where misinformation appears to have been a relevant factor for climate policy. Sure, until the early 2000s or so, it was all a bit nonspecific and seemed expensive, but latest by the 2013 paris agreement with falling renewable prices everyone knew what the solutions were going to have to look like for at least electricity, heating, and intracontinental mobility. Surely there'll be other examples too, but the USA is also the only country that both sits among the top emitters and easily had the resources to address their share. I have a hard time believing that "nobody really knew for sure" is what'll go down in history books as the underlying cause for most countries' inaction
2 replies →
Most people agree on basic values. It's really not that big a stretch to appeal to such common values, seeing as rapid global warming would cause mass relocation, suffering, adaptation costs for those who can stay put, etc.
Considering how current world powers are heavily increasing military spending as well as the heavy rightward shift in many governments, I'm no longer convinced we'll do the right thing. It feels more and more like poor countries will be left to fend for themselves, so the "developed world" can plunder the remains to prop ourselves up just a bit longer.
> Most people agree on basic values
This isn't even true at a local level, let alone at the global scale.
5 replies →
individual people don't matter, they're peanuts. otoh the single biggest consumer of fossil fuels is the US DOD. and why is that, really?
One person's consumption doesn't matter, but multiply it by 8 billion and it does.
It's like being in a traffic jam and complaining about the other people in the traffic jam... Dude, you're one of them.
1 reply →
Is this actually true? That sounds suspicious. I’d love to see that data.
4 replies →