Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Debra Kahn, “editor of POLITICO’s California Climate newsletter and author of Currents, a reported column on the conversations, conflicts and characters animating the energy, environment and climate debates,” corrected the eco-narrative recently. While the climate campaigners are busy trying to sell politically correct renewables (wind and solar) as cheaper, she uncorked a Truth Bomb.
“Climate policy is decidedly unfashionable in 2025 — among Democrats…. Climate is out, affordability is in.” – Debra Kahn, Politico (below)
Debra Kahn, “editor of POLITICO’s California Climate newsletter and author of Currents, a reported column on the conversations, conflicts and characters animating the energy, environment and climate debates,” corrected the eco-narrative recently. While the climate campaigners are busy trying to sell politically correct renewables (wind and solar) as cheaper, she uncorked a Truth Bomb.
The party isn’t embracing climate change denialism like many in the GOP, nor is it endorsing the Trump administration’s attacks on clean energy. But as Democrats continue groping for a way forward after their 2024 defeat, they’ve clearly decided they need to change how they talk about climate and energy issues. And in some cases, it goes beyond rhetoric to the actual policies they’re promoting. The bottom line for Democrats: Climate is out, affordability is in.
Ouch! To begin with, she notes, climate change is not a major concern of voters.
“It’s an issue that I think we need to continue to engage on and speak out on and work to legislate on, but it’s not a top three issue right now,” Sen. Chris Coons, the Democratic co-chair of the Senate’s bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, told me….
It’s a muddled message.
“Sometimes our messaging in the Democratic Party — not great,” Sherrill said in a March interview. “For years we’ve said, ‘We need to move into clean power.’ And there’s almost been this understanding, ‘It’s going to cost you an arm and a leg, but if you’re a good person, you’ll do it.’ So now that we’re actually in that place that we promised — it was going to be cheaper than any other source of power — people are skeptical.”
The climate message is also diluted.
David Hill, executive vice president of the energy program at the Bipartisan Policy Center, noted that when electricity supplies were ample, there was less of a need to focus on reliability and affordability when talking climate. Now, those are the public’s key concerns and so climate advocates are facing “some pretty severe pushback,” even as there’s only so much they can do.
Climate alarm and government enablement of inferior energies are losing—coming and going. The narrative is busted, too. The climate complex is in a messaging crisis. Gilad Regev has stated:
Maybe the problem isn’t climate denial. Maybe it’s climate messaging. We’ve been attempting to scare or shame people into caring, and it’s not effective. Is it time to completely rethink how we talk about climate and sustainability? We’ve spent years trying to influence people through fear, data, and moral urgency. The results? Mixed.
Sum the arguments and … it is time for free market energy policies to replace crony capitalism and the termite aspirations of the Climate Industrial Complex. To all climate alarmists and forced energy transformationists, check your premises for mid-course correction. Climate anxiety not.
On Episode #179 of The Climate Realism Show, hosts Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, and Jim Lakely break down the biggest moments from the interview, play key clips, and welcome special guest Will Happer to discuss his firsthand experience on The Joe Rogan Experience.
Joe Rogan just hosted climate scientists Will Happer and Richard Lindzen — and the results were explosive. For more than two hours, they dismantled the core claims of climate alarmism in front of Rogan’s massive global audience.
On Episode #179 of The Climate Realism Show, hosts Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, and Jim Lakely break down the biggest moments from the interview, play key clips, and welcome special guest Will Happer to discuss his firsthand experience on The Joe Rogan Experience.
What didn’t make it into the episode? How might Rogan’s reach shift the climate conversation for millions of listeners? We’ll explore that and more in what may be the most important climate discussion of the year.
Tune in LIVE at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, and X — and join us in the live chat!
In The Washington Post’s (WaPo) article, “Climate change is coming for D.C.’s trees, and the city won’t look the same,” the authors claim that climate change is killing off Washington, DC’s tree canopy. This is false. While the article mentions other effects that contribute to the decline of the urban tree canopy, they miss or dismiss the primary causes, preferring to blame climate change instead.
In The Washington Post’s (WaPo) article, “Climate change is coming for D.C.’s trees, and the city won’t look the same,” the authors claim that climate change is killing off Washington, DC’s tree canopy. This is false. While the article mentions other effects that contribute to the decline of the urban tree canopy, they miss or dismiss the primary causes, preferring to blame climate change instead.
The authors argue that rising temperatures and erratic weather patterns are forcing arborists to abandon native species in favor of more “climate-tolerant” trees from the southern United States. The Post asserts that without urgent adaptation, the District’s iconic maples, lindens, and elms could “vanish by 2100.” It also states that “urban development and climate change have contributed to the annual loss of thousands of D.C. trees and threaten the long-term survival of some of the region’s native tree populations.” That may sound convincing, however, in fact, it is deeply misleading.
The majority of DC’s tree stress has little to do with global climate change. Rather, urbanization is the culprit. The city’s heat, pollution, and dense infrastructure have transformed what was once a temperate forest into an artificial microclimate. This is the urban heat island effect (UHI) at work. As Christy and Spencer demonstrated in their peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, as much as 65 percent of apparent “warming” in urban areas is attributable solely to human development, not global greenhouse gases. Pavement, buildings, and waste heat raise nighttime temperatures, putting added stress on trees that evolved in cooler, more permeable soils.
As Climate at a Glance: Urban Heat Islands notes, “most of the apparent warming in U.S. cities results from localized effects of urbanization, not global climate change.” This localized heating can be several degrees higher than in nearby rural areas, making it a huge stressor for trees already dealing with limited water and root space.
In one sense, WaPo is right that “the city won’t look the same.” But that change will come from bulldozers, power lines, and misguided policy, not carbon dioxide. Construction sites, compacted ground, and impervious surfaces also disrupt local hydrology. Runoff channels water away from roots, while soil compaction limits oxygen exchange. WaPo acknowledges this fact in passing, but downplays the implication that “urban development and construction … can compact soil and hurt root health.” These are direct human management problems, having nothing to do with planetary climate collapse.
Air pollution compounds the problem. Elevated levels of ground-level ozone and particulates can clog or damage the stomata on tree leaves, the small pores that allow trees to “breathe.” When trees are bathed in exhaust, industrial emissions, and urban dust, their stomata often close prematurely to prevent water loss, impairing photosynthesis. The resulting “stomatal overload” is a documented stress response common in polluted environments, especially in cities like DC that sit in traffic corridors. The WaPo ignores this entirely, instead blaming “hotter summers and milder winters.”
Another unacknowledged factor in the arboreal landscape in DC is the city’s own planting choices. Many of the trees in DC’s streetscape — London plane trees, Japanese zelkovas, littleleaf lindens, and the famous Japanese cherry blossom trees — are non-native ornamentals, chosen for aesthetics or fast growth rather than ecological fit. Non-native species often struggle with local pests, soil chemistry, and seasonal patterns. When they fail, journalists may hasten to blame climate change, but really it’s simply poor arboreal planning.
To make matters worse, the city’s tree canopy data are influenced by shifting species selection policies. The Urban Forestry Division is now prioritizing trees from warmer regions like the Southeast—species such as the overcup oak and the swamp white oak—based on assumptions that DC’s future climate will resemble Atlanta’s. But these projections are built on notably flawed computer climate model outputs, not observation. The same models that exaggerate global temperature trends now serve as landscaping guides. There’s a certain irony in “saving” DC’s trees by importing ones that never belonged there.
Meanwhile, the biggest real threat to Washington’s trees isn’t carbon dioxide, it’s the chainsaw. The Post itself reports that “the District has removed more than 37,000 trees over the last five years,” many for development projects. When you cut down a 100-year-old oak to make way for a bike lane or stadium, the resulting loss of shade and soil stability is not the atmosphere’s fault, it’s the city’s.
The “climate change is killing trees” narrative also conveniently omits that CO₂ is plant food. Hundreds of studies and field research show that elevated carbon dioxide concentrations enhance tree growth, improve drought tolerance, and increase biomass. NASA satellite data have even documented a global “greening” trend over the past 40 years as a result of higher CO₂ levels. If carbon dioxide were truly the villain, DC would be losing green cover, not gaining it. Yet the District’s canopy has remained stable at roughly 37 percent for years, exactly the same figure the article cites, despite massive clearing for development.
If Washington, DC wants a healthier urban forest, the answer isn’t to “fight climate change,” it is to manage urban stress. Expand green space. Loosen compacted soils. Plant tree species adapted to the local environment, not projections of future ones. Also, stop pretending that every environmental problem is a symptom of global warming, aka climate change.
The Washington Post’s story may make for poetic reading, but it’s science fiction masquerading as environmental journalism. The real issue is not a mildly warming world—it is a city that’s paved, polluted, and hostile to trees.
Japan’s new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi is expected to push for the accelerated revival of nuclear power to tackle inflation, a source of public discontent, with reactor restarts key to reducing costly fuel imports.
Japan’s new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi is expected to push for the accelerated revival of nuclear power to tackle inflation, a source of public discontent, with reactor restarts key to reducing costly fuel imports.
Takaichi has appointed Ryosei Akazawa, who was Japan’s point person in its recent tariff deal with the United States, as trade and industry minister – a portfolio that includes energy – signaling a willingness to engage with Washington, including on liquefied natural gas purchases, analysts said.
Her government plans a package of purchases to present to US President Donald Trump during his visit to Tokyo next week, including LNG, although not for now from the Alaskan pipeline project championed by Trump, Reuters reported on Wednesday (Oct 22).
However, Akazawa said on Wednesday that it was essential to maximise power sources that contribute to energy security and decarbonisation.
“We aim to proceed with nuclear restarts while taking concrete steps to gain the necessary understanding of local communities and stakeholders,” he said.
Japan spent 10.7 trillion yen (US$71 billion) last year on imported LNG and coal, a tenth of its import costs. Imported fossil fuels cover 60 per cent to 70 per cent of Japan’s electricity generation and are a source of inflation that has undermined support for the ruling Liberal Democratic Party.
NUCLEAR RENEWAL
“PM Takaichi will almost certainly push for a more ambitious nuclear reactor relaunch. This is in part to support her push to bring down wholesale power prices while reducing fuel import reliance,” said Henning Gloystein, managing director with Eurasia Group consultancy.
Before the 2011 Fukushima disaster, Japan operated 54 nuclear reactors. Of the 33 that remain operable, 14 have been restarted – a process that takes years. Securing a stable new power supply is increasingly urgent as demand is poised to rise from data centre expansion.
Takaichi, an advocate of nuclear power, including next-generation fusion energy, has also voiced support for perovskite solar cells – technologies Japan can potentially export – and opposed massive solar projects given their reliance on panels imported from China and the environmental impact.
Costly large-scale renewables projects including offshore wind, already hit by Mitsubishi’s withdrawal, may get less political support, industry insiders say.
“Takaichi … in the long term, is unlikely to provide much support for the industry, as she favours nuclear restarts,” said an industry source involved in offshore wind policy discussions.
ENERGY DIVERSIFICATION
Ahead of Trump’s visit to Japan, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has urged Tokyo to stop buying Russian energy, which mainly consists of LNG that accounts for 9 per cent of Japan’s imports of the fuel.
While playing down political pressure, Japan signed new US LNG purchase deals this year but stopped short of hard commitments to the US$44 billion yet-to-be-built Alaska LNG project, under the wider bilateral trade agreement negotiated by Akazawa.
“His ability to maintain dialogue with the US government, including on energy matters, is a positive factor,” said a high-ranked Japan utility company source.
Akazawa, a 64-year-old English-speaker, understands the importance of affordable power, said Tom O’Sullivan, director with Mathyos Global Advisory in Tokyo.
“There is also international pressure on Japan to cease purchasing Sakhalin-sourced LNG so that will also apply pressure to accelerate the restart of nuclear plants,” he said.
Source: Reuters/co
Japan’s new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi is pushing a massive nuclear power revival — and it could change the global energy game forever.
In the transition to so-called clean and green electricity, critical minerals and metals bring new challenges to electricity security.
Solar plants, wind farms, and EVs generally require more minerals to build than their fossil fuel-based counterparts. A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car, and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant. Since 2010, the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as the share of wind and solar renewables in new investments has risen.
Our electricity is increasingly dependent on rare earth minerals and metals mined for wind turbines, solar panels, and EV batteries under atrocious slave labor and environmental conditions in other countries that the DOE and bureaucrats ignore.
China controls a stranglehold of 80% of the global supply monopoly on rare earth minerals and metals, with the Congo in Africa a 90% source of vital cobalt.
On a total component basis for an EV battery, graphite is about 25% to 28% of the whole EV battery. Turkey has the largest reserves of graphite, followed by Brazil and China. Together, these three countries accounted for 66% of the estimated world graphite reserves.
It should concern everyone that all those “blood minerals” come from mining at locations in the world that are never seen by environmentalists, policymakers, or EV buyers.
For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, just one Tesla EV battery requires the processing of more than 500,000 pounds of materials somewhere on the planet.
A battery for a heavy-duty electric truck can weigh up to 16,000 pounds, which is 16 times more than the Tesla battery!!!! A single truck battery requires 8,000,000 pounds of earth to be dug up. That’s astounding – digging up 8 million pounds of earth for each truck battery!
Policymakers setting “green” policies are oblivious to the reality that Electricity came AFTER the discovery of oil 200 years ago.
ALL electrical generation from hydro, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, and solar are ALL built with the products, components, and equipment that are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.
All EVs, solar panels, and wind turbines are also built with products, components, and equipment made from crude oil derivatives.
Further, all cars, trucks, excavating equipment, cranes, merchant ships, planes, and trains are also made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.
Our advanced society uses oil derivatives manufactured from black, cruddy crude oil to make fuels for larger jets, ships, and space launches and to make the 6,000 products made from oil that did not exist 200 years ago. If we weren’t such an advanced society, there would be no need for so-called “big oil.”
Demand for products made from oil is stressing the supply chain, thus continuously spiking the cost of products and fuels from fossil fuels to meet society’s materialistic demands.
Most importantly, there is a lost reality that the primary usage of crude oil is NOT for the generation of electricity but to manufacture derivatives and fuels, which are the ingredients of everything needed by economies and lifestyles to exist and prosper, i.e., all products that did not exist before the 1800s.
None of the six methods for generating electricity can manufacture anything to support a materialistic society! Electricity can charge an iPhone but cannot make the iPhone. Electricity can make the defibrillator work in the hospital, but it cannot make the defibrillator.
Products that need electricity, such as iPhones, defibrillators, computers, data centers, and X-ray machines, are also dependent on the petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil to make all the parts and components of every method to generate electricity.
“Big oil” only exists because of the wealthier countries being addicted to the products and fuels that are manufactured from fossil fuels that make OUR life more comfortable?” OUR needs for smaller and faster electronics and for bigger and faster planes, ships, and launches into outer space are the only reasons that crude oil is needed.
Thus, before we chastise “big oil”, we must ask ourselves, “How dare ME to continuously demand the products and fuels made from oil that make MY life more comfortable?”
Rick Amato’s Politics & Profits 8-minute conversation with Ronald Stein is an 8-minute video conversation on Your America TV that sheds light on the fact that those pursuing net-zero emissions may be oblivious to the reality that wind turbines and solar panels do different things than crude oil. “Mandatory Emissions (just in wealthy countries) To Achieve Net-Zero Is A Fool’s Game.”
Adding huge wind turbine blades and solar panels to generate electricity occasionally is the “green” scam of the century, as “renewables” are increasing fossil fuel demands, but those so-called renewables CANNOT make any products that are the basis of our materialistic world.
Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure, Co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations”, policy advisor on energy literacy for The Heartland Institute, and The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and National TV Commentator- Energy & Infrastructure with Rick Amato.
Ronald Stein, P.E. is an engineer, energy consultant, speaker, author of books and articles on energy, environmental policy, and human rights, and Founder of PTS Advance, a California based company.
Ron advocates that energy literacy starts with the knowledge that renewable energy is only intermittent electricity generated from unreliable breezes and sunshine, as wind turbines and solar panels cannot manufacture anything for the 8 billion on this planet.
John Shanahan, Professional Engineer, B.Sc. and M.Sc. from U. of Notre Dame, USA. Dr. of Engineering, Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. Twenty-five years in consulting and public education for all energy sources, related environmental issues, and petroleum by-products for the modern world and problems with policy decision making mainly in the USA and Europe.
Boasting that Texas “has built more wind power than any state and is a top contender for the most solar power,” a Texas Tribune article bemoans a decline in federal subsidies for such energy sources and a potential loss of “billions in investments and thousands of jobs.”
Boasting that Texas “has built more wind power than any state and is a top contender for the most solar power,” a Texas Tribune article bemoans a decline in federal subsidies for such energy sources and a potential loss of “billions in investments and thousands of jobs.”
Interestingly, the writers focus on business interests of the climate industrial complex and ignore the stated reason for subsidies – to avoid supposed catastrophic global warming. Planetary health – purported to be threatened by industrial emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) – was not even an afterthought in the handwringing over wind and solar financial fortunes.
Regardless, Texans face no such peril and the billions already spent on “green” obsessions in the Lone Star State are for naught. “There is no evidence of a climate crisis in Texas, and none can be reasonably expected,” says a report, “Texas and Climate Change,” recently published by the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia.
Both the Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5) and a Texas A&M University report predict harm to Texans from human-induced warming. Climate change is “putting us at risk from climate hazards that degrade our lands and waters, quality of life, health and well-being, and cultural interconnectedness,” according to NCA5.
In contradicting those findings, the CO2 Coalition analyzed data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NASA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, reports published in peer-reviewed journals and others.
“The temperature in Texas has shown no unprecedented or unusual warming, despite increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide,” says the CO2 Coalition report. “Recent temperatures in Texas are similar to those found more than 100 years ago.”
In fact, the annual number of 100-degree days in Texas has an overall decreasing trend.
While some have claimed a connection between climate change and July’s tragic flooding in central Texas, no scientific basis for such a link exists. Though extreme, the flooding was not a first.
According to Harris County meteorologist Jeff Lindner, the July 4th flood of the Guadalupe River at Kerrville peaked at 34.29 feet, making it the third-highest flood on record for the city. The 2025 flood crest trails the 39.0-foot flood crest from 1932 and the 37.72-foot flood crest from in 1987.
“Over the last 28 years, flash floods, while varying greatly from year to year, have actually been in slight decline,” the CO2 Coalition report found.
Precipitation data from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network indicate that Texas has experienced a very slight increase (1 to 2 inches annually) in precipitation since 1895, which is contrary to the predictions of significant increases in rainfall from climate alarmists. If anything, the modest increase in Texas precipitation should have beneficial effects on the state’s agricultural yields.
As for drought – the primary scourge of crops throughout the world – government data show no discernable trend in the severity of arid spells in Texas, which is a direct contradiction to claims of increasing drought by both the Texas A&M report and NCA5.
Similarly rebutting the fearmongering of alarmists, the CO2 Coalition report found no increasing trends for wildfires, hurricanes and tornadoes.
With respect to tornadoes, the U.S., including Texas, has seen a decades-long decline in the most violent of twisters. The likely reason is a warming Earth – a natural phenomenon following the end of the Little Ice Age – reduces the temperature differentials between regions inside and outside equatorial regions that drive storms.
Like the rest of the world, Texas has experienced record-breaking growth in crop production over the last several decades. This is no coincidence, as research shows every increase of 1 part per million (ppm) in CO2 concentration boosts yields of corn and wheat by 0.4% and 1%, respectively. Based on these metrics, the 140-ppm increase in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has led to increases of 56%, 84% and 140% in corn, soybeans and wheat, respectively.
CO2 is necessary for life on Earth, and reducing emissions of the gas would be harmful to vegetation, including forests, grasslands and agricultural crops.
Even if Texas could stop emitting CO2, the amount of atmospheric warming averted would be only 0.0093 degrees and 0.0237 degrees by 2050 and 2100, respectively. These changes are negligible and cannot be felt or measured.
If the reason for spending on Texas climate policy were to enrich wind and solar developers, then, yes, lamentations over the demise of subsidies are understandable. However, there is no basis for spending a cent on a fake crisis – and certainly not on technologies that offer no benefit.
This commentary was first published by Lone Star Standard on October 17, 2025.
“If a robust, resilient, sustainable and innovative economy is our goal, then dogmatically clinging to our existing business models, whatever their past successes, is not the solution.”
“If a robust, resilient, sustainable and innovative economy is our goal, then dogmatically clinging to our existing business models, whatever their past successes, is not the solution.”
The profound words of wisdom come from EC president Ursula von der Leyen in a letter to member states. The goal of the letter is to appease those among them worried that a planned expansion of the carbon market in the EU would hurt people financially.
The letter was quoted copiously by Politico, which sought to help President von der Leyen in her reassurance effort, also featuring the heartfelt statement that “no one should be able to submit our economic and social fabric to so much tension that it breaks down.” Which is absolutely hilarious.
The planned expansion of the carbon market, also known as the Emissions Trading System, would cover, in addition to heavy industries, transport and buildings, meaning heating. The less green your car and your heating system, the more you pay for both, per the plan. Per reality, higher prices are not going to be welcome. So von der Leyen has promised to cut carbon costs before the expanded market comes into effect in what must be a first in the history of trade.
“What we need is a transition that is just and fair, whereby especially vulnerable households, small companies and regions that are most exposed to structural changes are protected and supported,” von der Leyen also said in her letter, apparently thinking that stringing together buzzwords — or what passes for buzzwords in Brussels — would be enough for Eastern and Central European countries to calm down and say “That’s all right, then.”
When it comes to actual measures to ensure the ETS expansion does not plunge even more people into poverty, there is precious little to report. Per Bloomberg, “The commission will enhance the role of a reserve pot of permits under ETS2, known as the Market Stability Reserve, von der Leyen said. The bloc’s executive branch is also exploring the possibility of front-loading auctions of permits, which could also curb price rises. The European Investment Bank would play a role, she added.”
In short, the Commission doesn’t know what the hell it’s doing but it’s doing it anyway. Or at least talking about it. It’s complicated. The EU likes complicated. It helps the people running the show pretend they know what they are doing. It’s a fun show.
The von der Leyen camp in Brussels has been working tirelessly to convince the EU that we need to reduce emissions more and faster, even if it costs a lot — and it will. Since no one would do it voluntarily, they came up with the idea of extending the ETS, which hitherto only hurt power generators and industries such as steel and cement, among others, to start also hurting the transport industry and everyone who uses a mode of transportation with an engine and heats their home. Inevitably, the pain will cascade throughout the economy because goods and services use transport to get from provide to consumer.
The word “hurt” is not an exaggeration, by the way. You know the claims that coal power has become more expensive than wind and solar in Europe? That’s because of the ETS. You know how heavy industries are complaining about losing competitiveness? That’s also because of the ETS.
No wonder, then, that the poorer members of the EU spoke out against the ETS expansion earlier this month, writing their own letter to the Commission, in which they asked for a delay in the ETS expansion until 2030. Not that it would make any difference, but it’s a start.
“The 2027 launch of ETS2 risks triggering unintended social, economic and political disruptions, particularly in member states with higher exposure to energy poverty,” the authors of that letter wrote in a rare instance of truth being spoken at the higher echelons of power in the EU. What they got in return, was words that mean nothing.
Here are some more of those words from the Politico report: “For the EU’s economy to take its rightful place in the global economy, we must be among those who are driving the response to the challenges of our time,” Ursula of Brussels wrote. The challenges? “The scientific reality that we are increasingly putting our prosperity and our social models at risk, while our communities risk becoming uninhabitable.” I don’t know where that last part comes from. It’s not like we’re losing habitat.
Then come the so-called concessions. One of these is getting some of the planned emission cuts from… international carbon credit trading. Not a lot, just 3%, but it’s the thought that counts, I’m sure. Another thought that surely counts is the upcoming revision of emission cuts under the — brace yourself — the LULUCF regulation.
LULUCF stands for land use, land use change, and forestry and “aims to enhance governance, promote transparency, and strengthen the link between climate mitigation and environmental protection measures.” I apologise for quoting EU documentation to you when you have done nothing to deserve it. Basically, the idea is to turn the land into a carbon sink because, as we know, emissions must be cut at all costs. Well, almost all costs. Unrest in the East does not seem to be an acceptable option, hence the assurances.
One more thought that would probably count if we ever see it, is Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra’s proposals for carbon cost cut measures… which were supposed to be made public on Tuesday but weren’t, at least not anywhere where I could find them, including on his X account. I’m not holding my breath for any major concessions from Hoekstra. He is a “at all costs” type of man. And he’s about to become an even unhappier man than he already is because China is so not committing to cutting its emissions by 200% by 2030.
Here’s what’s going to happen. The Commission will delay the ETS2 as they lovingly call it, just like it will almost certainly delay the 2035 ICE car ban. The Commission will do everything it can to avoid an Eastern European revolt against the transition. Then again, they might just try to override the quite legitimate concerns of the East in what would ultimately hasten the end of a political and economic structure that has become a bloated pool of incompetence, geopolitical rabies, and destructiveness. “Fabricati Diem, Pvncs.”
And so, the litany and narrative goes on. Oil was supposed to run out a half-century ago. Then horizontal drilling and fractionation came along (bad luck!). Now AI has come to the rescue to, again, postpone the inevitable–more bad luck! (Never mind that thing called resourceship, explaining how the improvement process is open-ended.)
“In plain language: fossil fuels were becoming too difficult and expensive to produce – until AI came along to make them profitable again. That isn’t ‘innovation’ – it’s acceleration toward climate collapse.” – Holly Alpine, climate activist (below)
And so, the litany and narrative goes on. Oil was supposed to run out a half-century ago. Then horizontal drilling and fractionation came along (bad luck!). Now AI has come to the rescue to, again, postpone the inevitable–more bad luck! (Never mind that thing called resourceship, explaining how the improvement process is open-ended.)
What is good is bad to the nature-is-optimal-and-fragile Deep Ecologists. More people. Growing resource usage. Higher living standards. All bad. Remember this quotation by Paul and Anne Ehrlich and two-term Obama science advisor John Holdren?
A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. . . . Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries. This effort must be largely political. [1]
“Every Last Drop”… they’re not even trying to hide it at this point. You may have seen this new Wood Mackenzie report shared by Ketan Joshi or Pete Bronski, but I need to weigh in too, because… I hope now you see why Will and I quit our jobs to start our campaign on the topic.
Just two quotes: • “Using our data on reservoir geology, hydrocarbon quality, in-place resources, operator access to finance and technology, costs and fiscal terms, we estimate upside oil recovery factors for every significant field in the world.” • “The results of our new AI-powered analysis, therefore, are encouraging. Better recovery from existing fields could yield an additional 470 billion to over 1,000 billion barrels of oil”
She complained:
That’s a TRILLION ADDITIONAL barrels of oil [that] would not otherwise be possible. 🤯
Our math (thanks Chris Adams!) shows that could be 400 *gigatons* of emissions – using up the entire remaining 1.5 °C carbon budget, erasing decades of global climate progress, and gravely threatening a livable future on this planet. Is there any other issue on Earth that comes anywhere close to that scale of impact?
In plain language: fossil fuels were becoming too difficult and expensive to produce – until AI came along to make them profitable again. That isn’t “innovation” – it’s acceleration toward climate collapse.
She explained:
I’m NOT talking here about the energy use of AI or datacenters – those issues are critical fights in their own right and are deeply connected within the same system. But this post is focused on a different systemic dimension: how AI is directly enabling expanded fossil fuel production on a global scale.
The framing of “AI for sustainability vs. datacenter energy use” is completely missing a huge factor in the equation. How are we comparing infrastructure impacts to hypothetic, potential emissions reductions use cases, while ignoring the entire other side of the equation – the technology’s role in driving more fossil fuel production itself (and incredible resulting emissions)? We’re comparing apples to oranges and ignoring the other VERY big orange.
She then touches on the futility problem.
If you work in climate (or live on Earth), your efforts and future are being undermined in real time. You’re running on a treadmill on a train going backward. Pick your analogy – AI is being used today to erase climate progress.
And the audacity of Wood Mackenzie, writing their tagline: “the leading global data and analytics solutions provider for the energy transition.”
Check your premises, Holly Alpine! Don’t quit your day job. Don’t further tie your emotions and being to a futile, wasteful crusade against the gas of life–carbon dioxide (CO2). Fossil fuels are not the problem but part of the solution for human betterment in a free society. It is industrial wind and solar, from production to decommissioning, that are the problem: dilute, intermittent, fragile, and resource-intensive (including land and transmission).
——————
[1] John Holdren, Anne Ehrlich, and Paul Ehrlich, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions (San Francisco; W.H. Freeman and Company, 1973), p. 279.
[2] Holly Alpine described herself as follows:
Organizer and climate strategist confronting power with truth and action. I build movements that push institutions toward real environmental accountability – from inside the system and out.
After a decade leading global sustainability work at Microsoft, I co-founded the Enabled Emissions campaign – holding Big Tech accountable for how its technologies accelerate fossil fuel production. Our work exposes these hidden links, drives policy reform, and builds coalitions for systemic change.
At Microsoft, I launched the company’s first Community Environmental Sustainability program, scaling nature-based investments across 45+ global communities, as well as co-founded the company’s Employee Engagement program, mobilizing a 10,000-member climate movement in 37 countries.
Today I serve on the boards of American Forests and Zero Waste Washington, where I continue advancing equity-centered, science-based environmental policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment.