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.
Neglectful of the economic wreckage that net zero policies have wrought in the U.K. and Germany, economic powerhouse South Korea has declared war on coal and liquified natural gas (LNG) to pursue more aggressive reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
Neglectful of the economic wreckage that net zero policies have wrought in the U.K. and Germany, economic powerhouse South Korea has declared war on coal and liquified natural gas (LNG) to pursue more aggressive reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
Exhibiting a national masochism, Seoul is abandoning the very fuels that built its economy – and along with oil, the entire industrial world. By 2038, the country plans to slash LNG’s and coal’s combined share of power generation from 60% to 20% while boosting the share of so-called renewable sources – like wind and solar – to 33% from today’s 9%.
Until November 2025, things looked more sane as Seoul worked to secure its future. The government boosted investments in regional LNG ventures, expanded strategic petroleum reserves, and directed its energy giants – SK Innovation and KOGAS – to secure natural gas from Indonesia and Australia.
Since then, the government has replaced that playbook with objectives void of reason. The new plan demands a 40% cut in industrial emissions by 2030 (from 2018 levels) and bets the farm on unproven technologies like hydrogen, wind and solar. This is not a rational transition but rather reckless virtue signaling that puts national survival at risk.
Perhaps the most dangerous part of Seoul’s new direction is its projected replacement of LNG with hydrogen. Hydrogen and fuel cells are to contribute 7% of the power mix. This is a delusion, as demonstrated by failed projects that filled 2025’s “hydrogen graveyard.”
Australia’s Central Queensland Hydrogen Project, a $14 billion flagship meant for exports, collapsed this year after government support was pulled. British multinational BP exited the massive 26-gigawatt Australian Renewable Energy Hub in the Pilbara. Energy developer Fortescue, the loudest cheerleader for green hydrogen, walked away from projects in Arizona and its home country of Australia.
Germany’s LEAG project, touted as one of Europe’s largest green energy hubs, has been postponed indefinitely. ArcelorMittal’s green steel plants in Bremen were shelved despite offers of billion-euro subsidies.
In South Korea, the consequences of such foolishness will be lost jobs and shuttered factories. More than 30% of South Korea’s gross domestic product comes from its industrial sector, almost double that of the U.K. The making of steel, petrochemicals and semiconductors requires constant, stable power, which weather-dependent wind and solar cannot provide.
Introducing “green” energy into power grids forces industries to pay the additional costs of backup electricity sources or worse, to curtail operations at factories. We already know how this movie ends, having watched it play out in Europe.
Germany, the continent’s model of green virtue, finds itself deindustrializing – at a rate of 4.5% in 2024, on par with a multi-year downward trend. The same year, the U.K.’s industrial energy consumption fell by 1.2% from 2023 to record what the government notes was “the lowest industrial consumption for over 50 years.”
The Bank of England has warned: “Net zero policies are slowing the global economy.” The World Bank predicts that “the 2020s will be the weakest decade for global growth since its records began in the 1960s.
Whether this decline is by design or daft incompetence, the effects are predictable. In a renewables-dominated Korean grid, bulk material industries like POSCO’s steel mills and Lotte’s petrochemical plants could be the first casualties, competing as they do on razor-thin margins.
The approval of the Saeul-3 nuclear reactor in South Korea and the advance of small modular reactors are positive signs. Nuclear power is the only non-fossil source that offers the energy density and reliability that an industrial economy needs. But let’s be real: Nuclear plants cannot be put into operation in sufficient numbers fast enough to replace the massive hole the government is digging by slashing the use of fossil fuels.
It is not too late to reverse course. South Korea became the “Miracle on the Han River” by ignoring ideological fads and focusing on ruthless economic efficiency. The question Seoul must answer is whether it will govern for its citizens or surrender its sovereignty to an international pseudo-scientific collaboration of ideologues that benefits neither workers nor manufacturers.
Nor, for that matter, the planet the cult purports to be saving.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.
A new study uses excavation evidence (wall ruins, coins, pottery) to suggest sea level rise (SLR) rates reached ~4 m in ~70 yrs (60 mm/year, or 20 times the modern rate of 3 mm/year) from 430 to 500 CE across southern England.
“[D]uring the last 6 ky, repeated, meter-scale, rapid (<300 y) rises alternated with meter-scale falls…interpreted as global.” – Higgs, 2026
A new study uses excavation evidence (wall ruins, coins, pottery) to suggest sea level rise (SLR) rates reached ~4 m in ~70 yrs (60 mm/year, or 20 times the modern rate of 3 mm/year) from 430 to 500 CE across southern England.
Sea levels reached 3 m higher than today ~1500-2000 years ago, concurrent with the Roman Warm Period. Consequently, the coasts were 1.5 – 3 km farther inland versus today at this time.
Sea level falls were similarly rapid (for example, ~2 m in less than 100 years). Indeed, “dozens of authors found further evidence for Holocene SL [sea level] fluctuations of up to 5 m.”
These SLR rates were absolute or eustatic (due to water loading from melted ice sheets), and the fluctuations were likely global in scale. Similar meters-per-century SLR rates occurred in New Zealand, France, Brazil, and Florida (USA) during this period.
A 2024 study indicated that, 8200 years ago, near-global sea levels rose 6.5 meters in a span of just 140 years. This is 470 centimeters per century, 4.7 centimeters per year, during a period when CO2 levels were alleged to be a “safe” and stagnant 260 ppm.
The net melt of the Greenland ice sheet (GIS) is thought to have been the largest contributor to sea level rise in recent decades. But, to put the GIS change in context, the entire ice sheet melt contribution to sea level rise was just 1.2 total centimeters from 1992-2020 (Simonsen et al., 2021).
According to the Epoch Times, China controls about 90% of global capacity for the processing, smelting, and separation of these materials, as well as for the manufacturing of magnetic materials. While the United States, Australia, Brazil, India, and parts of Africa are establishing new mines, most of their concentrates still have to be shipped to Chinese refineries, where the country processes them with cheap coal power and lax environmental and other standards.
China remains the dominant refined mineral supplier, both in terms of country of origin and overseas Chinese corporate-owned supply, as China has spent decades developing the industry.
According to the Epoch Times, China controls about 90% of global capacity for the processing, smelting, and separation of these materials, as well as for the manufacturing of magnetic materials.
While the United States, Australia, Brazil, India, and parts of Africa are establishing new mines, most of their concentrates still have to be shipped to Chinese refineries, where the country processes them with cheap coal power and lax environmental and other standards.
China’s dominance with regard to refined critical mineral supply is expected to continue through the end of the decade. It is expected to have a market share of over 80% in both rare earths and synthetic graphite.
Despite the Trump Administration’s focus on onshoring critical mineral refining and processing, the United States is expected to gain only relatively small market shares in the natural and synthetic graphite and rare earth markets. Canada and Finland will each account for 6% of the refined cobalt production.
The Epoch Times explains that China knows it has the leverage and has used it recently during a trade war with the United States by restricting exports of rare earths, germanium, and other critical materials in 2025.
In 2010, China cut off rare earth exports to Japan for about two months during a territorial dispute. China has again restricted exports of rare earths and rare-earth magnets to Japan to punish it for Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks late last year suggesting the country could become involved in a conflict over Taiwan.
China’s new rules for 2026 are restricting exports of tungsten and antimony, widely used in defense and advanced technologies. It is also limiting the export of silver in the same way it has restricted rare earths, as noted below.
Via Semafor, although China dominates refined copper processing, global output is expected to become increasingly diversified, with about 55% of refined production forecast to come from outside China by 2030.
Copper underpins modern economies, used in everything from consumer electronics and household appliances to electric vehicle batteries, artificial intelligence data centers, military drones, and construction and wiring.
Supply is tightening as new mines are slow and costly to develop, while existing operations face rising costs as ore grades deteriorate.
The market is already undersupplied, a problem compounded in 2025 when several of the world’s largest mines were temporarily shut by mudslides, earthquakes, and tunnel collapses.
Analysts warn the supply gap could widen to as much as 10 million metric tons — roughly a quarter of projected demand — by 2040, keeping prices elevated. To ease shortages, governments will need to accelerate mine development, expand recycling, and broker new trade arrangements between producers, processors, and end users; the Trump administration has moved to encourage more U.S. mining, but results will take years to materialize.
Indonesia is expected to remain the world’s dominant nickel refiner, accounting for 71% of global refined nickel production, but around 80% of Indonesian refined nickel production is currently owned by Chinese companies. Similarly, Chinese companies have invested heavily in upstream cobalt assets in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Rare Earths
China holds nearly half of the world’s reserves, followed by Brazil. As reported by OilPrice, China has 44 million metric tons, about 48% of the world’s total of 91.9 million metric tons. Brazil has 21 million metric tons (23%), with large ionic clay and hard-rock deposits that have just begun development. Together, the top six countries account for roughly four-fifths of known reserves. (See graph below.)
OilPrice explains that the United States has just 1.9 million metric tons of rare earth reserves (2%), underscoring its reliance on trade and midstream processing to secure supply. In recent months, the Trump administration has sought to reduce U.S. dependence on Chinese materials by funding domestic mining projects, streamlining permits, and partnering with allies to diversify supply chains. In October, President Trump and President Xi Jinping agreed to reduce tariffs in exchange for China maintaining the flow of rare earth exports.
China, a top supplier of refined silver, began to enforce new export limits on the metal to ensure ample supplies for Chinese companies. Silver is used in manufacturing, especially by the automotive, aerospace, and defense sectors. Silver was recently added to the U.S. critical mineral list and may face new supply constraints due to these export restrictions that took effect in January.
According to the American Action Forum, “Chinese silver producers and distributors had to apply for permission to export in October based on export performance between 2022 and 2024. For new applicants, the domestic production threshold to receive approval was 80 tons, which effectively puts large, state-owned enterprises at the forefront of China’s silver exports.
Out of 50 applications, six were rejected, which will further concentrate the market and raise global price-risk premiums as companies look to de-risk supply chains.” China was one of the world’s largest producers of silver in 2024, and has the fourth largest reserves.
Analysis
China dominates the processing of critical minerals and shows no sign of relinquishing this control anytime soon.
The Trump administration is attempting to combat this control through trade policy, announcing via executive order “that it is necessary and appropriate to enter into negotiations with trading partners to adjust the imports of [processed critical minerals and their derivative products] so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security of the United States.”
Unfortunately, the Trump administration’s conclusion ignores the fact that permitting and regulatory issues are the main cause of the U.S.’s lackluster mineral processing industry. A lack of mineral processing facilities is a downstream effect of the fact that it takes 29 years to open a mine in the U.S.
The complaint contends that despite the risk of microplastic exposure and food contamination, there is no warning, disclaimer or disclosure on product packaging.
The complaint contends that despite the risk of microplastic exposure and food contamination, there is no warning, disclaimer or disclosure on product packaging.
If you look in my pantry, you will find it stocked with plastic Ziploc bags of all sizes.
In part, it’s because I find them helpful for food storage as well as some of my work activities. I am sure many Legal Insurrection readers use sealable plastic bags daily without trepidation.
Now, in the land of the setting Sun and lunatics, a California woman is suing the maker of these bags because they supposedly emit microplastics.
The lawsuit — filed by Linda Cheslow of Santa Rosa, California, in the U.S. District Court for Northern California April 25 — claims that Ziploc’s assertion that its products are freezer- and microwave-safe is incorrect and misleading, causing customers to unknowingly expose themselves to dangerous microplastics “during routine kitchen practices.”
“In reality, these Products are made from polyethylene and polypropylene — materials that scientific and medical evidence shows release microplastics when microwaved and frozen — making them fundamentally unfit for microwave and freezer use,” the lawsuit states.
The complaint names several specific products, including but not limited to: pint-, quart- and gallon-sized freezer bags; quart- and gallon-sized slider freezer bags; quart- and gallon-sized slider storage bags; and storage containers.
Ziploc is being sued over claims its bags release harmful microplastics into food increasing risks of cancer and dementia. pic.twitter.com/EMlNpdMSyY
The lawsuit will focus on the lack of warnings and looks like it will encompass all impacted American residents.
The complaint contends that despite the risk of microplastic exposure and food contamination, there is no warning, disclaimer or disclosure on product packaging to inform consumers of the potential health hazards posed by using the items as directed. This is particularly dangerous given that the Ziploc products are meant to be used on a daily basis during routine kitchen activities, the filing argues.
…Reasonable consumers would not have paid as much for the Ziploc containers and bags, or bought them at all, had they known the products could leach harmful microplastics into their food, the case asserts.
The Ziploc bag lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased any of the Ziploc products listed on this page for purposes other than resale.
I have covered the topic of microplastics before, as it looked like it might be revving up to be the next big environmental cause to target big business and corporate dollars.
I suspect the arguments supporting this case will be countered with that from agencies that have asserted that microplastics are not known to cause harm to human health. For example, this is the current information on the subject from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA):
The presence of environmentally derived microplastics and nanoplastics in food alone does not indicate a risk and does not violate FDA regulations unless it creates a health concern. While many studies have reported the presence of microplastics in several foods, including salt, seafood, sugar, beer, bottled water, honey, milk, and tea, current scientific evidence does not demonstrate that the levels of microplastics or nanoplastics detected in foods pose a risk to human health.
Additionally, because there are no standardized methods for how to detect, quantify, or characterize microplastics and nanoplastics, many of the scientific studies have used methods of variable, questionable, and/or limited accuracy and specificity.
The case is interesting because of how ubiquitous plastic bags for food storage and preparation are. I suspect the debate over microplastics, and consumer safety will continue, despite existing evidence indicating that these particles pose no proven health risk.
Still, it’s difficult for the public to trust the science when so much research and regulatory guidance have proven inconsistent or untrustworthy over time.
For a different take, you might wonder where The New York Times stands on this. Well, I have your answer. Yesterday, they gave over a big chunk of their editorial page to an op-ed by a guy named Bill Saporito, headlined “$25 Billion. That’s What Trump Cost Detroit.”
The thesis is that EVs are wondrous products, and that American EVs would be conquering the world, and earning big profits for the automakers, but for a “war” against EVs instigated by President Trump.
Over the past couple of years, I have had several posts here expressing skepticism about whether electric vehicles (EVs) were really the wave of the future. Most recently, I had a post on December 17 noting the rapid decline of EV sales in the U.S. during the fourth quarter of 2025, following the expiration of certain tax credits on September 30. Overall, my take has been that the EV market has been propped up by government subsidies and benefits and, like all business’s dependent on government handouts, would likely shrink drastically (if not completely disappear) without them.
For a different take, you might wonder where The New York Times stands on this. Well, I have your answer. Yesterday, they gave over a big chunk of their editorial page to an op-ed by a guy named Bill Saporito, headlined “$25 Billion. That’s What Trump Cost Detroit.”
The thesis is that EVs are wondrous products, and that American EVs would be conquering the world, and earning big profits for the automakers, but for a “war” against EVs instigated by President Trump.
Bill Saporito, if you haven’t heard of him, is a business journalist who has really been around the block in mainstream publications, mostly under the umbrella of the former Time, Inc. He has been a big-time writer and/or editor at outlets like Fortune, Inc., and Time, where he has been Assistant Managing Editor and was at some point in charge of both business and sports. (Maybe he is as responsible as anyone for running the whole-Time, Inc. enterprise into the ground.)
So, Bill, what is your take on EVs? According to Saporito, the recent massive write-downs of investments in EVs by Ford ($19.5 billion) and GM ($6 billion) have been caused by “President Trump’s gratuitous war against electric vehicles,” which “is forcing manufacturers to return to an increasingly outdated past.” The CEOs of those companies have been trying to make all the right moves to “futureproof” their enterprises in shifting marketplaces but, says Saporito, “it is pretty difficult to futureproof your company against stupid.”
Saporito continues that EVs are an “obviously beneficial” technology, and that Trump’s war on them is motivated by some combination of vindictiveness, spite, and ignorance of the importance of “climate change.” In short, “stupid”:
Mr. Trump’s efforts to undermine an obviously beneficial technology are something that, as far as I can tell, no large American company previously encountered. . .. One big reason for Mr. Trump’s rejection of E.V.s is simple: President Joe Biden championed them as his administration pushed greener forms of transportation and energy. . .. The vindictive, oil-loving Mr. Trump, who equates green with woke and views climate change as heresy, has worked assiduously to undo it, working to cancel consumer tax incentives and billions in funds for E.V. charging and battery manufacturing projects.
Remarkably, despite the extremely harsh language directed at Trump, Saporito doesn’t mention anything that the supposed “war” consists of beyond the withdrawal of previous subsidies and tax credits. Since when is a business entitled to subsidies and tax credits? Outside social welfare fields like education and health care, nearly all businesses operate without government handouts. Is the government conducting a “war” against people who make computers, or who build houses, by not offering them subsidies and tax credits?
As the final crushing piece of evidence to prove his case that rushing to EVs is “obviously beneficial,” Saporito cites the apparent success of Chinese EV champion BYD. They are leaving us in their dust!
[GM’s foreign competitors] remain fully committed to E.V.s. That’s especially true of China, where BYD has become the world’s largest E.V. maker, overtaking Tesla. BYD started as a battery maker and now exports its low-priced E.V.s to more than 70 countries. Eventually, the United States will be one of them. Our ability to compete with BYD and other Chinese competitors is being undermined.
I wonder if Saporito is keeping up with the latest on BYD, let alone the Chinese EV market generally. Here is a piece from the Vision Times from December 16, headline “BYD Faces Mounting Inventory and Surging Debt as Quality Complaints Flood the Internet.” (To be fair, Vision Times is uniformly highly critical of the Chinese government and its policies.). Excerpt:
In short, BYD’s net profit fell by nearly one-third in the first three quarters of 2025, while its debt burden surged several-fold. Although BYD still ranked first in China’s new-energy vehicle market with retail sales of 307,000 units in November 2025, year-on-year sales dropped sharply by 26.5 percent.
It seems that China is also in the process of withdrawing subsidies and tax credits for purchases of EVs:
With government trade-in subsidies being reduced or suspended and the halving of new-energy vehicle purchase tax incentives set for next year, consumer willingness to buy cars has weakened or been postponed.
Does that mean that China is also conducting a “war” on EVs?
The Vision Times piece concludes by quoting a blogger calling himself “Cold-Eyed Finance” on the subject of the Chinese EV manufacturing sector:
“China’s electric vehicle industry has no easy way out. Overcapacity is the core problem. Manufacturers are locked in vicious internal competition, slashing prices and costs. The result is mounting losses while production continues. After this phase, it will be a test of endurance—and many won’t last. A wave of bankruptcies in China’s EV sector is likely to accelerate.”
I would suggest to Mr. Saporito that it might take a bit more analysis to figure out what the “stupid” policies are here.
Much was made of the fact that there is a long record of wind data in the Scillies, so, supposedly, winds of 99 mph must be truly exceptional.
I was highly sceptical at the time, pointing out much more powerful storms have hit the Southwest, including Burns Day in 1990, when winds of 93 kts, 107 mph were measured in Cornwall – the highest wind speeds to hit Cornwall during Goretti were only 90 mph:
I therefore sent the Met Office an FOI, asking for the data on the Scillies during the Burns Day storm. This is their response:
Note as well that the “new” record is specifically for the Airport, not the Scillies as a whole. As the Airport site only started recording wind speeds in 1991, there must be many, more powerful storms before 1991. Ones like the 1979 storm, which brought 118 mph winds to Gwennap Head:
Contrary to the claims of proponents of the Green New Deal and Net Zero, fossil fuels are the greenest fuels.
First, uniquely among energy sources, fossil fuel use emits CO2, which is the ultimate source of the elemental building block, carbon, found in all carbon-based life, i.e., virtually all life on Earth.
Contrary to the claims of proponents of the Green New Deal and Net Zero, fossil fuels are the greenest fuels.
First, uniquely among energy sources, fossil fuel use emits CO2, which is the ultimate source of the elemental building block, carbon, found in all carbon-based life, i.e., virtually all life on Earth.
The increased amplitude of the seasonal cycle in atmospheric CO2 and satellite-borne instrumentation to measure solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence from plants provide direct evidence that global photosynthetic activity (or Gross Primary Production, GPP, a measure of the change in global biomass) has increased over the past several decades (Frankenberg et al. 2011; Graven et al. 2013). Observed variations (Campbell et al. 2017) of atmospheric CO2 over the past two centuries are consistent with increasing primary productivity.
Other satellite studies also show that the earth has been greening continually in recent decades (Zhu et al. 2016; Piao et al. 2020). Second, fossil fuel dependent technologies have increased agricultural yields directly or indirectly by at least 167% (Goklany 2021).
This increase in agricultural productivity is due to the use of fossil-fuel-dependent technologies, specifically, nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides and carbon dioxide fertilization resulting from fossil fuel emissions.
This has enabled human beings to meet their demands for food using less cropland, which then spares land for the rest of nature.
Thus, in the absence of fossil fuels, at least 167% more land would have to be cultivated to maintain global food production at current levels. That would be equivalent to increasing current cropland from 12.2% of global land area (GLA) (FAO 2019) to 32.7%.
But diversion of habitat (land) to agriculture is already deemed to be the greatest threat to global biodiversity. Fossil fuels have, therefore, not only increased productivity of already-converted habitat, but they have also forestalled conversion of at least an additional 20.4% of GLA.
Consequently, the world sustains 10 times more people today (7.97 billion) than at the start of the Industrial Revolution (786 million in 1750), while supporting more biomass.
Moreover, to compare the impacts of the various energy options on habitat, we should consider the physical footprint needed to produce an equivalent amount of energy via each option (solar, wind and the various fossil fuels). Second, for wind and solar to be viable substitutes for fossil fuel energy, they should be coupled with batteries to solve their intermittency problem which requires substantial amounts of metals and other materials that must be mined, smelted and refined which necessarily would disturb the land.
The Greening of the Earth and the Increase in Biomass
Based on satellite data, Zhu et al. (2016) found that from 1982–2009, 25–50% of global vegetated area had become greener while 4% had become browner. They attributed 70% of the greening to CO2 fertilization from emissions from fossil fuel combustion (which increases photosynthesis and water use efficiency, WUE, of most vegetation), 9% to nitrogen deposition (also from the use of fossil-fuel-derived fertilizers), 8% to climate change, and 4% to land use change. The first three, responsible cumulatively for 87% of the greening, are related to the use of fossil fuels.
Chen et al. (2019) report that global leaf area increased by 5.4 million km2 over 2000–2017, equivalent to the area of the Amazon rainforest (Piao et al. 2020). They noted, per MODIS data, that 34% of the globe is greening while 5% is browning. Leaf area increased at the rate of 2.3% per decade from 2000‒2017. China and India accounted for 25% and 6.8% of the global net increase in leaf area despite only having 6.6% and 2.7% of global vegetated area, respectively. Greening occurred mainly in forests and croplands in China, and croplands (82%) in India, suggesting that greening is from reforestation and agricultural practices (e.g., fertilizers and multi-cropping).
Song et al. (2018) found that, contrary to prevailing wisdom, global tree cover increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1%) from 1982–2016. A net loss in the tropics was outgained by increases in the extra tropics.
Global bare ground cover decreased by 1.16 million km2 (−3.1%), most notably in agricultural regions in Asia. 60% of all land use/cover changes were associated with direct human activities and 40% with indirect factors such as climate change, which indicates net reforestation and net de-desertification over the study period, partly attributed to climate change. Reforestation was probably enabled by increased productivity of agricultural lands substantially due to the use of fossil-fuel-derived fertilizers and pesticides and increases in CO2 fertilization (indirectly from using fossil fuels). Together, they rendered land surplus to agricultural needs.
Using data from 1982-2011, Gao et al. (2019: 9) found that productivity, using annual maximum Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) as a proxy, increased significantly in 45.8% of global grasslands while declining significantly in 1.5%.
Using data from 1982-2011, Cheng et al. (2017) found that global gross primary productivity (GPP) increased, mainly due to increased WUE of vegetation, an expected, but underemphasized, consequence of increasing CO2 concentrations. Despite large-scale occurrence of droughts and disturbances over the study period, annual GPP increased 0.6 ± 0.2% per year. About 65% of vegetated land showed significant positive trends in GPP. Ecosystem WUE also increased significantly in 78% of vegetated areas.
In a review article on global greening drawing upon the above studies, among others, Piao et al. (2020) note that:
“Greening is pronounced over intensively farmed or afforested areas, such as in China and India, reflecting human activities. However, strong greening also occurs in biomes with low human footprint, such as the Arctic, where global change drivers play a dominant role. Vegetation models suggest that CO2 fertilization is the main driver of greening on the global scale, with other factors being notable at the regional scale.”
Satellite-derived empirical trends in greening from 1982 to 2018, using the mean growing season (GS) leaf area index (LAI) as a surrogate, are shown in Figure 1 (Piao et al. 2020).
Figure 1. Changes in mean growing season (GS) leaf area index (LAI) based on empirical satellite-derived data. (a) Based on changes in Advanced Very- High-Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) LAI from 1982–2009. The AVHRR LAI dataset is the average of three sets of satellite data products (GIMMS13, GLOBMAP23 and GL ASS192). (b) Based on changes over four regions from 1982–2009. (c) Based on changes in Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) LAI from 2000–2018. (d) Based on changes in MODIS LAI over four regions during 2000–2018. Source: Piao et al.2020.
Finally, Sun et al. (2020) estimated that GPP increased at the rate of 0.16% per year from 2000 to 2014 largely due to CO2 fertilization. Combining this estimate with Campbell at al.’s estimate of a 31% increase in GPP during the 20th century, gives a cumulative increase of 34% from 1900 to 2014.
The increased productivity from higher photosynthetic rates and WUE due to higher CO2 concentrations implies the biosphere produces more plant matter, i.e., more food for all carbon-based organisms even under water-stressed conditions, which further enables earth to sustain higher biomass, that is, more organisms and/or a larger variety of species while also increasing its resiliency to drought, a chronic condition detrimental to most life forms (but which may favor drought-tolerant species).
Habitat Saved by Fossil Fuel Usage from Conversion to Human Use
Use of fossil fuel technologies has enabled human beings to spare 20.4% of GLA for the rest of nature. This exceeds both the habitat lost currently to cropland (12.2% of GLA) and the global cumulative area currently reserved or identified as conservation areas (estimated at 14.6% of GLA) (Goklany 2021). Clearly, conversion of this magnitude of habitat to agriculture would devastate global biodiversity.
The increased agricultural productivity allowed cropland in many areas to revert to forest or other non-agricultural use. For example, between 1990 and 2020 forestland in the USA and Western Europe increased 2.4% and 10.1% despite population increases of 30% and 11%, respectively (FAOSTAT 2022).
Physical Footprint of Various Electrical Generating Facilities
Different energy sources have different demands on land. Figure 2 compares the physical footprint needed to site a 1 MW power plant using different energy sources. The estimates shown include direct and indirect land requirements based on U.S. practices as of 2015. They include estimates of land used during resource production, for transport and transmission lines, and store waste materials. Both one-time and continuous land-use requirements were considered (Stevens et al. 2017).
Figure 2. Physical footprint per megawatt of energy produced using various energy technologies, based on practices as of 2015. (Source: Stevens et al. 2017)
Figure 2 shows that compared to fossil fuels, solar would need more than three times as much land; wind, five times as much; and hydropower, 25 times as much.
Land Needed for “Clean” and Fossil Fuel Energy Systems
To replace fossil fuel and nuclear generation, wind and solar would need to be coupled, at a minimum, with battery backup to provide electricity round-the-clock. However, the manufacture of batteries, as well as solar panels and wind turbines involves relatively vast quantities of metals and minerals. This necessarily entails equally vast mining operations and land disturbance.
Although, the amount of mining would no doubt increase, the estimated global areal extent of mining operations is very small relative to agricultural operations (5.7 million hectares vs. almost 5 billion hectares, about one-third of which is cropland and the remainder, pastureland and meadow for livestock) (Maus 2020, FAO 2019).
Thus, the additional amount of surface disturbance may be relatively minor. This is because while agriculture depends substantially on the energy harvested from the sun which is a function of the surface area occupied by the array of solar panels or windmills, mining involves the excavation and processing (including transportation, smelting, and refining) of vast quantities of material (volume operations). Nevertheless, these operations themselves require substantial energy consumption and emit significant amounts of air and water pollution.
The International Energy Agency (2022) notes that solar and wind powered energy systems typically require more metals and minerals than their fossil fueled analogs. For instance, it notes that a typical electric vehicle requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a natural gas-fired power plant, while offshore wind plants require fifteen times as much as natural gas.
Figure 3 shows the demand estimated by the International Energy Agency for various metals to generate 1 MW of power using different energy technologies (IEA 2022). It shows that demand for these metals is substantially larger for renewable energy technologies. However, this figure excludes demand for concrete and cement, steel and aluminum. The demand for those materials is shown in Figure 4 (in tonnes per TWh of electricity generated).
Figure 3. Metals demand for clean energy technologies compared to other power generation sources. Note: Steel and aluminum are not included. The values for offshore wind and onshore wind are based on the direct-drive permanent magnet synchronous generator system (including array cables) and the doubly-fed induction generator system respectively. The values for coal and natural gas are based on ultra-supercritical plants and combined-cycle gas turbines. Actual consumption can vary by project depending on technology choice, project size and installation environment. Note: Lithium demand is included in the “rare earths” category. Source: IEA 2022, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions.
We see from Figure 3 that fossil fuels (natural gas and coal, in that order) have substantially lower demand for metals (and, therefore, associated land disruption), followed by nuclear, solar and, finally, wind. [Metals demand for hydropower was not provided in the IEA report.]
Figure 4. Demand for concrete, steel and aluminum (in tonnes per TWh) for different energy technologies. Source: World Nuclear Association 2022). Note: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in combination with coal and gas are included although CCS is not generally economically viable.
Figure 4 shows that fossil fuels and nuclear have the lowest total demand for concrete, steel and aluminum, followed by solar, wind and hydroelectric (in that order). Once again, we see that land disturbance would be substantially greater for renewables than for fossil fuel and nuclear.
Figure 4 also includes demand for concrete, aluminum and steel for plants that may use carbon capture and storage (CCS) in combination with coal and gas although CCS has not been proven to be economically viable even in special circumstances where the CCS product can be used in captive facilities, e.g., for enhanced oil recovery. Notably, the advantage of coal and gas over nuclear (regarding demand for these three materials) disappears if CCS is employed. However, it should also be noted that economic viability does not seem to constrain policymakers nowadays.
Conclusion
Fossil fuel combustion has increased the amount of carbon dioxide available to green the earth. This has contributed the major share of the approximately 34% increase in the earth’s GPP that has occurred since 1900 that has literally greened the earth. Second, by enhancing agricultural productivity, fossil fuel-dependent technologies have forestalled the conversion of at least 20.4% of global land area to agricultural uses.
This is 25% larger than the entire area of North America. Remarkably, this exceeds the total amount of land currently set aside globally for both cropland (12.2%) and conservation worldwide (14.6%). Third, relative to renewable energy sources, fossil fuels have smaller physical footprints and lower demand for metals and other minerals.
The latter substantially limits mining and other land disturbance. Such disturbance would inevitably result in “browning” of the land. Hence, fossil fuels are indeed the greenest energy sources. But “greenest” does not necessarily mean the “cleanest”. That distinction may have to be reserved for nuclear energy, but that is another topic.
Acknowledgments
My thanks to Drs. Will Happer and Greg Wrightstone for their incisive and constructive comments, which have resulted in a much-improved paper. Any flaws and omissions, however, are my responsibility.
References
Campbell JE, Berry JA, Seibt U, Smith SJ, Montzka SA, Launois T, Belviso S, Bopp L, Laine M. Large historical growth in global terrestrial gross primary production. Nature. 2017 Apr;544(7648):84-7.
Chen, C. et al. China and India lead in greening of the world through land- use management. Nat. Sustain. 2, 122–129 (2019a).
Cheng, Lei, Lu Zhang, Ying-Ping Wang, Josep G. Canadell, Francis HS Chiew, Jason Beringer, Longhui Li, Diego G. Miralles, Shilong Piao, and Yongqiang Zhang. 2017. Recent increases in terrestrial carbon uptake at little cost to the water cycle. Nature Communications, 8(1): 110.
Forkel M, Carvalhais N, Rödenbeck C, Keeling R, Heimann M, Thonicke K, Zaehle S, Reichstein M. Enhanced seasonal CO2 exchange caused by amplified plant productivity in northern ecosystems. Science. 2016 Feb 12;351(6274):696-9.
Frankenberg C, Fisher JB, Worden J, Badgley G, Saatchi SS, Lee JE, Toon GC, Butz A, Jung M, Kuze A, Yokota T. New global observations of the terrestrial carbon cycle from GOSAT: Patterns of plant fluorescence with gross primary productivity. Geophysical Research Letters. 2011 Sep;38(17).
Gao, Qingzhu, Mark Schwartz, Wenquan Zhu, Yunfan Wan, Xiaobo Qin, Xin Ma, Shuo Liu, Matthew Williamson, Casey Peters, and Yue Li. 2016. Changes in global grassland productivity during 1982 to 2011 attributable to climatic factors. Remote Sensing, 8(5): 384.
Goklany IM. Reduction in global habitat loss from fossil‐fuel‐dependent increases in cropland productivity. Conservation Biology. 2021 Jun;35(3):766-74.
Graven HD, Keeling RF, Piper SC, Patra PK, Stephens BB, Wofsy SC, Welp LR, Sweeney C, Tans PP, Kelley JJ, Daube BC. Enhanced seasonal exchange of CO2 by northern ecosystems since 1960. Science. 2013 Sep 6;341(6150):1085-9.
International Energy Agency 2022. The Role of Critical World Energy Outlook Special Report Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions.
Maus V, Giljum S, Gutschlhofer J, da Silva DM, Probst M, Gass SL, Luckeneder S, Lieber M, McCallum I. A global-scale data set of mining areas. Scientific data. 2020 Sep 8;7(1):1-3.
Piao S, Wang X, Park T, Chen C, Lian XU, He Y, Bjerke JW, Chen A, Ciais P, Tømmervik H, Nemani RR. Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 2020 Jan;1(1):14-27.
Song, Xiao-Peng, Matthew C. Hansen, Stephen V. Stehman, Peter V. Potapov, Alexandra Tyukavina, Eric F. Vermote, and John R. Townshend. 2018. Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature, 560(7720): 639.
Zhu, Zaichun, Shilong Piao, Ranga B. Myneni, Mengtian Huang, Zhenzhong Zeng, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais et al. 2016. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature climate change 6(8): 791.
Authored by Indur M. Goklany
Indur Goklany is a Member of the CO2 Coalition. He is an author, researcher, and longtime civil servant. He became involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since before its inception. His degrees are PhD and MS (Electrical Engineering and Systems Science) and Bachelor of Technology (Electrical Engineering).
Trump’s requirement for U.S. tech giants to assume responsibility for their data center electricity needs may catalyze demand for off-grid power systems in U.S. data centers.
According to Zhitong Finance APP, Guosheng Securities issued a research report stating that recently, Trump’s requirement for U.S. technology giants to self-finance the power supply of their data centers may catalyze the construction demand for off-grid power systems in U.S. data centers. In terms of geothermal installed capacity potential, the global geothermal potential is approximately 162GW, nearly 10 times the current installed capacity, with the U.S. and Asia (mainly Indonesia) having a potential geothermal scale of about 35.0GW/74.3GW.
Currently, Meta (META.US) and Google (GOOGL.US) have deployed several hundred MW-level geothermal power projects, while the next-generation enhanced geothermal technology broadens the application scenarios for geothermal energy.
The price of geothermal power purchase agreements for AI data centers has risen to 100 USD/MWh, representing an increase of over 45% compared to 2024.
…
U.S. Geothermal: Rising electricity demand from data centers drives both the quantity and price of geothermal installations.
Quantity: Meta and Google have deployed several hundred MW-level geothermal power projects, while next-generation enhanced geothermal system (EGS) technology expands the applicable scenarios for geothermal energy. 1) Meta: In 2024, Meta signed a 150MW geothermal power purchase agreement with Sage Geosystems, with the first phase expected to come online by 2027. In June 2025, Meta signed another 150MW geothermal power purchase agreement with XGS Energy to secure power for its New Mexico data center, with completion expected by 2030.
Paying Chinese companies to drill deep and pump water into active geological zones on the US West Coast. What could possibly go wrong?
Quite a lot potentially.
The 1700 Cascadia Megathrust Earthquake and the Future of Cascadia Margin
The 1700 tsunami that impacted the Puget sound region was triggered by a megathrust earthquake off the coast of northern California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia on the so-called Cascadia margin. The event happened on the evening of January 26th as documented in Japanese historic records. In Japan, the event was called an “orphan” tsunami because the earthquake was so far away it was not felt. … These trees were killed by a tsunami in 1700 when the elevation of the land fell, and they were completely inundated and then buried by sand. Large storms eroded the sand from the trees and exposed them. They remain as evidence of the huge tsunami more than 300 years ago.
Oral accounts from indigenous Native American and First Nation tribes living on the coast of Vancouver Island in Canada that have been passed down from generation to generation tell of an earthquake and tsunami on a winter’s evening. … the only survivors were those people who lived 75 feet above the waterline. So the tsunami must have been massive!
Subsidence and tsunami records suggest that the earthquake was in the range of a magnitude 8.7-9.2 on the Richter scale. So what is a megathrust earthquake? It’s a very powerful quake usually close to or greater than a magnitude 9. These quakes occur at subduction zones where one plate is thrust under the other. … In the 2004 Indian Ocean event, an area 180 km wide and 1000 km long moved up by 30 meters! In the 2011 Tohoku event, an area 200 km long by 500 km wide moved up by 20 meters!
…
Such a disaster will happen along the Cascadia margin at some time in the future. …
I think you can tell I’m not a fan of poking holes in unstable geological zones and pumping in water.
To be fair some designs are “closed loop”, where the water circulates through pipes and is never supposed to come directly into contact with the hot rocks. But I remember when I used to help my uncle maintain his old concrete block condominium building. It only takes a small movement in concrete and presumably also in unstable hot geothermal stone to crush or break even the most flexible embedded water pipes.
How dangerous is geothermal?
I don’t know.
I doubt anyone knows.
But let’s hope the new rush to Geothermal doesn’t turn into a real-life version of the movie “How it ends”, that nobody finds out the hard way that the rushed installation of lots of Chinese built geothermal plants in unstable Ring of Fire geological zones on the US West Coast was a bad idea.
Before anyone suggests that regulatory oversight and engineering would prevent any unsafe geothermal installations, Chinese companies have a troubling track record of putting profits ahead of engineering integrity and safety, when it comes to big money energy projects.
This January is described as one of the coldest in the last 15 years. During such cold phases, German gas consumption spikes drastically (up to a 1.3% loss in capacity per day). Currently (as of January 19) the gas storage level is at 41.8%, much lower than at this time last year (near 64%).
German energy channel Energie & Outdoor Chiemgau looks at the heating gas supply in Germany, which is steadily approaching a tense phase as storage levels dwindle.
If Germany’s cold January continues as forecasts suggest, natural gas rationing will be likely. Image cropped here.
This January is described as one of the coldest in the last 15 years. During such cold phases, German gas consumption spikes drastically (up to a 1.3% loss in capacity per day). Currently (as of January 19) the gas storage level is at 41.8%, much lower than at this time last year (near 64%).
Nearing critical levels
As the current storage levels in Germany continue fall, a critical point approaches: Once storage drops below 20%, it becomes technically difficult to maintain enough pressure for standard withdrawal. According to Stefan Spiegelsperger of Energie & Outdoor Chiemgau, this marks the beginning of a gas shortage situation.
A significant portion of Germany’s stored gas is being used to generate electricity, especially during periods of low wind (which we currently have) or solar output (“Dunkelflaute”). And although LNG terminals are available, many remain underutilized due to a shortage of tanker ships. Moreover, Germany still continues to transit gas to neighboring countries.
In his video, Spiegelsperger criticizes the forecasts from INES (Initiative Energien Speichern) as being too optimistic. He points out that actual storage levels are already falling below their predicted curves, which is worrisome. If the cold wave lasts until mid-February, a reference calculation (based on the year 2010) suggests that storage facilities could be completely emptied.
Potential consequences of a gas shortage
So what happens if the gas storage levels continue on their worrisome path and a real shortage develops? Answer: Rationing begins and the supply of homes will have priority. To secure the supply for private households, the industry would have to drastically curtail its consumption. This would lead to harsh economic consequences.
Also public facilities like swimming pools could be closed, and there might be appeals to lower heating temperatures in homes.
Moreover, based on supply and demand, gas prices are expected to rise.
Stefan Spiegelsperger of Energie & Outdoor Chiemgau believes a gas shortage is hardly avoidable at this point, unless the remainder of the winter surprises and turns out to be extremely mild. At the moment, weather models aren’t seeing that scenario.
Spiegelsperger advises viewers to prepare for potential bottlenecks. A small piece of positive news mentioned is the start of gas deliveries from Azerbaijan, though these only cover a small fraction of the total demand.
This dire situation is in large part thanks to Germany’s reckless foray into green energy fantasies.
You must be logged in to post a comment.