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.