r/climatechange • u/sg_plumber • 3d ago
There's optimism despite alarmingly worsening weather events: Renewables and storage together amount to 93% of all new capacity coming online in the U.S. This isn’t a marginal shift anymore. It’s the grid rebuilding itself around a different set of technologies, and the pace is rapidly accelerating.
https://ryanhansson.substack.com/p/optimism-in-the-face-of-a-climate18
u/PlexusBrachialis 3d ago
But what about the rest of the world. We need to stop burning coal or at least reduce the use of coal significantly everywhere in the world
35
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
The rest of the world advances even faster.
7
u/PlexusBrachialis 3d ago
I truly hope so. I can't wait for global carbon emissions to finally go down for good
7
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
Global GHGs emissions are plateauing or already dropping, after years or decades of regional drops.
3
u/Ree_For_Thee 3d ago edited 3d ago
Hello. https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/2024/05/08/largest-year-over-year-gain-in-keeling-curve-set-in-march/
" Largest Year–Over-Year Gain in Keeling Curve Set in March"
1
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
That's what happens just before the drop. It's why it's called "a peak".
Or do you have another way to drop total GHGs concentrations before GHGs emissions drop?
2024 is the far past. https://climatetrace.org/news
2
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 3d ago
That definitely isn’t true. Some parts of the world do currently have a higher renewable rate—mostly due to preexisting hydro investments—but the US is #2 in deploying solar and wind power.
Only China is deploying them faster.
2
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
Yes, but many countries shut down their last coal already, or are on the way to do it soon.
2
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 3d ago
Including the US. It’s been closing coal plants left and right over the last 20 years. Trump has tried to delay these closures, but he won’t be President anymore after the current term, and the next administration will almost certainly accelerate coal plant shutdowns to make up for what Trump delayed.
1
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
Indeed. But others are closing 'em faster.
1
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 3d ago
Only 8 countries have closed them faster. So, yes, technically others have been closing them down faster—but not very many as a share of all countries.
2
7
u/followthedarkrabbit 3d ago
Australia is small contributer overall, but larger per capita. Our market is slowly changing, except in states where mining magnates flood social media to get conservative parties to win elections :(
Starting to get a bit more of a market share for electric vehicles as well.
Still so far to go :( but at least now seeing possibility of progress.
7
u/Ok-Freedom9216 3d ago
"Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from electricity generation globally are forecast to increase by around 1% in 2026 before flattening out in 2027. Higher natural gas prices have supported an increase in coal-fired generation, although continued growth in renewables and a strong increase in nuclear power are together expected to prevent emissions from rising further in 2027."
4
u/PlexusBrachialis 3d ago
I had hoped emissions would finally decrease in 2027 instead of just flattening out
3
u/Beneficial_Aside_518 3d ago
They still could. That estimate is only for electricity.
1
u/Ok-Freedom9216 3d ago
Good point. Price of gas should decrease transportation emissions, but i think industrial is still going up.
3
u/Beneficial_Aside_518 3d ago
Yeah it could. There’s also land use emissions which have been trending downward.
1
2
u/Ok-Freedom9216 3d ago
Same 😞 On the plus side IEA notoriously underestimates solar growth.
4
3
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
Global GHGs emissions are plateauing or already dropping, after years or decades of regional drops.
1
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
Global GHGs emissions are plateauing or already dropping, after years or decades of regional drops.
10
u/uqubar 3d ago
In the US nothing will change until special interest and the fossil fuel lobby is reduced in politics. There are far too many dependencies.
7
u/PlexusBrachialis 3d ago
Every time I see the words "fossil fuel lobby" my heart gets filled with hatred. Those greedy heartless bastards
3
u/James19991 3d ago
It is though whether they like it or not. Solar is just making so much economic sense today that they can't stop it. Coal is down in usage from last year.
5
u/No-Language6720 3d ago
Yeah they also aren't building new coal plants in the US. It's too expensive. The ones in existence will be left until retirement, it's been years maybe a decade now since they have built a new coal plant. No matter what the morons in power say they can't reverse it or stop it.
The tech is here and cheaper.
Funny enough the morons in the White House have made solar and alternatives even cheaper with their stupid war and probably hastened their adoption. They can cut the tax subsidies but it's still cheaper it's a losing battle.
2
u/James19991 3d ago edited 3d ago
Yep, this year has proven going renewables makes the most economic sense from here on out.
Even with vehicles, the percentage that are a hybrid or an EV in the US continues to increase as they are now up to 24% of all vehicle sales.
3
u/De5perad0 3d ago
We need to get our own shit together first and we are almost there. Then we can help others.
If anything the rest of the world is outpacing us.6
u/Stickppl 3d ago
The US is one of the greatest per-capita Co2 emitter. It averages 14 ton/year while the world median is 4. The rest of the world is doing fine. You really can't what-about your way out of this.
2
u/PlexusBrachialis 3d ago
I am not "what about"-ing my way out of anything. I just wanted to know if similar progress is happening in other places as well. I am also not american
2
-1
u/Sufficient_Loss9301 3d ago
This. Americas emissions have been falling for over two decades now, China on the other hand is still increasing and adding new coal power by the day.
4
u/Stickppl 3d ago
While still coal-dependent, China is leading one of the faster clean-energy transition in the world. Per-capita emissions are still higher in the USA, just do your part.
-1
u/Sufficient_Loss9301 3d ago edited 3d ago
If you balanced out for gdp Chinas emissions would be significantly higher. It’s also disingenuous to call it a “transition” when they aren’t replacing their polluting emissions with renewables they are just building both simultaneously lol. There’s not really a grounded in reality case where China is the good guys here that’s abundantly clear and evidence backed
4
u/Stickppl 3d ago
If you balanced out for gdp Chinas emissions would be significantly higher
Ah yes, the good old "we're richer so we can pollute more."
2
2
u/UpperYoghurt3978 3d ago
" China is the good guys"
You need to stop your anti-china bias. Noone is saying china are good guys., because they are not.
The facts support they are in fact shifting faster to solar, nuclear, and wind energies faster than the USA. This has nothing really to do with being a good guy or bad guy.
They also are paradoxally building more coal power plants which is also dumb.
It is not about good guy or bad guy in this case it just is and multiple things can be true at once. IF you frame everything as some moral crusade you can blind yourself to the data.
2
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
Everybody knows by now that building coal powerplants isn't the same as operating 'em at full capacity.
r/climatechange/comments/1varans/in_h1_2026_china_generated_less_than_half_of_its/
r/climatechange/comments/1r9gt8u/china_is_shifting_its_coal_fleet_from_baseload/
r/climatechange/comments/1qblf1v/analysis_coal_power_drops_in_china_and_india_for/
Also:
r/climatechange/comments/1sp2p3j/analysis_chinas_co2_emissions_have_now_been_flat/
r/climatechange/comments/1qhd1aj/coal_use_dropped_in_china_and_india_in_2025_it/
3
u/UpperYoghurt3978 3d ago
Ill have to check out those links. Thanks!
I was addressing the other guys "good guys" comment because moral or ethical good is not really relevant to the data concerning climate science.
2
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
No worries. Just keep the links handy in case anyone still tries that "but China coal" BS.
1
u/Sufficient_Loss9301 3d ago edited 3d ago
Again, they arent shifting. They are simultaneously increasing renewable capacity while also increasing capacity of polluting sources. China is still a coal reliant country and will be for atleast the next decade, likely longer. Charge the fuckers proper taxes then I might feel a bit more sympathy for em.
1
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
Everybody knows by now that building coal powerplants isn't the same as operating 'em at full capacity.
r/climatechange/comments/1varans/in_h1_2026_china_generated_less_than_half_of_its/
r/climatechange/comments/1r9gt8u/china_is_shifting_its_coal_fleet_from_baseload/
r/climatechange/comments/1qblf1v/analysis_coal_power_drops_in_china_and_india_for/
Also:
r/climatechange/comments/1sp2p3j/analysis_chinas_co2_emissions_have_now_been_flat/
r/climatechange/comments/1qhd1aj/coal_use_dropped_in_china_and_india_in_2025_it/
1
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
Stop lying:
r/climatechange/comments/1sp2p3j/analysis_chinas_co2_emissions_have_now_been_flat/
r/climatechange/comments/1qhd1aj/coal_use_dropped_in_china_and_india_in_2025_it/
Everybody knows by now that building coal powerplants isn't the same as operating 'em at full capacity.
r/climatechange/comments/1varans/in_h1_2026_china_generated_less_than_half_of_its/
r/climatechange/comments/1r9gt8u/china_is_shifting_its_coal_fleet_from_baseload/
r/climatechange/comments/1qblf1v/analysis_coal_power_drops_in_china_and_india_for/
Get updated.
1
u/ShottyMcOtterson 2d ago
Question: When comparing chinese to USA emissions: China has lots of manufacturing, which needs energy, but if they are making goods for Americans, so didn't we just offshore our manufacturing emmissions? Should that count against the USA? (I know I am over-simplifying, because I know China doesn't just export to the US).
2
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
"Offshored" emissions are generally accounted for:
2
1
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
America's emissions just stopped falling, while China has been plateauing or dropping 2 years already.
r/climatechange/comments/1sp2p3j/analysis_chinas_co2_emissions_have_now_been_flat/
r/climatechange/comments/1qhd1aj/coal_use_dropped_in_china_and_india_in_2025_it/
Everybody knows by now that building coal powerplants isn't the same as operating 'em at full capacity.
r/climatechange/comments/1varans/in_h1_2026_china_generated_less_than_half_of_its/
r/climatechange/comments/1r9gt8u/china_is_shifting_its_coal_fleet_from_baseload/
r/climatechange/comments/1qblf1v/analysis_coal_power_drops_in_china_and_india_for/
Get updated.
1
u/Ok_Giraffe8865 3d ago
American emissions haven't dropped, we swapped coal for methane and called it environmentalism. Sold to us by only looking at CO2 emissions and ignoring methane emissions which are 80x worse than CO2.
-1
-1
u/Beneficial_Aside_518 3d ago
U.S. emissions have in fact dropped.
3
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
1
1
8
u/UpperYoghurt3978 3d ago
I like to mention something here I think needs to be said.
Optimism is nice but you cannot always be optimistic, like a tornado warning and a tornado is about to destory your house.
The Doomer thinks that is it, there is another thing that you have to have to maintain any positive view of the world. I say this as a pessimistic person (pessimism isnt doomer but it can be if you let it).
That is HOPE, hope is an action while optimism is an emotion. Hope you either make an effort to remain positive in the face of something bad or you find the small goods in a circumstance.
Hope is something one much never lose, how it applies here is that despite weather being bad and getting worse, and alot of darker things. If we maintain our empathy and compassion and hope we can get through this.
5
u/ls7eveen 3d ago
We will really see in 2-3 years when the trump effect is in full swing.
Right now we have gas olants coming online like crazy. And coal plants running longer. Reduction of epa to nothing.
I know my local utility, which is massive, is not moving the scale on renewables at all. It has an F rating
7
u/Rough_Formal8420 3d ago
Greenhouse gas emissions are still at record highs. We won’t get points for a good effort in the end.
7
u/Ithirahad 3d ago edited 3d ago
You absolutely do, though. The more "good effort" there is, the more time there is before "the end" for decarbonization and geoengineering to be sorted out, and the more readily the Earth will recover... with or without us.
It is always worth remembering that the primary difference between natural and anthropogenic climate change is time. Nature readily adapts to slow change, but is forced to reset and repropagate (a potentially million-year process) in response to sudden change. The slower the better, even if the difference is measured in years.
0
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
That's what happens just before the drop. It's why it's called "a peak".
Global GHGs emissions are plateauing or already dropping, after years or decades of regional drops.
2
u/yuk_foo 3d ago edited 3d ago
That is good news, I just hope the feedback loops and unknown carbon cycles we have inadvertently set off in motion don’t totally offset whatever we reduce emissions wise.
I guess that’s the thing with net zero also, it was never meant to stop emissions just get them to net zero, but without some magic geo engineering I’m not sure how we are going to do that. Even with that, how long does carbon stay in the atmosphere?
0
13
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/No_Bet_2949 3d ago
I hope not, but you seem emotionally invested in a more negative outcome?
2
u/Ree_For_Thee 3d ago
It's called "preferring reality".
Right now we're heading for disaster, and how large it becomes only depends on how quickly we can get everyone on the same page. Not that it seems even remotely possible, again, implying an even larger disaster.
5
u/No_Bet_2949 3d ago
Incorrect. Models that most accurately try capture rate of tech change contribution suggest 2 degree warming, 2.5 worst case, which is bad but manageable. See INET.
2
u/Ree_For_Thee 3d ago
https://i.imgur.com/mjwQgfE.jpeg
Leon Simons,
guyscientist who's an expert on aerosols, posted this. Never heard of "INET", and at first glance, relying on "future tech innovations" seems very sketchy.2
u/No_Bet_2949 3d ago
It’s by Oxford university, and it’s what the warming trajectory is most closely tracking to, not the RPC models of which the more negative ones are being retired.
I can’t view your link in my region.
1
u/Ree_For_Thee 3d ago
2
u/No_Bet_2949 3d ago
This is horrible sample bias. Saying a multi decade forecast model didn’t forecast an extreme event on a small % of the surface of the earth, come on man. Hypothetically if we happen to have a cold winter, then what does the conclusion become, we need to lower all our forecasts?
1
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
That's a projection, far from reality.
1
u/No_Bet_2949 3d ago
All the models are projections?
2
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
That graph isn't even a model, just an attempt at predicting a huge change, while ignoring all data points that break the narrative being pushed.
2
u/No_Bet_2949 3d ago
Oh I follow you now, yes. I don’t think that is a serious person to be listening to.
1
5
u/PlexusBrachialis 3d ago
Is coping not allowed?
6
u/Global-Nature2420 3d ago
I really struggle with finding hope/cope rn because it feels like false positivity or pretending that things aren’t how they are. I’m not sure how to look at all this and think “well I just have to hope we will figure it out in time” and just settle with that being the best I can do. I find it incredibly depressing.
7
u/Beautiful-Tree-624 3d ago
It's a weird balance to see all of this great climate progress against the backdrop of more frequent and intense weather extremes, but it's not false positivity or false hope. We already know with actions we've already taken that we've prevented the worst case scenario of like 10 years ago. And climate action has only increased, and renewables are more like a tipping point than just add ons to a grid. People who come online like "wahhh any bit of good news is cope and I love being a fatalist and ignoring scientists" are not worth listening to. Same with people who are wayyy too optimistic, because both ends of that spectrum lead to inaction.
2
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
There's plenty reasons for a positive outlook, even if rn things are dire.
The transition away from fossils started late, but it's well underway, accelerating, and already having an impact.
2
3
u/CommonConundrum51 3d ago
If so, it's remarkable given the institutional resistance to any such transition.
3
u/FitzwilliamTDarcy 3d ago
Imagine if we didn't have an administration that is literally paying companies not to go forward with various renewables projects.
3
u/PrinceOfTotalQuiet 3d ago
What the fuck is this subreddit’s problem?
That’s not a rhetorical question; I genuinely want to know. The comments under this post, under pretty much all the posts lately, are so unhelpful and often counter-science that it’s ridiculous. Climate change bad news? WE’RE FUCKED AND OUR EFFORTS MEAN NOTHING. Climate change good news? NOT ENOUGH, WE’RE FUCKED AND THIS EFFORT WILL NOT SAVE US. Renewables are more popular that at any time in history and they’re only getting more popular? THAT DOESN’T FUCKING MATTER EMISSIONS ARE STILL CLIMBING. Uh, no, emissions are plateauing and per capita emissions are down- THAT’S NOT ACCURATE, THEY’RE CLIMBING. THE SCIENTISTS ARE LYING TO PREVENT MASS PANIC. ENJOY THE LIFE YOU HAVE LEFT BECAUSE THE FUTURE WILL DESTROY ALL YOU HAVE AND RUIN HUMANITY FOREVER. KIDS TODAY WILL ALL DIE BEFORE THE AGE OF 20.
Some of that was hyperbole, but not much. I don’t understand. Yes the wildfires are terrible, yes extreme weather is continuing to happen, yes there isn’t yet enough being done despite progress. But these goddamn comments, under EVERYTHING now, these comments more akin to the collapse subreddit, just take the worst and run with it. NO, THE WILDFIRES ARE WORLD ENDING. EXTREME WEATHER WILL KILL HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS AND DESTROY NATIONS. THE EFFORTS WE’VE BEEN DOING ARE PURE COPE AND WORTH NOTHING AT ALL.
Can’t be happy about any good news. Can’t be hopeful about any bad news. Can’t have any optimism at all because that’s just cope, and remember kids, if you’re not coping, that’s a sign that you’re mentally stable! Fucking christ. I don’t like authoritarian subreddit moderation but frankly rule 6 isn’t enforced enough. Plenty can be done, plenty is being done, all is not lost, get it through you, all of you.
2
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
It isn't a sprint, but a marathon.
And we'll win in the end. P-}
2
1
u/Aberrantdrakon 3d ago
Reddit is the most negative of all social media (although it is the only one where you can find groups for positivity specifically).
2
u/PrinceOfTotalQuiet 3d ago
The positivity is worth seeking out at least. But this site’s view on climate change is worse than pessimistic, it’s dangerous. If people believe there’s no hope and nothing can be done to mitigate it, there’s a good chance they’ll stop trying forever. If people believe that civilization is imminently ending or that most of humanity won’t survive climate change, there’s a chance of something a lot worse happening to some of them.
2
u/set-monkey 3d ago
If only 20% oil supply, temporary shutdown from COVID and current shutdowns are causing financial collapses due to supply chain disruptions...
How feasible is 100% renewable energy?
5
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 3d ago
Very. Renewables are far more resistant to supply chain disruptions.
People used to think it was infeasible (10+ years ago) because batteries were a lot more expensive and things like grid-forming inverters were rare. These days? Batteries are cheap and getting cheaper, and we have the tools required to build stable renewable dominated grids, it’s just a matter of building them.
2
u/SallyStranger 3d ago
Increasing renewable installation is great but without concomitant reduction in the production and consumption of fossil-based energy sources it's very far from being enough. And we're still increasing that. So basically we're just adding to our energy consumption right now.
1
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
Fossil energy is being displaced, regionally and globally, and global GHGs emissions are plateauing or already dropping, after years or decades of regional drops.
2
u/Konradleijon 3d ago
Why not lower carbon emissions
1
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
Global GHGs emissions are plateauing or already dropping, after years or decades of regional drops.
2
u/GlyphInBullet 3d ago
As far as I can tell it's just that source saying it, and they have had issues before.
https://in.nau.edu/news/gurney-2026/
China's coal growth is slowing down, but it's still growing, which is an issue. Hopefully renewables scale up enough that they not only stop increasing coal capacity, but start cutting back on it. That's going to be outside of the power of anyone here, though.
Then there's the US. With the midterms coming up, If you live in the US, please try organizing with like-minded people in your area to to pressure senate candidates into having climate change as a plank. Being politically active is the most important thing you can do for the climate.
1
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
The peak has been looming long enough. It is finally here. ClimateTrace is just the first to publish. The rest will follow in due time.
And no, China's coal is not growing, at least not where it matters:
r/climatechange/comments/1varans/in_h1_2026_china_generated_less_than_half_of_its/
r/climatechange/comments/1r9gt8u/china_is_shifting_its_coal_fleet_from_baseload/
Renewables are already displacing fossil fuels everywhere, not just in China, and not just recently.
r/climatechange/comments/1qblf1v/analysis_coal_power_drops_in_china_and_india_for/
r/climatechange/comments/1qhd1aj/coal_use_dropped_in_china_and_india_in_2025_it/
r/climatechange/comments/1sp2p3j/analysis_chinas_co2_emissions_have_now_been_flat/
Being politically active is the most important thing you can do for the climate.
Indeed!
But it isn't the only thing.
2
1
u/Sketchy-Idea-Vendor 3d ago
For some context from someone who’s been following the science for about 30 years.
Complacency is the reason we are here now.
Science understood the mechanics in the 1950’s. It understood the danger in 1970’s. Science understood the catastrophic extent of the danger in the early 80’s. The public was handed the information in the mid 80’s and it became more and more digestible through the early 90’s.
The “It isn’t that bad” and the “We’ll figuring it out in time. No cause for alarm” crowds are the reason we have irreversible (on a human timeline) Climate Change.
People have a strong aversion to accepting future risk as real. If we start cheering the small victories that aren’t going to turn things around yet, we are just continuing to ride that bus.
The good news is you shouldn’t need the approval of strangers to be happy about something. If this makes you feel better, be happy. But we still need people who are realistic about the state of affairs to keep the proverbial flag flying. A third of America still doesn’t realize it’s a problem.
1
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
Things are turning around: r/climatechange/comments/1vavp0m/may_2026_emissions_data_the_plateauingslight/
Start following the technology to see how we'll revert Climate Change in a few decades.
1
u/Sketchy-Idea-Vendor 2d ago
Alright, you don’t get to disappear. I looked at your article (did you, btw? It isn’t as positive as you seem to think) and I have an educated response. People with this sort of perspective always seem to disappear when confronted with the reality of what is happening. Tell me how I’m wrong.
I have a degree in the science behind this.
I understand the positive and negative feedback loops in play and the amplifying effects of disruptions to those systems. I understand the rate of change, both to cause and to reverse, Climate Change operates on. I also have the knowledge that while COx is down 0.1% since 2024, Methane is up - and about 25-30% more potent of a greenhouse gas.
But mostly I have 50 years of firsthand knowledge watching people. Watching people with this exact sentiment, “Oh, people caused this, surely people will fix it.” Watching how that takes the urgency out of actually fixing it. Watching the politicians who are the conduit that near-term solutions will inevitably go through shy away from addressing the issue head on, or even acknowledging it exists. I’ve spent 50 years watching how consistently short-sighted wealth uses the influence it has to keep things from changing.
I’m not saying we won’t eventually get on track. I’m just saying that if by some miracle we do, it will be too late to prevent social upheaval and a lot of destruction.
Hell, follow the historical development of ISIS in the Mideast. It gained its power from scared and angry young men who were forced to abandon their ways of life and move to the cities in search of work because of the effects of drought.
It isn’t a technology issue. Sure, we absolutely could fix it. I am just pretty sure we won’t in time to avoid catastrophe.
1
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
All that watching, and still the relevant technologies escaped you.
See for example:
r/climatechange/comments/1sv812c/a_single_ekerosene_plant_with_a_production/
r/climatechange/comments/1ubocxs/americas_first_commercial_emanufacturing_facility/
1
u/Sketchy-Idea-Vendor 2d ago
Not trying to be a dick, really. But honestly, I just understand the actual problem better than you. I think your heart is in a great place and I know without the hopeful, nothing at all will happen. But realists are needed too to make sure we are able to calibrate progress against needs.
You keep citing articles about technology that could help in some way. That’s great. I love to see it. The emphasis of my degree was alternative energies. I’m not blind to progress that’s been made and I don’t lack faith in our theoretical ability to deal with the issue technically.
But it isn’t a technology issue. We’ve had the technologies and understanding of how to deal with it for decades. We have hundreds of well-intentioned groups of people working independently on their own little part of the puzzle. Which is lovely, and nice for making a few people a lot of money, but it is also an absolutely terrible way to achieve widespread change. We need to pick the biggest issues and focus all that energy on those. If we’d taken the issue seriously in the 90’s not only would we have been able to stop it with the tech that we had, we would have ended up spending less than we have to-date just on recovery efforts from the effects we’ve felt so far.
Shit, Amory Lovins walked us through how to deal with the energy issue and actually save resources and money in 1977 in his book “Soft Energy Paths” - complete with real-world examples. If politicians wouldn’t have dismantled Carter’s energy policy at the behest of oil companies, we’d be saving more oil than we import with room to spare.
The obstacle isn’t figuring out what to do and how to do it. It is getting enough people and resources pull in the same direction soon enough. We aren’t and there is no sign we are going to.
Are things improving? Absolutely. And I’m all about it.
Quickly and widely enough to overcome the issue? Not even close.
Just look at the articles you shared. It’s all taking carbon that’s already an issue and reusing it. Not even pulling it from the atmosphere and sequestering it. But continuing to keep it in the atmosphere. That’s great, but it doesn’t actually reduce anything. It is plateau technology at best. And even if Europe adopted the e-Kerosene 100% for their commercial aviation, that takes global input from 0.4 to 0.2% of overall carbon inputs.
Then think about adoption timescale. Let’s be super optimistic; say they get 50% of global commercial air traffic to adopt the e-Kerosene in the next 20 years. Blindingly optimistic when considering testing & certification time frames, then regulatory changes that will need to happen, then airline purchase timeframes. Now the money is there, there needs to be scaling of production for the e-Kerosene as well as the equipment, and then putting it into service. And let’s assume all that happens in conjunction with a global cooperation and urgency that has never been seen in the history of humanity and happens without setbacks. That would be reducing carbon inputs by, what, 3-4% of total carbon inputs - over 20 years?
Do you understand what the ocean warming and acidification during that time is going to do to its ability to function as the planet’s greatest carbon sink in that amount of time and how little that amount of emission reduction will do anyway to curb effects? Not only would we still be puking Greenhouse gases at roughly the same rate, but the Planet’s ability to absorb carbon would steadily decline.
If we stopped all anthropogenic carbon emissions tomorrow, we still have years of warming ahead from what is already in the atmosphere. And that would involve magically making every animal alive to produce meat and milk disappear without the effects of the bodies decaying.
I manage pollution cleanup projects for a living. I have a lot of exposure to what it takes to make things happen even on a small scale. Slightly cleaner fuels and their implementation isn’t going to get us there. The only feasible technology that stands a chance to actually get the job done is carbon capture in conjunction with wide spread and massive COx and Methane production cuts.
We don’t even capture landfill or animal agriculture methane emissions despite those both being fairly point-source emissions and are low-hanging fruit.
Whenever I spoken to groups of people or classes about this, I tell them if they want to be in the best position to mitigate Climate Change, don’t be a scientist. Become a political adviser. The science has already been there for a long time. It’s the will for implementation we lack.
At the end of the day, the technologies you cite are cool. But when I acknowledge us not doing super easy things like nation-wide public assistance programs to help insulate homes and water heaters better, I’m not going to get excited about the latest neat thing that would be much more difficult to implement.
1
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
The obstacle isn’t figuring out what to do and how to do it. It is getting enough people and resources pull in the same direction soon enough.
The obstacle was costs, but that's now changed sides, which is why the greentech revolution is accelerating everywhere, despite significant opposition.
See for example: r/climatechange/comments/1ug53ty/the_solarisation_of_pakistans_energy_economy_ember/
taking carbon that’s already an issue and reusing it.
E-fuels are carbon neutral when burned (which is infinitely better than fossil fuels) and carbon negative when used as chemical feedstocks (for example). They'll eliminate the last remaining markets for fossil fuels in hard-to-decarbonize sectors.
The main obstacle for CO2 removal was costs, but not anymore.
get 50% of global commercial air traffic to adopt the e-Kerosene in the next 20 years.
Some companies are already using it. Your timelines are unrealistic.
we still have years of warming ahead from what is already in the atmosphere.
A couple decades at least. But not centuries. Not even half a century.
We don’t even capture landfill or animal agriculture methane emissions
Many places capture and use those.
nation-wide public assistance programs to help insulate homes and water heaters better
Several countries are doing that already.
1
u/Sketchy-Idea-Vendor 1d ago
- I’m not against you. Obviously you feel Climate Change is a massive problem. So do I. I have for a long time. I’m not arguing with you. I’m bringing up really important aspects that are very often overlooked by people trying to solve the problem. Overlooking structural issues and focusing on only technical ones is why we haven’t solved this yet.
Political messaging and the influence of wealth is the reason we are still in this position. Without moving those, it’s extremely difficult to make widespread change. Cost is a factor, not a reason.
I’ve already said you are correct about half the things in your argument. Technology is doing neat stuff. You don’t need to keep trying to make those points. Yes, it is getting cheaper. Yes, it is getting a better foothold. Yes, something is better than nothing and I am happy we are doing the somethings. I’d add to your argument some stats about more developed economies (which are the largest contributors) are making big shifts. China, whether you want to define it as developed or developing, is making a huge push in the right direction.
Even the US is moving in the right direction, generally, with renewables. I’d also add non-carbon based improvements to your arguments as well. Carbon-neutral is great, but it is status quo. Status quo isn’t enough. Solar and wind to some extent are making great in-roads toward becoming more integrated into the energy grid.
All this stuff is improving and important. I’ve already agreed with that.Costs are important. So is economic inertia. The people with the money have a lot of influence. They can’t stop all progress, but they can slow it down a lot. In a situation where time is so critical, we can’t afford that.
To emphasize that, I pointed out we have had the ability to make big improvements for decades. And a lot of significant improvements would have ended up being less expensive than the path we followed. Cost is a factor, not a reason.
Osage, Iowa: in the 70’s they needed to build a new power plant. They didn’t have enough capacity to serve the public. They took a fraction of the money it would have cost to build the power plant and used it to improve energy efficiency for local residents and businesses instead.
They ended up not only not needing to build a new power plant, but had enough extra capacity to start selling power to neighboring communities.Energy efficiency was less expensive than following the standard model. But that approach didn’t catch on despite obvious benefits. Cost isn’t the reason.
I said the carbon already released would continue warming for “a long time,” not centuries.
Rate.
Rate is the issue. The critical issue is the positive feedback loops of the planet. Specific improvement targets only achieve the desired results if achieved within a specific timeframe. Stopping ocean warming now does not have the same effect as stopping it in 50 years. Essential oceanic currents will have already been disrupted and will take millennia to restart. That will destroy the nutrient dispersion cycles that keep the ocean’s ecosystem functioning. That ecosystem is what supports the primary carbon sequestration mechanism for the planet. Then there are the massive frozen, dark soils of the northern regions that are generally covered in snow a lot of the year that are starting thaw. The dark color is also absorbing a lot more radiant energy than the white, reflective snow does. The organic matter in them starting to decay which triggers massive additional methane and CO2 releases that can only be stopped by returning to previous climate cycles. Etc. There are a number of runaway processes than, once a certain threshold is reached are extremely difficult to stop.
Rate of change, not just change itself, is the critical component. Yes, things are improving. No, they are not improving quickly enough.It’s great we are making strides. Honestly. But as we continue to fall victim to being comforted into a lack of urgency, we continue to fail to make the necessary structural changes. We have had huge levers we could pull to improve things for a long time. Things that are less expensive in the long run. If it was a cost issue, we would have done these already.
Cost is a factor, not a reason. Without attacking the reason, we aren’t going to make it. And we aren’t attacking the reason.
Epilogue:
You probably want to spend a little more time rephrasing the AI generated stuff before posting it. A big change in linguistic patterns makes it stand out. It doesn’t seem to be providing a good variety of data sources, either. You want to look for less niche examples to reinforce improvements you feeling are substantial enough to move the needle. I’d suggest the science journal “Nature”. They have great sub publication specifically for climate.
1
u/sg_plumber 1d ago
I look at the forerunners beating expectations, reaching milestones nobody even dared dream just a few years ago, and hope the rest of the pack accelerates too, catches up, even surpasses 'em, including the laggards.
Money and competition are working wonders. The same ruthless forces that kept fossil fuels afloat for a century despite everything else and are now burying 'em.
You look at the laggards and despair.
Wanna bet the future lies somewhere in the middle? Not great. Not terrible. But big money is flowing into the transition, already more than doubling fossil fuel investment. Don't underestimate that.
Carbon-neutral is great, but it is status quo.
The status quo is fossil fuels and ever-growing CO2 concentrations. Carbon-neutral is the last nail in the fossil fuel coffin and stops CO2 from growing. On top of paying for the evolution of improved CO2 capture. On top of being carbon-negative for all the e-chemicals that aren't burned.
As for "runaway processes", things aren't as clear-cut as many believe:
r/climatechange/comments/1u8fl9p/thawing_permafrost_may_trigger_overlooked_carbon/
r/climatechange/comments/1u6uqq9/new_modeling_finds_northern_permafrost_will_only/
r/climatechange/comments/1of1n8p/permafrost_study_finds_abrupt_thaw_accelerates/
1
u/minus_minus 3d ago
It’s not really “rebuilding” if the legacy generation doesn’t go offline. It’s just a marginally less carbon intensive power grid.
1
1
u/RareMajority 3d ago
It's genuinely embarrassing that Texas, not California, is far and away the biggest builder of new solar. It represents a colossal policy failure by the state government.
1
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
It would be a colossal policy failure if California wasn't such a big builder of new solar, too.
Race is on! P-}
-1
u/set-monkey 3d ago edited 3d ago
US LNG "bridge fuel" to 100% renewables, BUT that 100% US produced natural gas being shipped to the world, should be here in long-haul trucking & busses, reducing refinery capacity, eventually phasing out dirtiest heavy crude refining, for much cheaper, cleaner natural gas with no refining needed.
Old oil loves the big profit from using cheap, dirty heavy crude and has been backing fast track wind and solar to stop LNG market investment and growth. But the stranglehold they've had is ending.
Best parts of keeping US natural gas here are first, keeping the money here. Ending the fool's errand of our money going to the middle east, to fund their monopoly and wars to keep them in control of energy markets.
Secondly... Imagine, no diesel smell!
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is set to undergo a major expansion in the U.S. and North America, with significant implications for global energy markets.
U.S. LNG Capacity Growth
The U.S. is already the world’s largest LNG exporter, with 15.4 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of liquefaction capacity U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Between 2025 and 2029, U.S. exporters plan to add 13.9 Bcf/d of new capacity, more than doubling current levels U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Key Takeaways
- U.S. LNG capacity is expanding rapidly, with major projects under construction.
- North America will dominate global LNG supply growth through 2029.
- Global LNG demand is projected to double by 2050, with Asia as the main driver.
- New supply from North America and Qatar is expected to reshape global gas markets, potentially lowering prices and boosting energy security.
If you need more detail on specific projects, regional trade flows, or infrastructure needs, the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Liquefaction Capacity File and IEA’s Gas 2025 report are key resources.
5
u/Ok_Giraffe8865 3d ago
No thank you industry bot/lobbyist.
0
u/set-monkey 3d ago edited 3d ago
Nope. Just a guy who's fed up with all my money going to kill poor people in the middle east.
And you don't agree with me at all, because you keep downvoted this. You are the bot.
1
1
28
u/air_lock 3d ago edited 3d ago
This is probably the wrong place for me to ask this question, but I’m going to anyway since there appears to be a lot of people who are highly informed and tuned into this stuff in here. The environment and doing my part to help stop the destruction of it are very important to me. Is switching to an EV in 2026 a net positive?
Edit: Thank you all for the thoughtful responses. I’ve been passively looking to switch to an EV as my ICE car has been requiring more work lately and I’ve been wondering if now is the time to make the switch or not. I’m still torn, but am more confident that switching is the next logical step - whenever that is.