This has always been a major problem. And probably will so continue.

Can we develop renewables and fossil fuels in a sustainable way?
I doubt it.
Our atmosphere consists of a thin skin of gas around the world.
We cannot replace it.
If we pollute it beyond a certain point, it becomes unusable, and we die.
So we need to rein in any excessive use of materials on our planet.
Which means we need to live a simpler life.
I doubt that will happen too.
So we are headed for some kind of climax or disaster along the road ahead of us.
Future generations are not going to thank us methinks.
And a word about poverty.
Our particular ancestors were innovative.
I think they had to be because they lived in cold climes.
They had to think hard or perish.
They thought hard.
So they survived well.
And advanced us swiftly to the level of comfort we enjoy today.
In places where people didn't need to think so hard to survive, standards remained basic.
So much so, that by comparison, they are now far behind us.
I think we should be willing to show them how to improve, but not try to live their lives for them.
It is up to them to get organised, and bring their own standards up.
If they can't or won't do this, their standards will remain low.
We must accept this reality

The article falsely presents net-zero as a ban on modernity for the poor, when in reality the cheapest new energy in much of the developing world is now renewable electricity, poverty has fallen alongside expanding energy access, and climate impacts themselves disproportionately harm the very populations the it claims to defend.

Don't bother with it.

Its hard to exaggerate how much I like this article. I've read quite a few articles and essays recently with the general theme that covid (or more exactly the 'expert' response to covid) was the death of the cult of the expert. But this pulls together all sorts of stands to that observation in a highly erudite way.

Read it twice and saved it for future reference. I particularly liked the way Orwell was drawn in. As Orwell once wrote: "There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them”. Lockdowns was one of those.

The collateral rise of MAGA and MAHA represents a revolution in the administration of the state. It may well be nipped in the bud because the global elite and the US deep state don't take these attacks on their wealth and power laying down.

Bhattacharya, mentioned in the article, and now head of the NIH was one of the first to recognise that the lockdowns and the entire reaction to covid was wrong and to urge a different path. The medical authorities ruthlessly shut him down, but he has risen triumphant both in his career and in the way his original observations were shown to be correct.

The reaction to the death of expertise is enormous. There was a time when merely asserting that "experts say" was enough to end discussion. No more. But its not all good. The distrust that the lying about the covid vaccine has engendered will have negative impacts as people reject vaccines whose efficacy aren't in question - eg whooping cough and measles. The authorities including MAHA have a lot to do to rebuild trust in those type of vaccines.

But all in all, a very satisfying article

oops wrong thread

Net zero was always a first world project. Only the first world (Europe, the US, Japan, the Anglosphere) ever really bought it because only they could ever really afford such lunacy.

And now they are coming to realise that even they can't afford it - at least not without trashing their economies.

We will eventually get to net zero CO2 emissions, not by government fiat and not for the good of Gaia, but because there will come a time when energy will be made cheaply and efficiently and reliably without the need to burn stuff. But that technology is a long way off yet.

mhaze,

Net zero isn't a "first world project." China is the world's largest investor in renewables. India is scaling solar at record pace. Much of Africa is expanding off-grid solar because it's cheaper and faster than building coal infrastructure. That's not ideology. That's cost.

The claim that rich economies "can't afford" it ignores that renewables are now among the cheapest sources of new electricity generation in many markets. The economic risk isn't transitioning. It's locking into high-volatility fossil fuel systems, as Europe discovered after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

As for the idea that we'll only decarbonise when some future miracle technology arrives, that's just delay posing as prudence. Energy transitions have always happened through a mix of innovation, market forces, and policy. Coal didn't replace wood by pure market magic. Oil didn't replace coal without infrastructure and state involvement.

If the argument is about sequencing and cost discipline, that's reasonable. If the argument is that decarbonisation is "lunacy" until a perfect technology falls from the sky, that's not economic realism. That's technological wishful thinking.

that technology is a long way off yet.
mhaze,
Not the technology but the mentality for it ! Illogical idealists devoid of common sense have derailed the progress of innovation & now they're pointing the finger at those they sabotaged yet can't exist without.

JD,

Using renewables isn't the same as signing on to net-zero. Places all around the world using renewables where appropriate. That doesn't mean they are striving for net zero. You're conflating two things in a most inappropriate way.

China uses renewables but still builds coal plants like they're going out of style, although for China they are very much in style. India has specifically said they reject net zero for their country preferring economic development instead.

Only rich western countries prepared to fritter away past wealth on vanity projects bought into it. The three biggest CO2 emitters have all rejected net zero. We will as well, but not with the current leadership who couldn't possibly bring themselves to admit past error.

"renewables are now among the cheapest sources of new electricity generation"

So you keep saying despite what the numbers prove.

"As for the idea that we'll only decarbonise when some future miracle technology arrives, that's just delay posing as prudence. "

Actually its recognising reality over fantasy.

"Coal didn't replace wood by pure market magic. "
Actually it did. Better technologies don't need government assistance to flourish but they often need to battle government roadblocks.

______________________________________________________________________

"Not the technology but the mentality for it ! "

Oh good Indyvidual. Seems easy. So why don't you go off an create these technologies that are there for the picking. You could become Australia's Elon.

True, mhaze.

//Using renewables isn't the same as signing on to net-zero.//

No, but scaling renewables because they're cheaper is literally how emissions fall over time. Net zero isn't a pledge to Gaia. It's a long-run direction based on what gets built and what doesn't.

//India has specifically said they reject net zero for their country…//

India has a 2070 net-zero target. That's on the books. Building coal for reliability now doesn't mean "rejecting" decarbonisation. It means managing a transition.

//The three biggest CO2 emitters have all rejected net zero.//

China 2060. India 2070. The US has formal commitments. You can argue they won't hit them. But "rejected" just isn't accurate.

//So you keep saying despite what the numbers prove.//

Which numbers? Solar and wind auctions across Asia and the Middle East have been clearing at very low prices. If you've got data showing they're uncompetitive, post it. Otherwise this is just assertion.

//Actually its recognising reality over fantasy.//

Reality is incremental change. No one thinks fossil fuels vanish tomorrow. The question is what we invest in next.

//Actually [coal] did [replace wood by pure market magic].//

Railways. Naval power. Industrial policy. Capital mobilisation. Energy systems have always been shaped by more than pure market drift.

If you want to argue pace and cost discipline, fine. But calling current cost trends "fantasy" and waiting for some unspecified future breakthrough isn't realism. It's just deferral.

I point out that the numbers prove renewables are more expensive that fossil fuels in terms of energy production and you cluelessly ask.." Which numbers?"

The numbers I shown you in previous threads showing that in countries around the world, the more renewables they have the higher the cost of their power.

(As an aside, a German conference has been told that their chemical industry which, along with cars, was a mainstay of their economic, is collapsing due the high costs of electricity - 4 times greater than the US.)

"//Actually [coal] did [replace wood by pure market magic].//

Railways."

The rail systems in England and the US, which were the backbone of their industrial rise, were almost entirely all privately funded, privately owned and privately run. Private railways linked the industrial centres of England and turned the industrial revolution into a nation phenomena. The US west was opened by private railways. The New York subway was private built and was still in private hands in the 1920s

Yes, mhaze.

//The numbers I shown you… the more renewables they have the higher the cost of their power.//

And again, you're conflating retail electricity prices with generation costs.

Retail prices reflect taxes, legacy grid costs, gas price shocks, market design, capacity payments, and policy choices. They don't isolate the cost of building a new power plant.

Levelised cost of new generation is a different metric entirely. On that basis, solar and onshore wind are often cheaper than new coal or gas in many markets.

If you want to argue about system integration costs, storage, grid upgrades etc., that's a serious discussion. But "countries with more renewables have higher prices" isn't proof of causation. Germany's price spike had a lot more to do with gas dependence and the Ukraine shock than with solar panels.

//Railways were private.//

Private capital, yes. But not operating in a policy vacuum.

Land grants. Eminent domain powers. Charter laws. Government bond backing. Regulatory frameworks. Property enforcement. Naval protection of trade routes. Industrial patent regimes.

That's the point.

Markets function inside institutional scaffolding. Energy transitions have always involved coordinated capital and state frameworks. It's never been pure, spontaneous substitution.

So why don't you go off an create these technologies that are there for the picking
maze,
That's why I stated it's due to mentality ! The technology is already there, dumb-crap ideologists just can't see it & don't want to curb their excesses which cause so much pollution.
Cut frivolous industries !

"And again, you're conflating retail electricity prices with generation costs."

Same old merry-go-round. I want to talk about the entirety of the national electricity system and you want to talk about the subset that best suits your fantasies. Who can be bothered arguing with such duplicity.

"Private capital, yes. But not operating in a policy vacuum."

That's quite a retreat for JD. About as much we're likely to see given he's the type that would argue that the sun rises in the west if he thought it'd support his fantasies. Of course governments were involved at the peripheries in the rail revolution but that's a million miles from government deciding, based on faulty evidence and wishful thinking, to support a particular energy source with massive subsidies, massive legislation and massive propaganda to the detriment of the people they supposedly serve.

Another interesting factoid.

During the recent winter storms in the US with massive snow storms (remember when snow was a thing of the past due to the dreaded CO2? yeah I'm sure that's been memory-holed)... during those storms renewables utterly failed.

Gas, oil, coal and nuclear provided 86% of the US electricity needs. So when people needed power to keep warm/alive, wind and solar were AWOL.

As Bjorn Lomborg said, solar is the cheapest form of power generation... when the sun shines. Otherwise its the most expensive form of power.

There's plenty to go round if they curb wasting so much for frivolous activities. Start by stopping to fund the Arts. Stop funding Sport. Stop funding hare-brained Uni schemes etc etc.

Fine, mhaze. Then let's talk about it properly.

//I want to talk about the entirety of the national electricity system…//

System costs include generation, transmission, storage, backup capacity, fuel volatility, and policy design. That's exactly why retail prices aren't a clean proxy for "renewables are expensive."

Germany's spike was heavily tied to gas price shocks after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Gas set the marginal price in their market. That's not a solar panel problem. That's fuel exposure.

If you want to debate full system cost including firming and storage, that's legitimate. But "countries with more renewables have higher prices" is not proof of causation. It's correlation layered over market design.

//government deciding… to support a particular energy source…//

Governments have always shaped energy systems.

Oil benefited from tax preferences and strategic policy for a century. Nuclear was state-backed. Coal rail networks relied on land grants and legal privileges. Energy has never evolved in a subsidy-free vacuum.

You can argue current policy is inefficient. But pretending past energy systems were pure free-market evolution is historical revisionism.

//During the winter storms… renewables utterly failed.//

During Winter Storm Elliott, wind output dropped in some regions. So did gas infrastructure - frozen wells and pipeline constraints knocked out significant capacity.

Energy system stress events expose weaknesses across technologies. Texas 2021 showed gas failures at scale. Blaming renewables alone ignores the data.

Also, renewables don't replace firm capacity one-for-one. They reduce fuel burn over time. Reliability comes from portfolio design - storage, interconnection, dispatchable backup.

//solar is cheapest… when the sun shines.//

Yes. That's why grids diversify. Just like gas is cheapest when supply isn't disrupted and coal is cheapest when transport lines aren't blocked.

No single source runs 24/7 at peak. That's why systems exist, not single plants.

Yes I agree Indyvidual- if you kill the innovation mindset how are you ever going to innovate. Innovation needs to create value for those using it, not artificial value defined separately from reality mandated by bureaucrats and academic abstractionists. Those bleating to cut CEO's wages at the same time as the same CEO's/ Startups are expected to take risks on unproven technology. There's enough energy in the world but we have a high density storage/ distribution problem- currently hydrocarbons are the best solution we have, especially for vehicles. There isn't enough Lithium in the world for the applications- let alone any growth- and it is controlled by unstable/ dangerous governments in many cases.

There are the bloodthirsty that want to feed off the churn of the energy transition until the public wake up to the reality.

Get you wood-gasifier for when the transition fails and society collapses and zombies and vampires roam the streets. Somebody said the streets are only three meals away from chaos.

But mhaze is also right when he implies (paraphrasing) "Woke/ Marxist's say that we will find the answer without knowing how".

It's difficult to reach a goal without a plan. And Woke/ Marxist's care more about talking ideological abstraction than practical planning

There's a lot of rhetoric there, CM! Let's separate it out from what little substance you've posted...

//There isn't enough lithium in the world…//

Global lithium reserves are sufficient for massive EV deployment, and battery chemistries are already shifting. LFP batteries use no cobalt and less lithium per kWh than older designs. Recycling rates are improving. Resource constraints drive substitution - that's how markets work.

We were told we'd run out of oil in the 1970s too.

//Hydrocarbons are the best solution we have…//

For some applications today, yes. Especially aviation and heavy industry. But passenger vehicles? EVs are already cheaper to run over their lifetime in many markets. That's not ideology. It's just operating-cost maths.

No serious transition plan claims hydrocarbons vanish tomorrow. The debate is about marginal replacement over time.

//Innovation needs to create value, not artificial value mandated by bureaucrats…//

Energy markets have always been shaped by policy. Oil depletion allowances. Highway funding. Nuclear underwriting. Land grants for coal rail. The idea that fossil fuels emerged in a policy vacuum while renewables are uniquely "artificial" isn't historical.

//But mhaze is also right when he implies (paraphrasing) "Woke/ Marxist's say that we will find the answer without knowing how".//

No, he's not.

Most net-zero roadmaps are full of engineering detail: electrification, efficiency, grid interconnection, storage, nuclear, hydrogen for hard-to-abate sectors. You can debate feasibility and cost. But pretending there's "no plan" is just caricature.

"wOkE mArXiSt!!1"

And the zombie scenario? Every major energy transition in history looked destabilising to incumbents. None ended civilisation.

If the argument is about pacing, supply chains, and avoiding overreach, that's serious. If it's about vampires and collapse, that's mood music, not analysis.