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.
As nations increasingly embrace the 97% cost advantage of Chinese AI, the USA has this brief opportunity to seize back the initiative.
America’s ‘biggest risk’ on AI is China getting ahead, Bessent says
Monday, 29 Jun 2026 | 5:38 PM MYT
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Tuesday said China surpassing the United States on artificial intelligence was the “biggest risk” of the technology – outweighing concerns over safety or job losses.
“The biggest risk to AI is China getting ahead of us,” Bessent said at the Economic Club of New York, adding that China’s willingness to discuss AI underscored America’s technological lead.
“I am one of the point people on our AI policy. I am the point person in terms of the economic relationship with China,” he said.
“I could tell you that the reason the Chinese are willing to have a discussion on AI is because we are ahead, so we have to stay ahead.”
Bessant isn’t the only significant figure concerned about Chinese AI competition. Many pundits suggest China is already ahead;
People around the world see a winner on AI — and it’s not the US
Respondents in key U.S.-allied countries increasingly see China as the world’s AI leader, while American optimism about the technology continues to erode.
China is eclipsing the United States as the perceived artificial intelligence superpower in much of the world, according to a new global poll that underscores how Silicon Valley’s lead in the defining technology race is no longer taken for granted.
The survey also calls into question whether the United States will continue advancing the AI frontier fast enough to stay ahead of China, finding that Americans are increasingly worried about the technology’s consumption of resources, its ability to automate jobs and its potential to sow misinformation online.
The poll, conducted by U.K.-based research firm Public First surveying over 18,000 people across 15 countries, shows that just over half of American respondents — as well as majorities of people responding in Japan, India and Vietnam — still see the U.S. as the dominant AI superpower.
But those in the 11 other countries, including close U.S. allies such as France, Canada and the United Kingdom, see China as the leader. In Germany, only 23 percent of people saw the U.S. as dominant.
Why, despite not having the latest chip technology, is China mounting such a challenge to a technology the Trump administration sees as a national priority?
Vice President JD Vance highlighted one critical advantage China has;
Vance: China is ahead of the US in AI development thanks to the construction of energy facilities
China is ahead of the United States in artificial intelligence thanks to the rapid development of the energy infrastructure needed to operate data centers, said US Vice President J.D. Vance in an interview with journalist Michael Knowles, APA reports.
“I believe the Chinese are ahead of us in the field of artificial intelligence in only one way: they’re not afraid to build new energy capacity, while we are. This is where the environmental movement in the US will collide with reality. If AI companies don’t understand this, the first victims of this confrontation between the construction of new energy capacity and the environmental movement will be American AI data centers,” Vance said.
The US effort to compete with China is being sabotaged by opponents of cheap and abundant fossil fuel energy. Make no mistake, if China needs a new coal plant, they build a new coal plant – no handwringing or giant polar bear puppets, just put in the power plant where it is needed.
In addition China, cut off from the very latest US technology, has learned how to do more with less. Just as the Indian nuclear programme defeated supercomputer export bans by developing novel ways to network hundreds of computers into a DIY supercomputer, so China has been forced to explore ways to achieve results comparable to US AI models by using their energy and bulk low end chip advantages.
China’s AI models compete on cost efficiency for training and inference
Chinese developers are slashing compute costs by up to 97% through architectural innovation, reshaping the global AI pricing landscape under the pressure of US export controls.
DeepSeek trained its V3 model for roughly $5.58 million. For context, US competitors routinely spend tens to hundreds of millions on frontier-level models.
In May 2026, DeepSeek permanently slashed prices on its V4-Pro model by 75%. Cached input costs dropped to as low as RMB 0.025 per million tokens.
DeepSeek isn’t alone in this race to the bottom. Chinese firm 01.ai reportedly offers inference at approximately 14 cents per million tokens, positioning Chinese API pricing as the lowest in the world.
Chinese AI models on OpenRouter have achieved 5x growth in volume, driven almost entirely by their cost advantages over US alternatives.
This could have serious consequences for the USA if China wins a decisive advantage.
AI is real and it works.
A few weeks ago I demonstrated vibe coding a simple game – achieving an 800% increase in productivity over the time it would have taken me if I had coded the game without AI assistance.
It’s not just software – vibe products are very rapidly becoming a thing, where new product development is something you do in your coffee break, with orders shipping within hours of finalising your design. While this use of AI technology to develop real products is currently experimental, its not going to take long for Chinese manufacturers to realise how much money they could make by combining their low cost AI advantages with their large scale low cost manufacturing advantages.
It’s not just 3D printing – similar modelling techniques can be used for laser cutting, automated welding, and other rapid development manufacturing technologies. It’s only a matter of time until some genius assembles all this into a system which combines the advantages of mass production and bespoke engineering.
The USA has this one brief opportunity to wake up and sweep away the energy cost and regulatory roadblocks to competition with China.
Regardless of how you feel about AI, AI cannot be suppressed, the genie cannot be put back in its bottle. Any impediment to AI development in the USA can only hurt the USA, as other players embrace the new AI industrial revolution and crush nations and industries which are left behind, just as completely as other less advanced economies were crushed by the original industrial revolution in the late 1700s, until others figured out how to catch up.
Nuclear power delivers clean, reliable baseload energy essential for economic growth, national security, and competing in AI.
U.S. companies lead in advanced reactor designs (e.g., small modular reactors or SMRs), but regulatory hurdles, supply chain weaknesses, and foreign competition (from Russia and China) threaten leadership.
The phrase “Seizing the Moment for U.S. Nuclear Energy Dominance” serves as the title of an op-ed published in CFACT.
Authors Sam Thernstrom, Paul Saunders, and Todd Abrajano argue that the United States must urgently act to revitalize its nuclear sector amid surging electricity demand from AI data centers, manufacturing resurgence, and grid strain.
Nuclear power delivers clean, reliable baseload energy essential for economic growth, national security, and competing in AI.
U.S. companies lead in advanced reactor designs (e.g., small modular reactors or SMRs), but regulatory hurdles, supply chain weaknesses, and foreign competition (from Russia and China) threaten leadership.
A stunning scene showcasing pink flowers blooming in a garden with industrial cooling towers in the background, blending nature and human-made structures against a striking sky.
As America’s electric grid faces an unprecedent strain, nuclear power has never been more promising nor more important. Nuclear energy provides clean, reliable power that is vital to our economy and national security. American companies are pioneering some of the most promising advanced reactor designs in the world, but they will not succeed without effective government support for nuclear energy.
America’s nuclear renaissance has been long delayed by regulatory and financial barriers, but that is rapidly changing. In May, President Trump signed a series of executive orders designed to accelerate reactor licensing and reform regulations, with a goal of bringing 300 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity online by 2050, effectively quadrupling the reactor fleet. A recently announced framework agreement with Westinghouse, Brookfield and Cameco to invest $80 billion in building 10 new, advanced nuclear plants in the United States is an important step towards fulfilling that vision.
The plan reflects the Administration’s understanding of two key facts: Effective government policy support is needed to jumpstart a resurgence of nuclear power; and success depends upon building new reactors in series, not just one or two. That allows companies to establish robust supply chains and secure the manufacturing scale that drives cost-reductions.
While these initiatives indicate important momentum, further federal action will be critical to our success. To evaluate policy options, we convened a bipartisan Working Group on U.S. Nuclear Energy Dominance earlier this year, comprising former senior officials, industry representatives, and subject-matter experts; they identified key priorities for the Administration and Congress to consider.
First, the federal government should provide robust support for a series of new nuclear plants. Every first-of-a-kind plant—including nuclear—entails risks of delay and cost overruns. The Westinghouse agreement recognizes that building multiple plants of the same design is essential. Other countries have achieved impressive cost reductions through sequential construction, and America’s existing nuclear fleet—the largest and most reliable in the world—was built using this model.
Beyond Westinghouse, the United States has a wealth of innovators working to commercialize advanced small modular reactors. Congress and the Administration should facilitate construction of multiple units of the most promising designs. Early federal backing for the initial plants in a series can be decisive in unlocking private capital. Reducing investor risk through targeted insurance mechanisms and measures that prevent costly delays would boost deployment. Enactment of the ARC Act would be a sensible first step in this direction.
Second, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must license a growing number of designs and construction projects safely and efficiently. Workforce reductions at a time of potential agency restructuring and rapidly growing responsibilities will hinder progress. Congress should ensure that the NRC has adequate resources and staff to achieve President Trump’s nuclear energy goals.
Congress should also ease the licensing burden on small, innovative reactor developers. The NRC is funded almost entirely through industry fees—more than $800 million annually—while agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency use taxpayer funds to support its work regulating other power generators. Nuclear should be treated no differently.
And Congress should adopt selected reforms to ensure that licensing review is proportionate to risk. For example, amending the Atomic Energy Act so that the Advisory Commission on Reactor Safeguards reviews only new or novel license applications, rather than all applications, would streamline the process without compromising safety.
The bipartisan Refuel Act is another example of a commonsense adjustment to reflect evolving technologies. There are new technologies and processes for recycling used fuel that never isolate plutonium; it is appropriate to differentiate their regulatory review from the traditional processes that do produce plutonium.
Third, expansion of America’s nuclear industry will require a rapid build-out of our nuclear workforce and supply chain. Along with nuclear engineers, the industry will need thousands of skilled construction and maintenance workers and reactor operators. Supporting series production of both large reactors and small modular reactors will send an important demand signal to both suppliers and manufacturers. As the Department of Energy (DOE) supports series production of both large and small reactors, it should also use the Office of Energy Dominance Financing to support investments by suppliers and manufacturers. But expanding supply chains will take time; in the near term, lowering tariffs on essential imports would reduce both reactor costs and downstream electricity prices.
Fuel is equally essential, and there too, we lost our supply chain when we stopped building nuclear plants. Congress and DOE have provided initial support for uranium mining and enrichment firms and nuclear fuel fabricators, but more must be done to ensure predictable, long-term demand for suppliers. Congress should also encourage emerging private-sector efforts to recycle used fuel.
As electricity demand rises and global competitors accelerate their own nuclear programs, restoring U.S. leadership in nuclear energy is essential to ensuring reliable, affordable, and resilient power for decades ahead.
IEA forecasts new all-time high in coal consumption – wind and hydropower, of all things, are partly to blame
Do you still remember the forecasts? Coal was supposed to be in retreat, fossil fuels were to be displaced, and the energy transition was to be unstoppable. The International Energy Agency (IEA) now has to announce remarkable news: global demand for coal will reach a historic high of 8.85 billion tons in 2025 – an increase of 0.5 percent compared to the previous year.
USA: Up eight percent
In the USA, coal demand will increase by eight percent in 2025. After 15 years of continuous decline – an average of six percent per year – coal is returning. The reasons: higher natural gas prices and slower shutdowns of coal-fired power plants. What was sold as structural change turns out to be a cyclical snapshot.
Europe: When wind and water fail
The real punch line takes place in the European Union. Here, coal demand declined, but “significantly less strongly than in the last two years”. The reason, according to the IEA: “because wind and hydropower delivered less energy in the first half of the year”.
The technologies that were supposed to replace fossil fuels fail exactly when they are needed. The first half of 2025 was characterized by calm winds and low water levels. The result: more coal burning. The replacement of base-load-capable power plants with weather-dependent energy sources means that fossil fuel backups have to be used in the event of a lull.
The Global Perspective
The figures in detail:
China (56% of global consumption): demand stagnates at 4,953 million tons
India: Consumption declines for the first time in decades due to intense monsoon season – temporarily
USA: Increase of 37 million tonnes in absolute terms
EU: Slowdown in decline due to lower wind and hydropower production
The IEA expects global demand to decline slightly to 2023 levels by 2030. However, with the note: “If China sees a faster-than-expected increase in electricity consumption or slower integration of renewables, global coal demand could be above forecasts.”
Coal’s share of electricity generation
Keisuke Sadamori, IEA Director of Energy Markets, admits: “In 2013, coal accounted for 41 percent of electricity generation, and in 2025 we expect it to be around 34 percent. This is the lowest value in the history of IEA statistics.” Sounds like success – if it weren’t for the absolute consumption record. Total electricity generation increased by about 7,000 TWh from 2013 to 2025. Coal is losing shares, but not absolutely.
Why electricity demand is exploding
Global electricity production reached around 27,000 TWh in 2024 and will rise to over 30,500 TWh by 2027 – an increase of 3,500 TWh in three years. This is equivalent to the annual addition of Japan’s total electricity demand. The IEA forecasts growth of just under four percent per year until 2027, well above the historical average of 2.6 percent (2015-2023).
The drivers of this growth are manifold:
Air conditioning: The demand for air conditioning systems is booming. In India, 14 million units were sold in 2024 – 27 percent more than in 2023. Air conditioning systems already account for 60 GW of peak load, although only 20 percent of households own an appliance at all. By 2030, cooling could account for a third of India’s peak load (140 GW). Each additional degree Celsius of average temperature increases the peak load by 7 GW – in 2027 it could be 11 GW per degree.
Data centers and AI: In the U.S., data center electricity demand will increase from 25 GW (2024) to over 80 GW (2030). Globally, data centers currently consume 500-650 TWh annually – by 2030, it will be 770 to 1,280 TWh, depending on the scenario. The AI revolution is the single biggest driver. The IEA expects data center consumption to double by 2030 in the USA, China and the EU alone.
Electrification of industry: In China, the production of solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles alone consumes 300 TWh per year – as much as the whole of Italy. These sectors accounted for about 35 percent of the growth in industrial electricity demand in 2022-2024. The industrial sector will continue to drive about 50 percent of China’s demand growth.
Electromobility: 17 million electric vehicles were sold in 2024 (+25 percent), electricity consumption in the transport sector increased by eight percent.
Emerging market growth: 85 percent of global electricity demand growth by 2027 will come from developing and emerging countries – 60 percent of which will come from China and India alone. China will reach the 10,000 TWh mark in annual consumption in 2025 and will thus be responsible for half of the global demand growth.
The IEA expects global electricity demand to exceed 29,000 TWh by 2026. The demand for electricity is thus growing twice as fast as the total energy demand. And this is exactly where the problem lies: This explosive growth has to be covered – depending on the weather or not.
The intermittency problem remains unsolved
This massive growth in demand reveals the basic problem: an energy system based on weather-dependent sources requires backup capacities. In Europe, reduced wind and water production in the first half of 2025 directly led to higher coal consumption. The consequence: CO₂ emissions are rising instead of falling.
For 2025, the IEA forecasts global electricity generation of 32,200 TWh for coal-fired power generation alone. Renewables are being expanded “in record numbers” and are expected to produce more than coal for the first time in 2025. Nevertheless, coal-fired power generation remains “largely stable” at 5,964 million tonnes, supported by “seasonal heating demand and system safety requirements, especially in Asia”. With every lull, the coal steps in.
India’s future
India will see the largest absolute increase by 2030: over 200 million tons of additional demand, an average of three percent per year. 14 gigawatts of new coal capacity will be connected to the grid in 2025. The IEA states: “Although renewables are growing rapidly, they alone cannot keep pace with the growth in electricity demand.”
Conclusion
8.85 billion tons of coal in 2025 – a new record despite the massive expansion of renewable energies. The IEA figures show that the energy transition in its current form does not replace fossil fuels, but makes us more dependent on them. Instead of providing reliable energy, it creates an unstable system that relies on coal when there is no wind.
Coal consumption is peaking not despite, but because of, inadequate backup strategies for volatile energy sources. Until a solution to the storage and base load problem is found, coal will remain – because it is needed when wind and water fail.
h/t ResourceGuy – Greenpeace appears to think European courts have pre-eminence over US courts, even for events which happened in the USA.
Greenpeace Asks a Dutch Court to Reverse an American Verdict
The group wants to use European law as a shield to disrupt American infrastructure projects.
By Michael Toth Dec. 5, 2025 at 5:27 pm ET
A North Dakota jury ordered Greenpeace in March to pay pipeline company Energy Transfer $667 million for the environmental group’s rogue campaign to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline. Now, Greenpeace is trying to get a Dutch court to nullify the jury award, which the trial judge reduced to $345 million in October. …
… During the monthslong standoff, reports spread of protesters shackling themselves to equipment, blow-torching parts of the pipeline, and hurling feces and burning logs at workers.
… Kelcy Warren, then Energy Transfer’s CEO, didn’t take those losses sitting down. “What they did to us is wrong,” he said in 2017 of the environmental groups behind the demonstrations, “and they’re going to pay for it.”
…
Greenpeace had a Plan B, however. On the eve of the trial, Greenpeace International filed a new lawsuit with the District Court of Amsterdam, where the group is based. The suit claims that Energy Transfer’s litigation violated Greenpeace International’s rights under the European Union’s 2024 anti-Slapp law, an anagram for strategic litigation against public participation. The law seeks to protect journalists and nonprofit organizations from meritless lawsuits designed to silence or intimidate them.
If Greenpeace stood by the roadside and waved a few banners I would have wholeheartedly supported their right to do so. But “… shackling themselves to equipment, blow-torching parts of the pipeline, and hurling feces and burning logs at workers …” goes way beyond what I would consider to be legitimate protest.
Any attempt to shield European organisations by overruling US court judgments for events which occurred in the USA could further damage trans-Atlantic relations. Relations are particularly strained right now, thanks to an EU attempt to $210 million fine against x / twitter, over a dispute regarding the blue verified tick, not censoring free speech the way the EU wants, and not providing EU “researchers” with full access to internal X company secrets.
Obviously, the USA has plenty of levers which can be pulled to retaliate against arrogant EU attempts to usurp the judgements of US courts and use in my opinion questionable tactics to attack the success of US tech companies.
The accelerating global arms race is hindering climate action as critical minerals that are key to a sustainable future are being diverted to make the latest military hardware, according to a report
The study from the Transition Security Project – a joint US and UK venture – reveals how the Pentagon is stockpiling huge stores of critical minerals that are needed for a range of climate technologies including solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles and battery storage.
It found that since the US president, Donald Trump, passed his “one big beautiful bill” earlier this year, the Pentagon – through its National Defense Stockpile programme – has earmarked billions of dollars to secure a growing list of critical minerals for use in military hardware – from precision-guided weaponry and advanced communication systems to an emerging arsenal of military technologies such as “AI-driven autonomous warfare platforms”.
Khem Rogaly, co-director of Transition Security Project, said: “The Pentagon’s trillion dollar budget supports a global infrastructure designed for US military domination, not national security. Using precious resources to feed the expanding military industrial complex, rather than addressing the existential threat of the climate crisis, demonstrates the global insecurity produced by the Pentagon.”
Driven by concerns about supply chain vulnerabilities amid escalating great power competition with China, the Pentagon is accelerating efforts to secure access to the so-called critical minerals, which are essential to military industries. Central to this push is a ramped-up effort to stockpile these materials within the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) National Defense Stockpile. The Pentagon’s expanding demand for critical minerals risks diverting vital resources away from civilian decarbonisation initiatives and accelerating militarised competition at a time when global collaboration is essential for a just climate transition. When industrial strategy is shaped by military and national security priorities, it not only entrenches geopolitical conflict but also distorts pathways for equitable climate action, redirecting public resources and state capacity away from the broader demands of rapid and just decarbonisation. This briefing examines how the Pentagon’s role in mineral supply chains, particularly through stockpiling, challenges the global energy transition.
Key findings:
Since the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which earmarked billions of dollars to bolster the National Defense Stockpile, the DLA has solicited contracts to stockpile a growing list of critical minerals, including several materials essential to the energy transition.
The DLA plans to stockpile almost 7,500 metric tons of cobalt. That amount of cobalt could be used instead to produce 80.2 gigawatt hours of battery capacity — more than double existing energy storage.
The DLA’s planned cobalt and graphite stockpiles could be used instead to produce approximately 100,000 electric buses — fifteen times more than are currently in operation across the United States.
One of the recommendations is to improve relations with China, rather than trying to secure independent sources of critical minerals;
…
4. Foster global solidarity
Build international cooperation, including coordination with China on climate technology collaboration to reduce duplication in supply chains, lower mining demand and ease geopolitical tensions impacting mineral markets.
The About Page of Transition Security Project, a group I never heard of before, contains the following acknowledgement: We are grateful for the support of Polden Puckham Charitable Foundation, Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and Rockefeller Brothers Fund. We only accept funding from charitable foundations and trade unions.
The Polden Puckham Charitable Foundation seems to be a small affair, but one of the biggest donors to the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust in 2024 was the UK branch of DeSmog. Desmog is a significant international green energy pressure group founded by James Hoggan.
The primary philanthropic arm of the influential Rockefeller family has given millions of dollars to arms of the Chinese government as well as organizations with strong links to the Chinese Communist Party.
Between April 2020 and August 2024, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund donated $7.4 million to organizations that are either part of the Chinese government, led by members of the CCP, or engaged in partnerships with China, according to a Washington Examiner analysis of grant records. The bulk of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s philanthropic activity in China went toward assisting Beijing in meeting its goals for green energy production and transition.
I’m not accusing Transition Security of writing a report to order for China. From what I saw when living in Britain, most UK academics live and breath hatred and contempt for the USA, and admiration for China. Such sentiments are very much a mainstream view in UK academia, just as they are in some sectors of US academia. There are plenty of Western academics who would willingly express such views as honestly held opinions.
It does however seem interesting that money from an organisation with apparent strong links to China, along with money from a green energy linked organisation, may be filtering through into the hands of Western academics who express support for globalist policies which would hurt the USA and benefit China.
But I’m sure it is just one of those coincidences, right?
The first eight months of the second Trump administration have seen a sea change in energy policy. Previously, under Biden, the federal government had undertaken a blowout of hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies and incentives for so-called “renewable” energy sources, while simultaneously implementing dozens of regulations and restrictions to suppress the production and use of fossil fuels. President Trump has now reversed all of that.
The first eight months of the second Trump administration have seen a sea change in energy policy. Previously, under Biden, the federal government had undertaken a blowout of hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies and incentives for so-called “renewable” energy sources, while simultaneously implementing dozens of regulations and restrictions to suppress the production and use of fossil fuels. President Trump has now reversed all of that.
However, please take note of an important distinction: although Trump and Congress have zeroed out nearly all subsidies and tax credits for wind and solar generation and for grid-scale batteries, they have not enacted comparable subsidies and incentives for fossil fuels. Instead, all sources of energy production now must stand or fall without subsidies, based on their ability to fulfill customer demand and to generate profit. All sources of energy are now on equal footing, and without subsidies.
Meanwhile, over in China, billions of dollars in subsidies have flowed for many years into developing the ability to produce the infrastructure for a wind/solar/storage energy system — things like polysilicon, solar panels, solar cells, wind turbine blades, wind turbine nacelles, and battery cells. As a result, China has become completely dominant in the world in manufacturing these and many related items.
So who is making the better energy bet?
For one possible answer to that question, here is a Wall Street Journal piece from September 21 (probably behind pay wall). You get a clear idea where they are going from the headline, “The U.S. Is Forfeiting the Clean-Energy Race to China.”
In the vision of the authors of the piece (David Uberti, Ed Ballard, and Brian Spengele), there is an international race under way for dominance in “clean energy,” and the United States is in the process of losing it. The problem is that the U.S. is failing to put up the necessary government subsidies for “clean energy” to vie for the lead. Excerpt:
U.S. and China are offering competing visions for the future of energy, representing the next dimension in the showdown between two superpowers vying for global influence and artificial intelligence supremacy. The U.S. renewables retreat goes far beyond the tax bill that is winding down more than $400 billion in estimated subsidies. Federal agencies have tightened rules for new development. The Trump administration recently terminated a multibillion-dollar loan guarantee for a Midwest transmission line, halted a near-complete wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island and canceled $3.7 billion of funding for technologies that could reduce industrial emissions.
China, meanwhile, under the enlightened direction of President Xi, has opened the money spigot to subsidize “green energy” development:
In a meeting with his economic team in 2014, Chinese leader Xi Jinping called for a “revolution” in the nation’s energy system. Renewables were earmarked for special state support as part of Xi’s “Made in China 2025” initiative. By owning the production chain for equipment such as photovoltaic panels and wind turbines, the government bet it could ease its energy-security challenge while creating jobs.
And the result of the massive subsidies? Innovation!
Even as Chinese companies continued to erect coal plants, billions of dollars of subsidies flowed to such companies as JinkoSolar and the battery maker Contemporary Amperex Technology, also known as CATL. Innovation followed.
So China is racing ahead to dominate the entire clean energy field:
By 2023, a solar module produced in China was 65% cheaper than one made in the U.S., according to the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie. CATL said it spent more than $2.6 billion on research and development last year alone, with a staff of more than 20,000 people. Caroline Wang, an analyst with the Australian think tank Climate Energy Finance, said the resulting renewables buildout has recently left China’s world-leading coal fleet running at less than half capacity. “They are just leading the world by an absolutely mind-boggling margin,” Wang said.
It’s mind-boggling! The Journal provides the following chart (sourced to Bloomberg/NEF) of market shares of various green energy components to illustrate how completely dominant China has become:
Wow! There’s not one of those critical components where China’s 2024 market share was less than about 65%. And for some of them, like solar wafers and battery anodes, the market share was more like 95%.
So how are you going to bet? Here’s my bet: The entire idea of an energy system based on wind, solar and batteries will not work and will fail, probably over the course of the next ten years or so, if not sooner. All of the investment will be lost. All of the employees will be laid off.
At least in the U.S. we allow companies to fail and go through prompt bankruptcies, where their assets get re-allocated to more productive uses. In China, where avoiding loss of face for the leaders is the highest value, failed businesses get propped up endlessly, dragging the economy down with them. I guess that we are just blessed with incompetent geopolitical adversaries.
Of course, I could be wrong. But I don’t think this one is a close call. Businesses that need government subsidies to survive are a negative for the economy. It’s as simple as that.
A recent Associated Press (AP) story carried by WCVB-TV and many other news outlets, warned that “climate change is making it “dicier” to grow corn in the United States. This is false. Data clearly shows that amid modest climate change corn yields and production have increased steadily, regularly setting new records.
A recent Associated Press (AP) story carried by WCVB-TV and many other news outlets, warned that “climate change is making it “dicier” to grow corn in the United States. This is false. Data clearly shows that amid modest climate change corn yields and production have increased steadily, regularly setting new records.
The AP writes:
Across major corn-growing states, climate change is fueling conditions that make watching the corn grow a nail-biter for farmers. Factors like consistently high summer overnight temperatures, droughts and heavier-than-usual rains at the wrong time can all disrupt the plants’ pollination — making each full ear of corn less of a guarantee and more of a gamble.
Overall, corn growers got lucky this year with late-season weather that contributed to what is now predicted to be a record bumper crop. But experts say bouts of extreme weather are intensifying the waiting game during a critical time of year between planting and harvest.
Human-caused climate change has worsened multiple U.S. extreme heat events this year and has steadily increased the likelihood of hotter overnight temperatures since 1970, according to Climate Central, an independent group of scientists who communicate climate science and data to the public.
The AP’s narrative is a pure lie, debunked within its own paragraphs. Corn growers didn’t get lucky this year with a bumper crop, rather bumper crops have been a trend during the recent period of modest warming, even with the normal annual ups and downs inherent to crop production. The USDA meteorologist, Brad Rippey, who the AP quoted described 2025 as production as a “monster U.S. corn crop.” But it’s not the first monster crop in the past few decades for U.S. corn farmers.
The numbers tell a clear and compelling story of rising corn production. The U.S. Department of Agriculture confirmed record national yields of 179.3 bushels per acre in 2024, breaking the previous record set only a year earlier in 2023. Long-term records from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization show U.S. corn yields have more than tripled since 1961, rising from around 3.5 tons per hectare to more than 11 tons today as seen in the figure below:
Economists at the University of Illinois calculate that yields have increased by nearly two bushels per acre every year since 1950. These are not the marks of a crop in decline — they are the hallmarks of long-term improvement from better farming practices, yield improved varieties, selective breeding practices to improve resiliency to weather factors, and boosted production due to carbon dioxide fertilization.
The significant gains in yields have also produced records for production with U.S. Department of Agriculture data showing each of the past ten years of production having been higher than any previous years or decades in history, with new records for production being set three times since 2016.
To tie corn growers concerns to climate change, the AP article relied on a small number of anecdotes about heat, corn tassel timing, and the fragility of pollination. Yes, these can matter for pollination in a particular field, but they have always been part of farming. Weather extremes are nothing new, and across hundreds of posts, Climate Realism has cited data across a range of stories showing extreme weather hasn’t become more frequent, severe, or inconsistent in recent years. What matters is the nationwide harvest, and it keeps breaking records. If the climate were truly making corn “dicier,” record-breaking yields would not keep piling up.
The real problem corn producers face at the moment is not crop decline, but instead just the opposite, crop abundance and farming success. Bumper crops have produced an oversupply to the market that is resulting in lower prices, even as ever more corn is being diverted from grocery shelves to gas tanks as ethanol requirements creep up.
Farmers are not watching their livelihoods wither under climate change. Instead, they are wrestling with the economic consequences of overproduction, as a variety of news outlets have reported recently. On the same day the AP was incorrectly bemoaning corn declines, a story titled, “Huge Crops in Corn Belt Hit Cash-Strapped Farmers With More Unease,” was published in the Wall Street Journal. Just a few days earlier, in a story, subtitled, “so much corn, so little profit, NewsNation reported that with the USDA projecting 16.7 billion bushels of corn in 2025, the largest in American history, the glut is pushing prices to multi-year lows, with Iowa producers estimating losses of $80 to $100 per acre at current bids. That is not a climate crisis, it is an economic one caused by success.
So contrary to the AP’s claims, the real problem facing corn farmers is not extreme, unpredictable weather and crop diseases hampering production, but rather oversupply of the market due to record setting production, the latter a regular occurrence across the first quarter of the 21st century as global temperatures have continued to rise modestly.
Oversupply is forcing farmers to store corn with little hope of profitable sales, while trade policy uncertainties in corn exports weigh on demand. These are the real stressors in agriculture today, none of which have anything to do with climate change. By fixating on climate change while admitting record abundance in the same breath, The AP obscures the actual challenges farmers face with regards to commodity markets, prices, and trade.
The conclusion is unavoidable: the claim that climate change is making corn yields more precarious is demonstrably false. Yields are rising, production is at record highs, and as a result, prices are low, driving down farm income. The Associated Press misled its affiliates and readers by suggesting a climate crisis where there is none, undermining trust in its reporting. Farmers and the public deserve better.
In the USA, it has been clear since Obama took office in 2009 that CO2 emissions should be reduced for climate protection reasons, but there has never been a majority in the Senate and Congress for such a law. Even Democratic senators from the coal and automotive states (such as Senator Joe Manchin from the coal state of West Virginia) refused to agree to such interventions. So Obama’s administration came up with a trick: the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added CO2 to the list of pollutants to be regulated in the Clean Air Act, knowing full well that CO2 is not dangerous to health, but on the contrary is an indispensable basis for life on earth.
the media report the third warmest July ever, but the graph above shows: the global mean temperature is falling rapidly this year. The deviation from the long-term average of satellite measurements is now 0.36 degrees Celsius.
The fundamental differences in CO2 policy in the USA and Germany
In the USA, it has been clear since Obama took office in 2009 that CO2 emissions should be reduced for climate protection reasons, but there has never been a majority in the Senate and Congress for such a law. Even Democratic senators from the coal and automotive states (such as Senator Joe Manchin from the coal state of West Virginia) refused to agree to such interventions. So Obama’s administration came up with a trick: the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added CO2 to the list of pollutants to be regulated in the Clean Air Act, knowing full well that CO2 is not dangerous to health, but on the contrary is an indispensable basis for life on earth. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared CO2 a pollutant (!) through an “endangering finding” by constructing: CO2 warms the earth and thus endangers the health of Americans. On this basis, numerous regulations have been issued by the authority to reduce CO2 emissions from motor vehicles, trucks, coal-fired power plants and industrial plants.
On Day 1 of the presidency on January 22, 2025, President Trump not only declared his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement but also instructed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review the “endangering finding”. On March 12, the new EPA chief Lee Zeldin announced that the “endagering finding” is to be abolished because the declaration of CO2 as a pollutant has cost American consumers 1000 billion US dollars since 2009 and a health hazard from CO2 would not be recognizable. The first facilitations for the automotive industry have been published and will come into force after appropriate hearings. It can be assumed that the new regulations will end up before the Supreme Court, the highest court in the USA. There is now a 6:3 conservative majority there, so it can be assumed that the new regulations will last. Now we understand why Porsche has decided to make a U-turn in its model policy and is investing in internal combustion engines again – even after 2035, the European end date for combustion vehicles in Europe. On June 6, Porsche confirmed plans to relocate the final assembly of its vehicles to the USA. The USA is Porsche’s most important sales market.
While the USA is abandoning discrimination against processes and plants containing CO2, zero CO2 emissions by 2045 have been solidified in Germany: On March 22, even the constitution (Art. 143h) was amended by a red-green-black majority, according to which climate neutrality is to be achieved by 2045 and €100 billion in special debt can be taken on to accelerate the phase-out of CO2. A change by the Federal Constitutional Court is not to be expected, as the Federal Constitutional Court has already made a highly dubious decision in 2021 (see Vahrenholt/Lüning Incontestable), according to which CO2 emissions in Germany are to be reduced to zero by 2050. Worse still, the candidates to be nominated by the SPD for the Federal Constitutional Court are selected primarily on the basis of whether they have a green climate activist orientation. This one-sided climate policy orientation of the SPD is now meeting with considerable resistance among the industrial workforce. On July 3, East German works councils sent an incendiary letter to the federal government, which can hardly describe the failure of German energy policy better.
“Dear Mr. Chancellor,
We are in the worst economic crisis since the Second World War. Last year alone, at least 100,000 industrial jobs were cut without replacement. The political promises of the last federal government of a “green economic miracle” are just smoke and mirrors. The reality is that never before have so many good jobs been threatened as they are today. In Germany alone, well over a million people work in energy-intensive industries – most of them in the IGBCE and IG Metall sectors. German energy policy in particular has become one of the most dangerous locational and economic risks. If the energy transition is an open-heart operation on our economy, as is sometimes said, then this operation has so far failed thoroughly. We have to realize: The patient is in danger of dying on the operating table… The double phase-out of nuclear energy and coal has made Germany dependent on unreliable solar and wind power and expensive gas imports. We are footing the bill with the highest electricity prices in Europe. Never before has our power supply been so expensive and insecure. These high electricity prices are not only socially unjust, they are now also threatening our economy – and thus our prosperity and social peace.”
The SPD showed no reaction. What kind of SPD leadership is it that leaves such an appeal by East German works councils cold?
While CO2 regulations are being lifted in the USA, Germany continues to go the opposite way. The Merz coalition has reaffirmed its commitment to the goal of climate neutrality by 2045, which was introduced by the Merkel government in 2021 and continued by the traffic light government. While the American president has announced the goal of quadrupling nuclear energy production in 25 years, and has once again made it possible to increase the use of electricity from coal and gas power plants in order to satisfy the enormously growing electricity demand of industry and data centers, the SPD has managed to make the word nuclear energy no longer even mention in the coalition agreement: No research, no reactivation of existing nuclear power plants, no new nuclear technology in Germany. On the other hand, according to the will of the CDU and SPD, final energy consumption is to be reduced by 45% by 2045. This means massive deindustrialization and a dramatic loss of prosperity. German politics lacks an understanding of the importance of energy for economic growth and for people’s lives. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright expresses what German politicians still have to learn: “Energy is the engine for everything we do. For everything. Energy is not just one economic sector, but it enables all other sectors. Energy is life.”
CO2 emissions trading leads to deindustrialization
In the USA, there is no burden on CO2 emissions from emission certificates, apart from individual country regulations in California and Oregon. In the USA, this leads to industrial electricity prices of 3-4 €ct/kwh. In Europe, every tonne of CO2 emitted by power plants, industrial plants, air traffic, shipping or private households is charged with the cost of a CO2 emission certificate. For industry, this is currently about 70-80 €/t CO2, for households 55 €/t CO2. The money that is ripped off from citizens and industry ends up in the Climate Transformation Fund. This fund is currently being used to finance solar and wind energy to the tune of €20 billion when exchange electricity prices fall below the fixed feed-in tariff – almost every day at lunchtime in summer. This overproduction of electricity, which no one can use, is subsidized in this way with billions, even if it is given away abroad.
The European certificate trade with CO2, which does not exist in the USA or China, makes our electricity massively more expensive. After the phase-out of nuclear energy, more coal-fired power plants and gas-fired power plants will have to step in, for example at night when there is no sun or on 120 days when there is hardly any wind. In the next graphic, we can see the fatal impact of CO2 certificates on the generation costs of coal and gas electricity.
This makes CO2 certificates the main cause of Germany’s industrial electricity prices, which are two to three times higher than those of the USA. In addition, there are the grid costs due to the expansion of renewable energies of several hundred billion euros. The following example shows the effects of the increased industrial electricity prices for companies. Let’s take a product from the basic industry with an energy cost share of 10%. Since the energy costs (gas is also much cheaper in the USA) are three times as high as production in the USA, the product from Germany is 20% more expensive (30-10%) How long can the company bear this additional burden? Not for very long, as we can see from the decline in energy-intensive production in Germany since 2021.
The gap between competitive electricity and gas prices in the USA and Germany will continue to widen. It takes little imagination to realize that the USA is on the verge of reindustrialization, and that Germany can expect a crash of its industry in view of an unwavering climate policy. The coalition agreement between the CDU and SPD continues to promote the death of German industry.
After all, it is not only the CO2 certificate trade that has an impact on industry and society. In addition to certificate trading, the red-green-black planned economy has developed a wealth of individual regulations. The CO2 fleet limit value for cars is regulated, completely unnecessary subsidies to renewable energies are distributed in the billions (the sun doesn’t send an invoice) or solar roofs or heat pump obligations are prescribed. Prof. Manuel Frondel has thankfully calculated what these individual planned economy regulations cost us: The CO2 emission standard for new vehicles costs 950 €/t CO2, EEG subsidies 150 €/t CO2, coal phase-out 464 €/t CO2, i.e. a multiple of the European certificate price of about 70-80 €/tCO2.
What citizens don’t know is that these additional costs in the electricity sector, which Germany proudly burdens itself with, do not reduce a single ton of CO2 at EU level. The fact that Germany saves more CO2 than would be necessary on the basis of the European certificate regulation releases certificates that are used by other companies in Europe to be able to emit more CO2. This means that we have superfluous expenditure in Germany in the billions with a CO2 effect of zero.
After the CO2 turnaround in the USA, the Paris Agreement is a waste of paper
The U.S. emits about 13% of the world’s CO2 emissions. With the US withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, the question arises as to who will be left to comply with the Paris Agreement. The agreement exempts developing countries from any CO2 reduction. China, the new economic superpower, is considered a developing country according to UN rules. Russia is not participating, nor are the USA and Argentina. Only the industrialised countries EU, Canada, South Korea, Australia, Japan, New Zealand and England have committed themselves to reducing CO2 emissions. The EU accounts for 6.4% of global CO2 emissions, while the rest of the industrialised countries account for 7.1% of CO2 emissions. 86.5% of global CO2 emissions can therefore remain unchanged after the Paris Agreement or, as in the case of China and India, continue to grow undisturbed. Germany wants to save 500 million tons of CO2 by 2045. This corresponds to the growth of CO2 emissions in India and China in two years. On Germany’s path to zero CO2 emissions in 2045, all production will leave Germany. If she grows up in the USA or China, she increases CO2 emissions there to 2 times (USA) or 4 times (China), as the next chart shows.
German policy follows selective climate science
Germany and Europefollows the climate science orchestrated by the UN, in which critics with differing findings about the importance of CO2 for climate change are excluded. For the first time, the USA is now giving a voice to scientists who are critical of UN climate science. It is the merit of Donald Trump and his Secretary of Energy to give space to the suppressed positions of scientists. Already in his first term in office, Trump wanted to get critics and alarmists to a dispute: A RED team of critics was to discuss with a BLUE team of alarmists. The alarmist UN mainstream science refused: You don’t argue with dissidents. In March 2025, US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright commissioned an independent commission of experts to critically assess current climate science. The scientists Prof. Judith Curry, Prof. Ross McKitrick, Prof. John Christy, Dr. Steven Koonin, Dr. Roy Spencer, who were excluded from the UN, delivered this report at the end of July.
The report is worth reading and will have far-reaching consequences for climate policy worldwide. Of course, the scientists confirm a warming of the last 150 years. Of course, the scientists attest that CO2 has a certain warming effect. However, they also show that the models that see CO2 alone as the cause of the warming of the last 150 years are unsuitable, as they do not reasonably reflect the causes of the temperature development of the last 25 years. Because the warming of the last 25 years is mainly due to increased direct solar radiation from the clouds and less to the greenhouse effect of CO2. (p.91)
Above all, the scientists point to the positive effects of CO2, which has led to a greener earth with clearly positive consequences for the world’s food situation. And you also clear up the recurring narratives of the alleged increase in droughts, heavy rainfall events, hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, etc. Contrary to most media reports, their data do not show an increase in extreme events. The report is available on the web. The US Secretary of Energy has asked the scientific community to comment. A German translation of the summary can be found here.
Anyone who sees Germany crashing as a result of the green-red-black climate policy and wants to change this must have read this report. After reading the 150 pages, you feel better and are excellently prepared against half-truths, scandals and fear-mongering, as they are spread every day by ZDF, ARD, Spiegel, FAZ, Süddeutsche and dpa.
We need to wake up and stop hemorrhaging trillions in self-inflicted climate policies that will mainly benefit Beijing
We need to wake up and stop hemorrhaging trillions in self-inflicted climate policies that will mainly benefit Beijing
Starting in the 1990s, climate change has become a fixation for rich country politicians and elites. It emerged as the world had just seen the end of the Cold War. There was relative peace and trust across the world, broad economic growth, and swift progress being made against poverty. In the capitals of Europe in particular, it felt like most of the planet’s big problems were fixed, so climate change was the final frontier.
These proponents of climate action advocated with relish the goal of ending reliance on the very fossil fuels that had powered two centuries of astonishing growth. Sure, this would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars, but there would always be more growth. The Telegraph has the story.
What a naïve, narrow-minded world view. Time has not been kind to the foolish idea that climate change was humanity’s sole remaining problem – or that the planet would unite to solve it. Geopolitics and economics mean a rapid global transition from fossil fuels is impossible.
As has long been clear for many, the majority of the world never shared this myopic focus on climate change. Despite immense progress, in some countries life remains a battle against poverty, hunger, and disease. In many more countries including India, the top priority is to create more jobs and life-changing growth and development. Outside the most advanced economies, climate change has understandably always been a relatively low voter priority.
Leaders from Europe and the United States talk up “net zero” as though it has global support. But this unity is quickly revealed as a mirage. For one thing, the destabilizing axis of Russia, Iran and North Korea are not about to support western efforts to solve climate change. Indeed, according to McKinsey, achieving the net-zero target would require Russian climate policies costing $273 billion every year – around three-times what Russia spent on its military last year. That won’t happen.
The geopolitical challenges run even deeper. China’s growth has relied on burning ever more coal. It is the world’s preeminent greenhouse gas emitter, with the largest increase of any nation last year. Renewable energy made 40 per cent of China’s primary energy in 1971, reducing to 7 per cent by 2011 as it ramped up coal use. Since then, renewables have inched up to 10 per cent. Strong climate action could cost China nearly a trillion dollars annually, hurting its journey toward becoming a rich nation.
The reality is that most of the world – including powerhouse India and emerging economies – will continue to focus on becoming richer, often with fossil fuels. Russia and its ilk will ignore the fixation on climate change altogether. And China will make money from selling the West solar panels and electric cars, while only modestly curbing its own emissions.
As rich countries irresponsibly attempt to export the cost of climate policy to poor countries through carbon adjustment taxes, they will drive a further wedge into an already fractured world.
Meanwhile, despite all the hype, wealthy countries have ever less money left for the climate fight. Annual growth per person among rich countries declined from 4 per cent in the 1960s to 2 per cent in the 1990s. It now hovers just above one percent. Many of these countries face pressure to spend more on defense, healthcare and infrastructure, as geopolitical pressures and changing demographics make their pathway to stability and growth far less certain.
Yet, across Europe and North America, single-minded zealots who were born of a world of relative calm of the 1990s continue to push for deindustrialization and immiseration to tackle climate change – including for the world’s emerging economies.
The first buyers of EV’s were their most passionate fans, and presumably the people-most-likely to love them, and in the best position to use them. Yet, when surveyed, 49% of Australians who owned an EV and 46% in the US said they want to go back to an internal combustion engine for their next car.
And the US and Australia are two nations where nearly everyone has a home-garage or driveway which makes EV ownership a bit easier (as long as the house doesn’t catch fire). Yet even with this cheaper and easier form of charging half the EV owners don’t want another one.
And the US and Australia are two nations where nearly everyone has a home-garage or driveway which makes EV ownership a bit easier (as long as the house doesn’t catch fire). Yet even with this cheaper and easier form of charging half the EV owners don’t want another one.
Nearly half of American owners of electric cars want to switch back to traditional cars powered by internal combustion engines, according to a consumer survey released by McKinsey and Co. earlier this month.
They had their reasons (boy did they have their reasons):
Among the owners surveyed who are planning to switch back, 35% cited the lack of charging infrastructure, 34% said the costs were too high, 32% said planning long driving trips was too difficult, 24% said they could not currently charge at home, 21% said worrying about charging was too stressful and 13% said they did not enjoy how the cars felt while driving.
Only 9% of drivers across all countries surveyed said that current charging infrastructure was sufficient to meet their needs. While some electric car drivers want to switch back, 38% of internal combustion car drivers surveyed said they are considering buying a battery-powered or plug-in hybrid electric car as their next vehicle.
“I didn’t expect that. I thought, ’Once an EV buyer, always an EV buyer,’” Philipp Kampshoff, the leader of the McKinsey Center for Future Mobility, told Automotive News.
Since the McKinsey Centre for Future Mobility has a mission to help people “transform” the way they move, we would assume this survey was designed to show the more promising side of EV ownership.
The average EV owner planning to trade in for another EV around the world was 29%, so presumably there are some countries where EV’s are slightly less awful. Though that is not apparently in the British Isles. Actual trade-in statistics in the UK suggest the reality might be worse.
“Car dealership chain Motorpoint Group said the majority of electric vehicle (EV) owners who sold their car in the last year didn’t buy another one – opting instead for a petrol, diesel or hybrid model.”
Statistics from Motorpoint show that only 30pc of EV owners part-exchanging their car in the past year chose to buy another electric car, with 36pc opting for petrol, 11pc diesel and 23pc hybrid.
Martin Bamford, a Tesla owner for four years, is one of the many electric car owners to switch back to combustion power in recent months. Despite driving a mostly trouble-free 34,000 miles, he suffered “instances of extreme range anxiety” and is ditching the zero-emission motor in favour of a 12-year-old Mini Cooper.
How much longer can the saviours of the world keep trying to force this dead-horse “transition” upon us?
The car manufacturers surely realize they are being forced into a financial dead end.
You must be logged in to post a comment.