I love this and couldn't agree more. Also, the recent massive increase in renewables has not flattened the emissions curve, because we are currently seeing an Energy Addition not an Energy Transition. When we stop adding more and more GHG to the atmosphere, then we can indulge in a little complacency
It's funny (read: not "haha" funny) how the media on one hand can amplify feelings of dread when it is overblown (e.g. the notion violent crime is on the rise when it isn't) and on the other hand minimize the danger of inaction when a greater sense of urgency is warranted, as with the shift to renewable energy sources.
As you underscore, the clean energy revolution can't be stopped, but it can be kneecapped along the way such as to significantly impair our ability to prepare for the worsening of the climate crisis. Already, our infrastructure, fragile as it was, is literally buckling in response to extreme weather. We're going to see more of that in short order.
Related to this is the unstated assumption that in 2029, energy policies will revert to the pro-renewable framework we had post-IRA. I wish it were a sure thing, but it will require activism to make it happen.
Yep. If the courts don't stop Trump, and that is not yet clear, these anti-renewables Trumpian policies could have negative impacts well beyond the time he reaches his expiration date.
Agree 100%. Despite all the ways our feckless rulers try to minimize it, the US is a YUGE climate polluter, and ginormous on a per capita basis. (Even with cleaner energy over the last years, our energy per capita is something like 50-100% higher than EU, so when we say x% clean, it's x% of a bigger starting point.) And not only is Chris Wright and Trump's GOP quashing wind and solar here, they are trying to jawbone other countries into it also.
Funny to listen to mainstream energy wonks now who talked about "clean" energy for the past many years, all of a sudden saying, Oh "wind" and "solar" were the vast majority of decarbonizing energy, but of course also talking about all these other reasons to support them like jobs or investment or tax revenues or competitiveness or security or whatever. Looks like this Euro energy project developer finally got pissed at the jive and hire Samuel Jackson to tell it like it is about offshore wind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uEpdIKzspA
I lost hope when the narrative changed (sometime in the early aughts) from "stopping" climate change to "learning to live" with it. I realized then that the race was over. I also think that Trump and his minions are not just renewable energy critics, they are actively working towards making as much money as possible over the last vestiges of oil and gas. Their narrative is (if they have one at all) that it's OK to let the earth disintegrate because we'll find a solution later in the century anyway. It doesn't matter to them how many animals, ecosystems, nor humans suffer and die in the meantime. Our need to feed the shareholders of big utility corporations will always make any transition to renewable energy harder, more expensive and wasteful. For instance, instead of mandating all new construction built with solar, let's tear down a forest to build a giant solar farm to keep that big grid making millions for the Board. Nothing is done because it's better for the earth or humanity; it's done only if it can make money for someone. Humans just don't have it in us to do the right thing.
What keeps getting missed or bypassed in many energy discussions is the rates of change. The rate of increase in GHS is still accelerating while we argue about who is responsible for doing something. Governments and business keep sliding back from their promises. I wrote a piece about this in September 2021 titled the Price of Procrastination. Maybe it's time to update it.
James Hansen now has a substack account. The first submission is a paper – “Seeing the Forest for the Trees - about climate sensitivity by Hansen and Kharecha. The IPCC has long held that it is about 3.0C. The paper proves that the number is actually 4.5C. At the end of the paper there is an explanation of why Hansen has returned to Columbia University and now has a substack and is getting ready to publish his new book.
“When we presented our most recent paper, responses in the media by other scientists consisted of ad hominem attacks on the first author, e.g., ‘Hansen exaggerates, ‘‘Hansen makes lots of mistakes,’ ‘Hansen is not collegial,’ and comments that our analysis was ‘too simple’ and our conclusions were ‘outside the mainstream.’ None of the comments addressed the climate science in our paper, which we have summarized here. Yet these few articles in the media, appearing on the day that our paper came out, were sufficient to shut down public discussion of our paper. Issues raised in our paper are relevant to understanding the course of climate change. So, how is it that a small (all-male) clique is able to control the climate research conversation? At least they spurred the first author to move back to Columbia University (see End of an Era), where it may be possible to work more with young people, and hopefully communicate more effectively.” Elsewhere, Hansen calls these recent papers and findings a “BFD” (Big F##king Deal)!
I think any amended statement claiming that the renewable energy transition/revolution is “unstoppable”, let alone well underway, is still misleading to the ;point of constituting green misinformation. With over 80% of current energy demand being met by fossil fuels and fossil capital and its enablers preparing to extract and burn to the last drop how can the climate movement claim anything of the sort? If we want to end the fossil fuel era before it locks in another mass extinction event, we will need to fight touth and nail to break fossil capital’s control over energy and climate policy.
Renewable energy developers have made incredible progress in electrical power generation and storage but electric power meets less than 20% of current global energy demand.
Nothing is unstoppable if the interests opposing it are powerful and committed enough to achieving their ends at any cost. For the vast majority of governments and corporations it is still easier to contemplate the end of the life-enabling climate regime humans have flourished under since the last ice age than a real (and fast) transition to a renewable-energy powered capitalism.
Thing is Emily, people like me - who often agree with you - HATE that you hate that line, for multiple reasons.
First of all, as you note, it's true.
But also, some using that line in our media space, like Bill, *are using it as a weapon AGAINST the monsters!!!*
Also, as I noted elsewhere this week, there are those who seem to think the only way they can motivate people is with doomerism - which actually, for a large number of people, does the exact OPPOSITE of motivating people to solutions, whether the topic is electoral politics or the environmental space.
For example. when someone I interacted with was advocating their position this week, they began with them saying basically that democracy in the U.S. is dead and it's not coming back within the lifetime of anyone 30 or older.
Which pissed me off badly.
Because if people think that there's no hope?
Then they'll concentrate on revenge, not on trying to fix the problems.
Which, to some degree, is what I think you're saying you hate about the phrase “The renewable energy revolution is inevitable."
My suggestion for a variation on that phrase that might please us both?
"The renewable energy revolution is inevitable - is we keep pushing for it now. Or else we'll all be dead."
Still somewhat pithy. Still accurate. And still able to be used as a weapon to the face of the fossil fuel pushers. Because, should we keep pushing, their extinction is inevitable. And they should be hit with that at every moment we can hit 'em with it.
It's a win for our side, a BIG one. Let's keep using it against them.
I love this and couldn't agree more. Also, the recent massive increase in renewables has not flattened the emissions curve, because we are currently seeing an Energy Addition not an Energy Transition. When we stop adding more and more GHG to the atmosphere, then we can indulge in a little complacency
Yes. 100% agreement. I just wrote a piece "As solar and wind soar internationally, the Trump regime makes total war on renewables" in which the comment thread is rife with comments along the lines of "they cannot stop the green revolution." But they don't address the fact that how fast this happens is crucial to our success climatewise. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/8/6/2336922/-As-solar-and-wind-soar-internationally-the-Trump-gang-makes-total-war-on-renewables
It's funny (read: not "haha" funny) how the media on one hand can amplify feelings of dread when it is overblown (e.g. the notion violent crime is on the rise when it isn't) and on the other hand minimize the danger of inaction when a greater sense of urgency is warranted, as with the shift to renewable energy sources.
As you underscore, the clean energy revolution can't be stopped, but it can be kneecapped along the way such as to significantly impair our ability to prepare for the worsening of the climate crisis. Already, our infrastructure, fragile as it was, is literally buckling in response to extreme weather. We're going to see more of that in short order.
Related to this is the unstated assumption that in 2029, energy policies will revert to the pro-renewable framework we had post-IRA. I wish it were a sure thing, but it will require activism to make it happen.
Yep. If the courts don't stop Trump, and that is not yet clear, these anti-renewables Trumpian policies could have negative impacts well beyond the time he reaches his expiration date.
Agree 100%. Despite all the ways our feckless rulers try to minimize it, the US is a YUGE climate polluter, and ginormous on a per capita basis. (Even with cleaner energy over the last years, our energy per capita is something like 50-100% higher than EU, so when we say x% clean, it's x% of a bigger starting point.) And not only is Chris Wright and Trump's GOP quashing wind and solar here, they are trying to jawbone other countries into it also.
Funny to listen to mainstream energy wonks now who talked about "clean" energy for the past many years, all of a sudden saying, Oh "wind" and "solar" were the vast majority of decarbonizing energy, but of course also talking about all these other reasons to support them like jobs or investment or tax revenues or competitiveness or security or whatever. Looks like this Euro energy project developer finally got pissed at the jive and hire Samuel Jackson to tell it like it is about offshore wind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uEpdIKzspA
Here's another frequently used phrase that could go with this article: "Delay is the new denial."
I lost hope when the narrative changed (sometime in the early aughts) from "stopping" climate change to "learning to live" with it. I realized then that the race was over. I also think that Trump and his minions are not just renewable energy critics, they are actively working towards making as much money as possible over the last vestiges of oil and gas. Their narrative is (if they have one at all) that it's OK to let the earth disintegrate because we'll find a solution later in the century anyway. It doesn't matter to them how many animals, ecosystems, nor humans suffer and die in the meantime. Our need to feed the shareholders of big utility corporations will always make any transition to renewable energy harder, more expensive and wasteful. For instance, instead of mandating all new construction built with solar, let's tear down a forest to build a giant solar farm to keep that big grid making millions for the Board. Nothing is done because it's better for the earth or humanity; it's done only if it can make money for someone. Humans just don't have it in us to do the right thing.
What keeps getting missed or bypassed in many energy discussions is the rates of change. The rate of increase in GHS is still accelerating while we argue about who is responsible for doing something. Governments and business keep sliding back from their promises. I wrote a piece about this in September 2021 titled the Price of Procrastination. Maybe it's time to update it.
https://www.jalahq.com/blog/the-price-of-procrastination/
Ironically, Texas has the most wind farms in the US.
All the renewable power they are now making is for their data centers. Even if we look like we're getting ahead, it's one step back. In sufferable.
James Hansen now has a substack account. The first submission is a paper – “Seeing the Forest for the Trees - about climate sensitivity by Hansen and Kharecha. The IPCC has long held that it is about 3.0C. The paper proves that the number is actually 4.5C. At the end of the paper there is an explanation of why Hansen has returned to Columbia University and now has a substack and is getting ready to publish his new book.
“When we presented our most recent paper, responses in the media by other scientists consisted of ad hominem attacks on the first author, e.g., ‘Hansen exaggerates, ‘‘Hansen makes lots of mistakes,’ ‘Hansen is not collegial,’ and comments that our analysis was ‘too simple’ and our conclusions were ‘outside the mainstream.’ None of the comments addressed the climate science in our paper, which we have summarized here. Yet these few articles in the media, appearing on the day that our paper came out, were sufficient to shut down public discussion of our paper. Issues raised in our paper are relevant to understanding the course of climate change. So, how is it that a small (all-male) clique is able to control the climate research conversation? At least they spurred the first author to move back to Columbia University (see End of an Era), where it may be possible to work more with young people, and hopefully communicate more effectively.” Elsewhere, Hansen calls these recent papers and findings a “BFD” (Big F##king Deal)!
I think any amended statement claiming that the renewable energy transition/revolution is “unstoppable”, let alone well underway, is still misleading to the ;point of constituting green misinformation. With over 80% of current energy demand being met by fossil fuels and fossil capital and its enablers preparing to extract and burn to the last drop how can the climate movement claim anything of the sort? If we want to end the fossil fuel era before it locks in another mass extinction event, we will need to fight touth and nail to break fossil capital’s control over energy and climate policy.
Renewable energy developers have made incredible progress in electrical power generation and storage but electric power meets less than 20% of current global energy demand.
Nothing is unstoppable if the interests opposing it are powerful and committed enough to achieving their ends at any cost. For the vast majority of governments and corporations it is still easier to contemplate the end of the life-enabling climate regime humans have flourished under since the last ice age than a real (and fast) transition to a renewable-energy powered capitalism.
Thing is Emily, people like me - who often agree with you - HATE that you hate that line, for multiple reasons.
First of all, as you note, it's true.
But also, some using that line in our media space, like Bill, *are using it as a weapon AGAINST the monsters!!!*
Also, as I noted elsewhere this week, there are those who seem to think the only way they can motivate people is with doomerism - which actually, for a large number of people, does the exact OPPOSITE of motivating people to solutions, whether the topic is electoral politics or the environmental space.
For example. when someone I interacted with was advocating their position this week, they began with them saying basically that democracy in the U.S. is dead and it's not coming back within the lifetime of anyone 30 or older.
Which pissed me off badly.
Because if people think that there's no hope?
Then they'll concentrate on revenge, not on trying to fix the problems.
Which, to some degree, is what I think you're saying you hate about the phrase “The renewable energy revolution is inevitable."
My suggestion for a variation on that phrase that might please us both?
"The renewable energy revolution is inevitable - is we keep pushing for it now. Or else we'll all be dead."
Still somewhat pithy. Still accurate. And still able to be used as a weapon to the face of the fossil fuel pushers. Because, should we keep pushing, their extinction is inevitable. And they should be hit with that at every moment we can hit 'em with it.
It's a win for our side, a BIG one. Let's keep using it against them.