Emissions budgets are calculated using accounting best practice, which are not designed for full transparency (ref: the creative accounting used to obscure every financial scandal and economic bubble). THIS is the curve that matters:
These two views are not necessarily in conflict: atmospheric CO2 concentration is (vagely/roughly) the integral of emissions. So if emissions are basically flat (-0.4%) you'd still see atmospheric levels rise.
It will be interesting to see if the security implications of unreliable fossil fuel supply brings forward the date of peak co2 emissions. Adoption of EVs and solar PV is really spiking, particularly in the developing world.
Its also entirely possible things go back to "normal", like happened after the ME oil shocks of the 70s.
From 1980 -> 1990 the CO2 mole fraction (ppm) rose 20pts. from ~340 to ~360.
From 2022 -> 2025 the CO2 mole fraction (ppm) rose 10pts. from ~416 to ~426.
It seems we'll have the ppm rise 10pts. in 6 years, which is 40% faster than 40 years ago, which seems like an insane increase to me; almost like things are getting MUCH worse not better.
Levels as in emission levels or total levels? Emission levels may have blipped (and the Iran war is a pretty clear inflection point especially in the developing world) but obviously until we're net negative total levels will not decline because it's cumulative
The difference between those curves isn't "accounting", it's that the emission rate is essentially[1] the time derivative of the CO2 concentration. They have different shapes because they're different (but related) quantities.
It's entirely consistent with precise and good faith emissions measurements for CO2 to be still increasing.
[1] Modulo the seasonal variation, absorption in the ocean, emission from other sources like permafrost thawing, yada yada.
"With emissions from land-use change (such as deforestation) projected to increase slightly this year, total CO2 emissions are projected to be 43.3 billion tonnes in 2026 – up from 42.8 billion tonnes last year."
Total annual CO2 emissions are projected to increase by ~half a billion tonnes as a result of land use changes.
More work needed to fix that, but we are on the right track. You can't get to lower total emissions without all the steps in between. First lower the rate of increase compared to the previous year (done), then decrease the rate compared to the previous year, (done for this year anyway, time will tell), then decrease the rate even more every year, until finally we get to net negative (a very hard place to get - not impossible, the earth is naturally slightly net negative)
One of the things that COVID make crystal clear to me is that radical changes for the better are much more straightforward than people think, and the only reason they don't happen is the people in charge couldn't be bothered.
There is no excuse for every government in the world to not be covering every bit of rooftop or scrap land with solar. China is losing money on panels at the moment they have such production capacity. Its free money for anyone country who wants to do it.
Why is it so bad? Idk about buildings but I always thought putting them over parking lots would be a good idea since it would provide shade for the cars. I feel like only using it in empty fields has it's own downsides and getting mixed used purpose could be good, but I won't pretend to have thought through this.
To be fair. The government tried in my country, and it completely backfired. Because the power grid cannot handle the current load anymore. We've had more frequent blackouts because of it.
Because of this issue, starting next year I will be paying my power company money for surplus solar energy that I give back. Unfortunately, batteries are expensive and impractical to install in our houses.
So now, it's not that popular to buy solar panels unless you can also immediately finance the batteries.
I don't know what your exact situation is, but for some people you can consider other "battery" options. Almost everyone needs heat in some way (hot water, space heating) so if you're making a lot of excess electricity you could get an electric resistance hot water heater. It can be used to pre-heat your hot water before entering your main hot water tank, or be used to loop through your residence for hydronic heating.
This wouldn't be for everyone but there are other options to chemical batteries depending on whats easy for you to do.
In my case, I'm already using pretty much all my solar energy. So it's not that big of a deal for me honestly.
I'd like a hot water tank like that, but I don't really have the attic space to place it near my boiler. I have a gas powered CV unit, so I already have on demand hot water. Ideally I'd replace it for a hybrid boiler that would work of electricity until demand exceeds electric capability. But it's still well within its lifespan.
It didn't backfire, the easy sensible solutions were ignored for 15 years until a problem was caused.
And they get away with it because people are so willing to believe ridiculous lies like this. Their newspapers have told them "this is a problem" nearly daily for years. Any problem can immediately be blamed on renewables with no need to wait for expert input. A triumph of propaganda.
I didn't blame renewables themselves. I blame the government for pushing the renewables without also pushing the improvement of the underlying infrastructure.
Genuine question, because I am pretty ignorant to European laws; if you're producing so much excess that selling it back would actually cost you money, wouldn't this be a pretty good case for something akin to those Tesla Powerwalls?
Not necessarily that brand specifically but something similar?
> if you're producing so much excess that selling it back would actually cost you money, wouldn't this be a pretty good case for something akin to those Tesla Powerwalls?
Yes, I mentioned that in my comment. They are quite an investment, and they're impractical to place in many houses. So it's not always an option. I personally have the space. But there's some ongoing projects that make it impossible for me to currently install them.
You can, and that is what's going to happen. We gave back because we used to get reimbursed for it. But it's essentially going to get flipped around now.
I honestly have no clue how I can configure my inverter, there is zero option to configure on my end. So I'd probably have to get the installer here to set that up. The panels were already on my house.
Netherlands? The problem here is that they incentivised putting solar on peoples roofs, but forgot to increase the capacity of our grid for this completely predictible change.
Frequent blackouts? In NL? There were maybe two regional ones in the last year that I can remember. It's all relative of course, but if you offered that level of service to someone in SA they would be extremely happy.
I'm not the commentor but, in my area storage batteries for solar are not permitted in or near homes. They can be in a shed or away from the home. That doesnt help apartments or attached style homes.
That the motorways are untolled is not the only relevant number. There is also the tax in petrol which is quite far from being 'untolled'. Taxing petrol is much better for privacy in general than a toll for the roads.
I very much think nobody can be bothered, not just the people in charge. We're all the same people and if there was an actual want by the regular person, the ones in charge in most of the world would be influenced enough to either want it too or have to do something
I, along with many other people, have fitted solar panels on my roof, installed a battery in my loft and replaced my gas boiler with a heat pump. Lots of people are bothered.
No: in Scotland I got a subsidy for the heat pump install capital cost, and I'm on the old feed in tariff scheme that pays me for every unit of energy produced. Including, oddly, energy I consume myself.
It's not so advantageous for new installs because the point of awkwardness in the UK has switched to storage. It's currently possible for some battery owners to make money from arbitrage because the grid hasn't bought enough batteries and north/south links yet.
Not the person your replied to, but I'm in the same position.
No? Unless you consider an HOA the government. Why would the make this hard? I now quite a few that will subsidize it. Fill in some paperwork, submit it along with the invoice and wait a few weeks/months for some free money back.
Romantic model of people being heard. 500M speaks more than a single vote. Its a shame. This already disproves your model - however, we should move towards it!
Wasn't the complete worldwide failure to anything about COVID exactly a high speed analogue io how we've also failed to do anything about climate change?
Sort of, but there is a crucial difference: the lockdowns affected the treats. There is nothing about a rapid rollout of renewable energy in the US and elsewhere that would threaten the supply of McNuggets, the main thing people would see is their energy bills go down as they get plentiful daytime solar and can charge house batteries on cheaper night rates.
Watching the last decade of American politics has led me to absolutely despise the culture of learned helplessness and attitude of "everything is someone else's fault."
You're absolutely right about the first part. Radical change is much more straightforward. At the individual level there are absolutely things that can be done that are pretty easy Consuming less and recycling more is a huge one. But if the attitude is, "we can't or won't do it individually. We need someone to make us behave," then that's a losing culture. The last American election reassured me that indeed, even if the elite class wants something, no amount of money will override the will of the people. The people just don't want this badly enough.
> "we can't or won't do it individually. We need someone to make us behave,"
Well, we need to be organized around a plan, such as electrifying power generation and transport. Since government already heavily manages those things, it's not a matter of individual behavior, apart from the behavior of voting, and generally expressing approval of policies.
I do think you should stop with the guilt-tripping of individuals, and I do think that they're powerless - without organization - and that attacking consumers is wrong-headed. To complain about consuming says that the problem is that we have industry and nice things, but that's incorrect. It's a hard sell, firstly because people like nice things and think they're entitled to them, and secondly because they're right about that. The problem is that we have emissions, not that we have consumer goods.
Which people are you talking about? The ones that voted? The problem with American politics (and Australia provides an easy point to compare against) is that the young do not vote. Consequently, they have no power, and no one in charge is inclined to do anything that will have long-term impact.
It makes no sense to sacrifice yourself if collective action is needed. Democracy allows people to express the direction they want society to go in, and consuming less and causing less fossil fuel emissions is clearly not what the majority of people want.
It is logical to vote and advocate for policies that require everyone to consume less while not individually doing so. Similar to wanting changes in taxing policy while still only paying the minimum required tax.
Well the young votes in 2024 for the current admin, and again this year for the opposite of the current admin, it's not exactly fair to say that they're not showing up to the polls when 2024 and 2026 was driven pretty much by them
Because they realized they're minority compared to boomers so they can't outvote them anyway, so then what's the point of going to vote just to see yourself lose.
That's the issue with democracy. The bigger group wins.
> But if the attitude is, "we can't or won't do it individually. We need someone to make us behave," then that's a losing culture.
This is every culture. We address it structurally or not at all.
> The last American election reassured me that indeed, even if the elite class wants something, no amount of money will override the will of the people.
it's not that the people in charge can't be bothered. the people really in charge see the status quo as a profitable situation. it'a "good" for them and bad for everyone else.
People are in charge, especially in democracies. Not to mention that they are the end consumers, everything produced is eventually for something that people buy, use, eat, burn, throw into the garbage fast. People need to act, not some dedicated father figure (actually servant) making things good for them by a swish of a wand [1], compensating for the consumption and emissions.
Back when companies were talking about carbon capture seriously, it would have cost $1-2 / gallon of gasoline equivalent to put atmospheric CO2 back in the ground.
So we need to paralyze 30% of the economy, that would have gone to bankruptcy within months if not for massive money creation, just to get a -10% in CO2 emissions. Easy. Then, where do you get the next -10%? And the next one? And...
Maybe there is a way to get -10% without paralyzing the economy. But nobody is looking. Or they’ve devices that it’s “too expensive” to invest in tech that will save 10% later.
If we continue to do nothing effective, the economy will be paralyzed by 100%.
We could get to net negative, just with carbon capture, for less than Iran is costing us. (Atmospheric carbon capture, if scaled, would cost ~ $1-2 to capture a gallon of gasoline's CO2 emissions).
Of course, that's one of the dumbest ways to get to carbon neutral. Solar and wind + batteries cost less than internal combustion engines, yet they're somehow "too expensive" and would cripple the economy.
It was only for the better if you were in an industry like ours, which even benefited and also allows remote work.
For a huge number of people it ruined their lives. Which is why it’s sensitive to this day. Like the financial bailouts there was a sense that some people benefited while others got ruined.
Bad example to invoke for “beneficial change.” If that’s the answer then it can’t be done in a democracy.
Of course COVID was a disaster, what I mean is that rapid reactions were demonstrated to be a question of political willpower rather that logistical challenges.
* Total reorganization of society was carried out in a matter of weeks.
* Oil is worth negative dollars if society isn't forced to consume.
* Generous payments were made to those who couldn't work, with no one humming and hawing about how it'll be paid for.
If the governments of the world were serious about climate change they would focus on it with that same iron will...
The event after which dozens of governments were destabilized and incumbents were ousted from power all over the world… convinced you that radical change is easy…?
The United States was a couple feet from an actual coup dude.
Leaving aside whether they were, and whether all countries are necessarily equally unstable.
Would that not have been different? I certainly haven't heard of a suspected coup by disgruntled democrats and/or minorities.
I suspect the coup you allude to would have amounted to a coup of the people in power to stay in power. Not a popular, armed uprising. So I don't see how it's relevant to the point you are trying to make.
Is instability only instability if it's the right shape or color or flavor?
The point is that the radical change that was "so easy" during COVID was 1) forced by an emergency, and 2) triggered a stream of emergencies that we're still dealing with today across the entire world.
If GP meant "radical change is easy so long as you can accept a stream of emergencies with uncertain outcomes for an indefinite amount of time into the future," then sure... radical change is easy!
Sure, if you’re willing to trample on civil rights & use extraordinary social pressure to deride previously mundane activities as equivalent to murder!
I'm surely not and still I think it's overestimated, just like the climate crisis is downplayed, like the health effects of tobbaco, lead and asbestos were hidden, because it hurts quarterly reports to focus effort and thus money on things other than making more money.
The pandemic was easy for me to live through because I'm just like that; and it was easy for the disease to evolve in a wet market*…
… but that whole "flatten the curve" thing was because it came within a hair's breadth of overwhelming national healthcare systems and this was obviously a risk to be mitigated before the event.
* this happened in wet markets many times, not just COVID; and this will happen again if steps aren't taken to mitigate that, no matter what you may think about lab leaks which do also happen sometimes because humans are fallible and do make mistakes on occasion.
Given how the much-vaunted "checks and balances" seem to be, well, rather unbalanced ... and how the country is so, so, partisan over "their own side" that politics is mainly theatre... It seems like the US doesn't really need any italics in that statement. From an outside perspective, it seems fairly vulnerable to fascism actually.
In any event, over here in the UK there's a real wind-power push (with the surrounding water being so shallow that off-shore wind-farms are very possible), but even in these extended latitudes, solar power is viable and the government currently make them VAT-free for installs, with no planning requirements because they fall under 'permitted development'. Renewable energy was at ~56% Q2 2026.
The UK government set up 'Great British Energy' with £8.3B of funding for coinvestment with private firms in various clean energy generation. I think the UK is definitely doing its part.
First past the posts for a nationwide position (president) ensures two party polarization even without any external influences (and there are many). In the UK (and Canada) you use fptp for the lower house but due to regional differences that can still create multiple parties and more viewpoints within parties. Regional differences get obliterated with a nationwide fptp position, making every act of compromise a betrayal.
> The United States was a couple feet from an actual coup dude.
How does this square with the oft-repeated line that the Second Amendment is useless when the government has tanks, bombs, and aircraft carriers? January 6th was a bunch of unarmed boomers. If you really think the government was >this< close to being overthrown by them, then you might as well pack it up. The US wouldn't stand a chance if a couple thousand armed Russian or Chinese nationals decided to show up to the Capitol.
Go read some books on how coups work and the numerous historical examples. This comment is just too full of either bad faith or too-far-afield misunderstandings to be rectified in an HN comment thread.
That statement assumes that the government orders the military to fight against the coup. The commander in chief would not order it, and had the coup succeeded, the Congress would certify that the commander should continue in power.
At that point it would require the top generals to stage a coup of their own. Which they probably would have. But I'm glad we didn't find out.
The military is extremely strong and would easily show off foreign invaders. But the Constitution didn't foresee an elected but corrupt executive overthrowing the government. That is a blind spot they reasonably didn't anticipate.
> There is no excuse for every government in the world to not be covering every bit of rooftop or scrap land with solar.
is it intentional hyperbole and you mean something else, or are you making exactly this kind of claim?
because there are many many caveats to add here (even if we go with plan that specifically governments should be doing it)
For start: land with legitimate environmental protection, land where connecting power would be ruinously expensive, area likely to be destroyed by floods and landslides or scheduled to be overbuilt and so on...
You can look at random cities in somewhere like Pakistan and see their rooves are covered in solar from a boom that has occurred in only the past 2-3 years. In comparison I live in a far wealthier country and people hesitate.
It says the report "finds that clean energy growth is not yet fast enough for a durable decline in global fossil CO2 emissions" and quotes the report's lead as “A decline in fossil CO2 emissions is encouraging, but a reduction driven partly by geopolitical shocks is not a sustainable climate solution.”
The most optimistic note was “If further acceleration of clean technology
deployment can be supported through time, a sustained peak and decline in
global CO2 emissions could be a few years away.”
> but a reduction driven partly by geopolitical shocks is not a sustainable climate solution.
Oh, but it is. The two most recent major conflicts resulted in fossil fuel related infrastructure to be destroyed - particularly Qatar had a huge chunk of its natural gas infrastructure irrecoverably damaged.
It's going to take close to two years to rebuild it, but that can only really start after the hostilities cease.
On a different front datacentre buildout created a huge backlog for natural gas turbines, making them for the first time everunattractive for peak shaving compared to batteries.
> If further acceleration of clean technology deployment can be supported through time, a sustained peak and decline in global CO2 emissions could be a few years away
Unfortunately the opposite might happen in the next years. It seems this year China is starting to export less solar panels: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-18/china-sol... . Despite the low prices, some countries are investing less in solar panels and wind turbines for many different reasons. Other technologies might come but are slower to develop.
We don’t need to invest an ever increasing amount in solar panels to transition because existing panels degrade slowly. Scale things out another 20 years and at current rates solar will have squeezed out just about everything else.
Sure, we can always move faster but hydro and wind limit how much solar we actually need. Batteries have cycle limits so even if wind is unreliable producing power at 2AM just to increase battery lifetimes makes sense.
20TW is roughly current world marketed energy consumption. But, on Earth, solar power plants have a capacity factor around 20%, so you need 100TW of solar panels to produce those 20TW. Moreover, we should expect human energy consumption to continue to grow, not suddenly become constant, especially since solar energy is so much cheaper than older sources of energy; 20 years from now we might need four times that much, depending on how AI works out. In that case you'd need to produce about 400TW÷20 years = 20TW/year.
Hydropower is already scaled nearly to its limits, and wind energy is useful and important, but is dropping in cost much more slowly than solar, and it's tapping a much smaller resource.
> 20TW is roughly current world marketed energy consumption. But, on Earth, solar power plants have a capacity factor around 20%, so you need 100TW of solar panels to produce those 20TW.
This confuses primary energy with work. 1 TWh of solar can displace multiple TWh of primary energy. This depends on details, of course; in some cases it makes sense to directly convert solar output resistively to heat even if that takes a second law loss.
This is a good point; in particular, electrification of transport will reduce the figure substantially, especially because car engines are usually less than 30% efficient. But electrical power is already about a third of the total, isn't it?
So, at the current production rate, we can produce solar cells that deliver 20TW/year in about 15 years. Eventually, we’ll have to replace lots of them, but given that the rapid growth of installed panels makes the majority of panels new, I think we can mostly ignore that in this calculation.
We need to produce enough solar panels to generate net new 20TW every year; 20TW/year as a measure of energy production doesn't make sense as the Watt is a measure of energy transfer. In other words, we need to increase production by 20TW per year every year for 20 years in order to hit the 400TW that we need to be producing all the time (in this model where global energy demand is 400TW)
CO2 emissions will decrease in the next decades but mostly because of demographics. People get older and tend to pollute less, growth is slower. It happened to Europe and it'll happen to China sooner than we think when we look at their pyramid of age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China
I think we shouldn't mix (1) negative events in the world which impact CO2 emissions (covid, Ukraine war, Iran war etc.), (2) with "normal" events such as population decline in polluting countries, (3) with an actual coordinated and effective action against global warming.
(1) and (2) can have a large impact on CO2 emissions. (3) is more difficult to notice.
The world population is still increasing in 2027. And the total population is pretty much irrelevant anyways. Rich people emit so much more CO2 than poor people that they number of poor people is just a rounding error. The rich are getting richer and poor people are continuing to join the middle class. Carbon intensive activities such as flying are increasing at a rapid rate. People are flying more in 2026 despite the cost of fuel going up.
I don't know if it's irrelevant. The rich are only rich after all because there's everyone else. If there weren't millions of poor people who have not much choice but to work for nothing in other countries, the rich wouldn't be so rich. If there weren't poor people to get into deep credit card debt and overspending, the rich wouldn't be so rich.
Although it's not popular to say so, the entire system is acting here and it can't readily be decoupled. Even when it comes to flying - the rich wouldn't do so much flying if there weren't poor people working for nothing in resorts and gig work in tourism.
That's not to say I think poor people are to blame. But it does mean that increasing the number of poor and their resulting desperation gives the rich something to feed off of.
China is doing real things to move their transportation to battery electric too, including big trucks. They have infrastructure to swap several hundred kwh battery packs, the truck can be back on the road in about 5 minutes.
There are other reasons. Solar and batteries now have become so cheap that there is financial incentive to use them. The war on Iran has shown the volatility of fossil fuels, adding political and strategic incentive. More and more energy use is electrified (transportation, heating), which further reduces primary energy usage.
All that builds a momentum that actually makes me somewhat optimistic that we have at least reached peak emissions.
It’s not coordinated action, it’s primarily massive renewable and nuclear buildouts in China, which will hopefully be followed by similar buildouts all throughout Asia.
It would be really great if people started dialing back and started finding creative solutions for reusing old tech, developing less new stuff, and just slowed down the economy for a simpler life.
> started finding creative solutions for reusing old tech
As a general rule old tech is far more power hungry (per unit of work) than new tech. Sure my old Atari computer used very few watts compared to my modern 50 core server (I'm not sure what GPU), but the modern server can do a lot more per watt.
> developing less new stuff, and just slowed down the economy for a simpler life.
To each their own - I would find that world boring. I enjoy camping for a weekend, but I'm very glad to get back to modern civilization and there are plenty more luxuries that I want in development.
I laugh every time I see the power adapter for the Colecovision console [1]. I suspect that my laptop could emulate ten Colecovision consoles using less power than running a single real Colecovision.
> To each their own - I would find that world boring. I enjoy camping for a weekend, but I'm very glad to get back to modern civilization and there are plenty more luxuries that I want in development.
My point entirely is that people shouldn't have everything that they want if the creation of that thing is unsustainable.
If we are just leveling off that’s a cause for celebration.
I realize anything other than doom wallowing is verboten on the Internet but it is a massive achievement, especially since global economic growth continues which means we are actually switching (renewables, nuclear, EVs) and decoupling (less energy per $ gdp).
It's not always directly counted, but we count CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to check CO2 emissions and we're able to attribute a large part of these emissions to countries. It's why it takes a long time to have accurate data on CO2 emissions. I'm not sure we even have the data for 2025 yet, they're usually released at the end of the next year. So obviously for 2026 it's only a vague estimate, we'll know at the end of 2027.
Burning a refinery likely reduces emissions, because the fuel this refinery produced would be burned anyway, and the destroyed refinery will cease producing fossil fuels. So it wouldn't be a surprise if all the refineries destroyed this year in Russia and in the Middle East contributed to a reduction in CO2 emissions.
Nitpick, some of the refineries products (~10-20%) are not burned but used to make plastics and other chemicals. I agree though, the effect of destroying the refinery, pushing up prices thus reducing demand dominates.
Ultimately most of those products get burned too. Waste-to-energy burns trash to make heat and electricity. It's an improvement over just straight up burning the oil but not by much.
Pushing up prices on new plastic does make recycling more economic but most of those products still get burned. If you're lucky on average they make it round the loop once, maybe your mountain dew bottle makes a plastic trash bag and then we burn the bag.
Do you think the oil that Russia was producing was going to be stored underground, or ...burned in combustion engines therefore releasing the Co2 anyway?
Emissions budgets are calculated using accounting best practice, which are not designed for full transparency (ref: the creative accounting used to obscure every financial scandal and economic bubble). THIS is the curve that matters:
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/global.html
The Iran blip is clearly seen, but it's just that - a blip. Levels continue to steadily rise.
These two views are not necessarily in conflict: atmospheric CO2 concentration is (vagely/roughly) the integral of emissions. So if emissions are basically flat (-0.4%) you'd still see atmospheric levels rise.
It will be interesting to see if the security implications of unreliable fossil fuel supply brings forward the date of peak co2 emissions. Adoption of EVs and solar PV is really spiking, particularly in the developing world.
Its also entirely possible things go back to "normal", like happened after the ME oil shocks of the 70s.
From 1980 -> 1990 the CO2 mole fraction (ppm) rose 20pts. from ~340 to ~360.
From 2022 -> 2025 the CO2 mole fraction (ppm) rose 10pts. from ~416 to ~426.
It seems we'll have the ppm rise 10pts. in 6 years, which is 40% faster than 40 years ago, which seems like an insane increase to me; almost like things are getting MUCH worse not better.
Levels as in emission levels or total levels? Emission levels may have blipped (and the Iran war is a pretty clear inflection point especially in the developing world) but obviously until we're net negative total levels will not decline because it's cumulative
The difference between those curves isn't "accounting", it's that the emission rate is essentially[1] the time derivative of the CO2 concentration. They have different shapes because they're different (but related) quantities.
It's entirely consistent with precise and good faith emissions measurements for CO2 to be still increasing.
[1] Modulo the seasonal variation, absorption in the ocean, emission from other sources like permafrost thawing, yada yada.
The headline buries the lede.
"With emissions from land-use change (such as deforestation) projected to increase slightly this year, total CO2 emissions are projected to be 43.3 billion tonnes in 2026 – up from 42.8 billion tonnes last year."
Total annual CO2 emissions are projected to increase by ~half a billion tonnes as a result of land use changes.
This is good, but also total emissions still expected to increase? Yeesh
More work needed to fix that, but we are on the right track. You can't get to lower total emissions without all the steps in between. First lower the rate of increase compared to the previous year (done), then decrease the rate compared to the previous year, (done for this year anyway, time will tell), then decrease the rate even more every year, until finally we get to net negative (a very hard place to get - not impossible, the earth is naturally slightly net negative)
One of the things that COVID make crystal clear to me is that radical changes for the better are much more straightforward than people think, and the only reason they don't happen is the people in charge couldn't be bothered.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/chinas...
There is no excuse for every government in the world to not be covering every bit of rooftop or scrap land with solar. China is losing money on panels at the moment they have such production capacity. Its free money for anyone country who wants to do it.
It's extremely inefficient to put solar on buildings, especially compared to utility-scale installations in a field
Why is it so bad? Idk about buildings but I always thought putting them over parking lots would be a good idea since it would provide shade for the cars. I feel like only using it in empty fields has it's own downsides and getting mixed used purpose could be good, but I won't pretend to have thought through this.
To be fair. The government tried in my country, and it completely backfired. Because the power grid cannot handle the current load anymore. We've had more frequent blackouts because of it.
Because of this issue, starting next year I will be paying my power company money for surplus solar energy that I give back. Unfortunately, batteries are expensive and impractical to install in our houses.
So now, it's not that popular to buy solar panels unless you can also immediately finance the batteries.
I don't know what your exact situation is, but for some people you can consider other "battery" options. Almost everyone needs heat in some way (hot water, space heating) so if you're making a lot of excess electricity you could get an electric resistance hot water heater. It can be used to pre-heat your hot water before entering your main hot water tank, or be used to loop through your residence for hydronic heating.
This wouldn't be for everyone but there are other options to chemical batteries depending on whats easy for you to do.
In my case, I'm already using pretty much all my solar energy. So it's not that big of a deal for me honestly.
I'd like a hot water tank like that, but I don't really have the attic space to place it near my boiler. I have a gas powered CV unit, so I already have on demand hot water. Ideally I'd replace it for a hybrid boiler that would work of electricity until demand exceeds electric capability. But it's still well within its lifespan.
It didn't backfire, the easy sensible solutions were ignored for 15 years until a problem was caused.
And they get away with it because people are so willing to believe ridiculous lies like this. Their newspapers have told them "this is a problem" nearly daily for years. Any problem can immediately be blamed on renewables with no need to wait for expert input. A triumph of propaganda.
I didn't blame renewables themselves. I blame the government for pushing the renewables without also pushing the improvement of the underlying infrastructure.
Genuine question, because I am pretty ignorant to European laws; if you're producing so much excess that selling it back would actually cost you money, wouldn't this be a pretty good case for something akin to those Tesla Powerwalls?
Not necessarily that brand specifically but something similar?
> if you're producing so much excess that selling it back would actually cost you money, wouldn't this be a pretty good case for something akin to those Tesla Powerwalls?
Yes, I mentioned that in my comment. They are quite an investment, and they're impractical to place in many houses. So it's not always an option. I personally have the space. But there's some ongoing projects that make it impossible for me to currently install them.
Why are you giving it "back"? I'd stop immediately if I had to pay. Can you not set your inverter to "zero-export"?
You can, and that is what's going to happen. We gave back because we used to get reimbursed for it. But it's essentially going to get flipped around now.
I honestly have no clue how I can configure my inverter, there is zero option to configure on my end. So I'd probably have to get the installer here to set that up. The panels were already on my house.
Netherlands? The problem here is that they incentivised putting solar on peoples roofs, but forgot to increase the capacity of our grid for this completely predictible change.
Thank Mark Rutte and his short sightedness.
Yup, Netherlands.
Kept pushing for renewables and more electrical dependency. And then oops, sorry, the infrastructure can't handle it.
Frequent blackouts? In NL? There were maybe two regional ones in the last year that I can remember. It's all relative of course, but if you offered that level of service to someone in SA they would be extremely happy.
Frequent relative to what was normal for the area, I should've clarified that.
would solar + a house battery not help with grid congestion? Seems like it would mean less power transmitted overall.
I'm not the commentor but, in my area storage batteries for solar are not permitted in or near homes. They can be in a shed or away from the home. That doesnt help apartments or attached style homes.
Meanwhile the motorways are untolled and public transit fares rise.
That the motorways are untolled is not the only relevant number. There is also the tax in petrol which is quite far from being 'untolled'. Taxing petrol is much better for privacy in general than a toll for the roads.
It really sucks because there is a technical solution to this (load dumping) but I don't think most non-battery controllers support that
I very much think nobody can be bothered, not just the people in charge. We're all the same people and if there was an actual want by the regular person, the ones in charge in most of the world would be influenced enough to either want it too or have to do something
I, along with many other people, have fitted solar panels on my roof, installed a battery in my loft and replaced my gas boiler with a heat pump. Lots of people are bothered.
I bet you had to fight the government or give away some of your produced energy to them to get it done.
No: in Scotland I got a subsidy for the heat pump install capital cost, and I'm on the old feed in tariff scheme that pays me for every unit of energy produced. Including, oddly, energy I consume myself.
It's not so advantageous for new installs because the point of awkwardness in the UK has switched to storage. It's currently possible for some battery owners to make money from arbitrage because the grid hasn't bought enough batteries and north/south links yet.
Not the person your replied to, but I'm in the same position.
No? Unless you consider an HOA the government. Why would the make this hard? I now quite a few that will subsidize it. Fill in some paperwork, submit it along with the invoice and wait a few weeks/months for some free money back.
I believe the nobody can be bothered is a figure of speech, meaning: way too little.
Unluckily, your noble and exceptional on a global but even on a national scale efforts are not pulling that CO2 chart down.
Olson's Theory of Collective action explains why this isn't true.
Concentrated interests can defeat popular movements. It fits the facts very neatly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_theory
Romantic model of people being heard. 500M speaks more than a single vote. Its a shame. This already disproves your model - however, we should move towards it!
Wasn't the complete worldwide failure to anything about COVID exactly a high speed analogue io how we've also failed to do anything about climate change?
Sort of, but there is a crucial difference: the lockdowns affected the treats. There is nothing about a rapid rollout of renewable energy in the US and elsewhere that would threaten the supply of McNuggets, the main thing people would see is their energy bills go down as they get plentiful daytime solar and can charge house batteries on cheaper night rates.
A big one. We just need to look at the noaa.gov CO2 chart.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/global.html
> the people in charge couldn't be bothered.
Watching the last decade of American politics has led me to absolutely despise the culture of learned helplessness and attitude of "everything is someone else's fault."
You're absolutely right about the first part. Radical change is much more straightforward. At the individual level there are absolutely things that can be done that are pretty easy Consuming less and recycling more is a huge one. But if the attitude is, "we can't or won't do it individually. We need someone to make us behave," then that's a losing culture. The last American election reassured me that indeed, even if the elite class wants something, no amount of money will override the will of the people. The people just don't want this badly enough.
> "we can't or won't do it individually. We need someone to make us behave,"
Well, we need to be organized around a plan, such as electrifying power generation and transport. Since government already heavily manages those things, it's not a matter of individual behavior, apart from the behavior of voting, and generally expressing approval of policies.
I do think you should stop with the guilt-tripping of individuals, and I do think that they're powerless - without organization - and that attacking consumers is wrong-headed. To complain about consuming says that the problem is that we have industry and nice things, but that's incorrect. It's a hard sell, firstly because people like nice things and think they're entitled to them, and secondly because they're right about that. The problem is that we have emissions, not that we have consumer goods.
Which people are you talking about? The ones that voted? The problem with American politics (and Australia provides an easy point to compare against) is that the young do not vote. Consequently, they have no power, and no one in charge is inclined to do anything that will have long-term impact.
Is this pointing fingers at young people and saying, "everything is someone else's fault?"
I am a young person. So no, it is not someone else's fault per se. I am frustrated by my generation, but I also understand it.
The nice thing about blaming someone else is it absolves you of all responsibility to change yourself. Win-win.
It makes no sense to sacrifice yourself if collective action is needed. Democracy allows people to express the direction they want society to go in, and consuming less and causing less fossil fuel emissions is clearly not what the majority of people want.
It is logical to vote and advocate for policies that require everyone to consume less while not individually doing so. Similar to wanting changes in taxing policy while still only paying the minimum required tax.
Well the young votes in 2024 for the current admin, and again this year for the opposite of the current admin, it's not exactly fair to say that they're not showing up to the polls when 2024 and 2026 was driven pretty much by them
>is that the young do not vote.
Because they realized they're minority compared to boomers so they can't outvote them anyway, so then what's the point of going to vote just to see yourself lose.
That's the issue with democracy. The bigger group wins.
Yes, if anything they want the opposite. Cheap gas.
> But if the attitude is, "we can't or won't do it individually. We need someone to make us behave," then that's a losing culture.
This is every culture. We address it structurally or not at all.
> The last American election reassured me that indeed, even if the elite class wants something, no amount of money will override the will of the people.
:|
it's not that the people in charge can't be bothered. the people really in charge see the status quo as a profitable situation. it'a "good" for them and bad for everyone else.
People are in charge, especially in democracies. Not to mention that they are the end consumers, everything produced is eventually for something that people buy, use, eat, burn, throw into the garbage fast. People need to act, not some dedicated father figure (actually servant) making things good for them by a swish of a wand [1], compensating for the consumption and emissions.
[1] As of the wishful thinking that huge capacity solar panels bring joy, one aspect of the several directly related is this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-026-02144-0. An other one of the further ones: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-government-appro.... So big dreams and delegating responsibility are not enough for the people.
Back when companies were talking about carbon capture seriously, it would have cost $1-2 / gallon of gasoline equivalent to put atmospheric CO2 back in the ground.
That's much less than the Iran war is costing us.
So we need to paralyze 30% of the economy, that would have gone to bankruptcy within months if not for massive money creation, just to get a -10% in CO2 emissions. Easy. Then, where do you get the next -10%? And the next one? And...
Maybe there is a way to get -10% without paralyzing the economy. But nobody is looking. Or they’ve devices that it’s “too expensive” to invest in tech that will save 10% later.
If we continue to do nothing effective, the economy will be paralyzed by 100%.
We could get to net negative, just with carbon capture, for less than Iran is costing us. (Atmospheric carbon capture, if scaled, would cost ~ $1-2 to capture a gallon of gasoline's CO2 emissions).
Of course, that's one of the dumbest ways to get to carbon neutral. Solar and wind + batteries cost less than internal combustion engines, yet they're somehow "too expensive" and would cripple the economy.
The radical change during COVID was consuming less on a global scale. Simple!
Yes. If I can make that choice everyday so can everyone else. But we have to change peoples hearts, not their minds.
It was only for the better if you were in an industry like ours, which even benefited and also allows remote work.
For a huge number of people it ruined their lives. Which is why it’s sensitive to this day. Like the financial bailouts there was a sense that some people benefited while others got ruined.
Bad example to invoke for “beneficial change.” If that’s the answer then it can’t be done in a democracy.
There were plenty of people in our industry who suffered during it. If anything I would say the divide was between introverts and extroverts.
Of course COVID was a disaster, what I mean is that rapid reactions were demonstrated to be a question of political willpower rather that logistical challenges.
* Total reorganization of society was carried out in a matter of weeks.
* Oil is worth negative dollars if society isn't forced to consume.
* Generous payments were made to those who couldn't work, with no one humming and hawing about how it'll be paid for.
If the governments of the world were serious about climate change they would focus on it with that same iron will...
The event after which dozens of governments were destabilized and incumbents were ousted from power all over the world… convinced you that radical change is easy…?
The United States was a couple feet from an actual coup dude.
Leaving aside whether they were, and whether all countries are necessarily equally unstable.
Would that not have been different? I certainly haven't heard of a suspected coup by disgruntled democrats and/or minorities.
I suspect the coup you allude to would have amounted to a coup of the people in power to stay in power. Not a popular, armed uprising. So I don't see how it's relevant to the point you are trying to make.
Is instability only instability if it's the right shape or color or flavor?
The point is that the radical change that was "so easy" during COVID was 1) forced by an emergency, and 2) triggered a stream of emergencies that we're still dealing with today across the entire world.
If GP meant "radical change is easy so long as you can accept a stream of emergencies with uncertain outcomes for an indefinite amount of time into the future," then sure... radical change is easy!
Straightforward isn't the same as easy, it's just that the difficulty of a transition to a carbon free economy is heavily overestimated
Sure, if you’re willing to trample on civil rights & use extraordinary social pressure to deride previously mundane activities as equivalent to murder!
I'm surely not and still I think it's overestimated, just like the climate crisis is downplayed, like the health effects of tobbaco, lead and asbestos were hidden, because it hurts quarterly reports to focus effort and thus money on things other than making more money.
So in other words: radical change was almost easy?
If you think the "killing the people in charge" is the hard part of radical change, then you haven't read much history.
"Easy" is kinda a "for whom?" question.
The pandemic was easy for me to live through because I'm just like that; and it was easy for the disease to evolve in a wet market*…
… but that whole "flatten the curve" thing was because it came within a hair's breadth of overwhelming national healthcare systems and this was obviously a risk to be mitigated before the event.
* this happened in wet markets many times, not just COVID; and this will happen again if steps aren't taken to mitigate that, no matter what you may think about lab leaks which do also happen sometimes because humans are fallible and do make mistakes on occasion.
Given how the much-vaunted "checks and balances" seem to be, well, rather unbalanced ... and how the country is so, so, partisan over "their own side" that politics is mainly theatre... It seems like the US doesn't really need any italics in that statement. From an outside perspective, it seems fairly vulnerable to fascism actually.
In any event, over here in the UK there's a real wind-power push (with the surrounding water being so shallow that off-shore wind-farms are very possible), but even in these extended latitudes, solar power is viable and the government currently make them VAT-free for installs, with no planning requirements because they fall under 'permitted development'. Renewable energy was at ~56% Q2 2026.
The UK government set up 'Great British Energy' with £8.3B of funding for coinvestment with private firms in various clean energy generation. I think the UK is definitely doing its part.
First past the posts for a nationwide position (president) ensures two party polarization even without any external influences (and there are many). In the UK (and Canada) you use fptp for the lower house but due to regional differences that can still create multiple parties and more viewpoints within parties. Regional differences get obliterated with a nationwide fptp position, making every act of compromise a betrayal.
It's not perfect in the UK, I suspect we could have avoided Brexit with a proportional system.
oh it’s far from perfect. it’s better, though
> The United States was a couple feet from an actual coup dude.
How does this square with the oft-repeated line that the Second Amendment is useless when the government has tanks, bombs, and aircraft carriers? January 6th was a bunch of unarmed boomers. If you really think the government was >this< close to being overthrown by them, then you might as well pack it up. The US wouldn't stand a chance if a couple thousand armed Russian or Chinese nationals decided to show up to the Capitol.
Go read some books on how coups work and the numerous historical examples. This comment is just too full of either bad faith or too-far-afield misunderstandings to be rectified in an HN comment thread.
That statement assumes that the government orders the military to fight against the coup. The commander in chief would not order it, and had the coup succeeded, the Congress would certify that the commander should continue in power.
At that point it would require the top generals to stage a coup of their own. Which they probably would have. But I'm glad we didn't find out.
The military is extremely strong and would easily show off foreign invaders. But the Constitution didn't foresee an elected but corrupt executive overthrowing the government. That is a blind spot they reasonably didn't anticipate.
You really don't see why the US would be less willing to shoot its own citizens than those of an invading nation?
> There is no excuse for every government in the world to not be covering every bit of rooftop or scrap land with solar.
is it intentional hyperbole and you mean something else, or are you making exactly this kind of claim?
because there are many many caveats to add here (even if we go with plan that specifically governments should be doing it)
For start: land with legitimate environmental protection, land where connecting power would be ruinously expensive, area likely to be destroyed by floods and landslides or scheduled to be overbuilt and so on...
Its a bit hyperbolic, but you know what I mean. Build it out very rapidly.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pakistan/@30.1940381,71.49...
You can look at random cities in somewhere like Pakistan and see their rooves are covered in solar from a boom that has occurred in only the past 2-3 years. In comparison I live in a far wealthier country and people hesitate.
Say what you like but this is great news. Let’s keep going.
Reducing emissions by wars is not good news. Less so when you count all children killed and the oils spill that have occurred in the Strait of Hormuz.
Let's hope it's not just a temporary dip, I'm not holding my breath but we could really do with some longer term good news at the moment.
The link says it's a temporary dip.
It says the report "finds that clean energy growth is not yet fast enough for a durable decline in global fossil CO2 emissions" and quotes the report's lead as “A decline in fossil CO2 emissions is encouraging, but a reduction driven partly by geopolitical shocks is not a sustainable climate solution.”
The most optimistic note was “If further acceleration of clean technology deployment can be supported through time, a sustained peak and decline in global CO2 emissions could be a few years away.”
> but a reduction driven partly by geopolitical shocks is not a sustainable climate solution.
Oh, but it is. The two most recent major conflicts resulted in fossil fuel related infrastructure to be destroyed - particularly Qatar had a huge chunk of its natural gas infrastructure irrecoverably damaged.
It's going to take close to two years to rebuild it, but that can only really start after the hostilities cease.
On a different front datacentre buildout created a huge backlog for natural gas turbines, making them for the first time everunattractive for peak shaving compared to batteries.
Yeah; the refinery strikes (both sides) are the only part of the Iran war that's doing anyone any good.
I predict we'll spend 10x what it would cost to de-carbonize the US economy over there just to protect historical CO2 emission growth curves.
> If further acceleration of clean technology deployment can be supported through time, a sustained peak and decline in global CO2 emissions could be a few years away
Unfortunately the opposite might happen in the next years. It seems this year China is starting to export less solar panels: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-18/china-sol... . Despite the low prices, some countries are investing less in solar panels and wind turbines for many different reasons. Other technologies might come but are slower to develop.
We don’t need to invest an ever increasing amount in solar panels to transition because existing panels degrade slowly. Scale things out another 20 years and at current rates solar will have squeezed out just about everything else.
Sure, we can always move faster but hydro and wind limit how much solar we actually need. Batteries have cycle limits so even if wind is unreliable producing power at 2AM just to increase battery lifetimes makes sense.
20TW is roughly current world marketed energy consumption. But, on Earth, solar power plants have a capacity factor around 20%, so you need 100TW of solar panels to produce those 20TW. Moreover, we should expect human energy consumption to continue to grow, not suddenly become constant, especially since solar energy is so much cheaper than older sources of energy; 20 years from now we might need four times that much, depending on how AI works out. In that case you'd need to produce about 400TW÷20 years = 20TW/year.
According to the IEA, we currently have only about 1.5TW/year of manufacturing capacity: https://www.solarplaza.com/resource/13581/article-global-sol...
Hydropower is already scaled nearly to its limits, and wind energy is useful and important, but is dropping in cost much more slowly than solar, and it's tapping a much smaller resource.
> 20TW is roughly current world marketed energy consumption. But, on Earth, solar power plants have a capacity factor around 20%, so you need 100TW of solar panels to produce those 20TW.
This confuses primary energy with work. 1 TWh of solar can displace multiple TWh of primary energy. This depends on details, of course; in some cases it makes sense to directly convert solar output resistively to heat even if that takes a second law loss.
This is a good point; in particular, electrification of transport will reduce the figure substantially, especially because car engines are usually less than 30% efficient. But electrical power is already about a third of the total, isn't it?
> In that case you'd need to produce about 400TW÷20 years = 20TW/year. According to the IEA, we currently have only about 1.5TW/year of manufacturing capacity: https://www.solarplaza.com/resource/13581/article-global-sol...
So, at the current production rate, we can produce solar cells that deliver 20TW/year in about 15 years. Eventually, we’ll have to replace lots of them, but given that the rapid growth of installed panels makes the majority of panels new, I think we can mostly ignore that in this calculation.
We need to produce enough solar panels to generate net new 20TW every year; 20TW/year as a measure of energy production doesn't make sense as the Watt is a measure of energy transfer. In other words, we need to increase production by 20TW per year every year for 20 years in order to hit the 400TW that we need to be producing all the time (in this model where global energy demand is 400TW)
It's a shame only China can produce solar panels...
Of course all the dips look temporary until one of them doesn't revert. That's probably not this one, of course, but it might be.
CO2 emissions will decrease in the next decades but mostly because of demographics. People get older and tend to pollute less, growth is slower. It happened to Europe and it'll happen to China sooner than we think when we look at their pyramid of age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China
I think we shouldn't mix (1) negative events in the world which impact CO2 emissions (covid, Ukraine war, Iran war etc.), (2) with "normal" events such as population decline in polluting countries, (3) with an actual coordinated and effective action against global warming.
(1) and (2) can have a large impact on CO2 emissions. (3) is more difficult to notice.
The world population is still increasing in 2027. And the total population is pretty much irrelevant anyways. Rich people emit so much more CO2 than poor people that they number of poor people is just a rounding error. The rich are getting richer and poor people are continuing to join the middle class. Carbon intensive activities such as flying are increasing at a rapid rate. People are flying more in 2026 despite the cost of fuel going up.
I don't know if it's irrelevant. The rich are only rich after all because there's everyone else. If there weren't millions of poor people who have not much choice but to work for nothing in other countries, the rich wouldn't be so rich. If there weren't poor people to get into deep credit card debt and overspending, the rich wouldn't be so rich.
Although it's not popular to say so, the entire system is acting here and it can't readily be decoupled. Even when it comes to flying - the rich wouldn't do so much flying if there weren't poor people working for nothing in resorts and gig work in tourism.
That's not to say I think poor people are to blame. But it does mean that increasing the number of poor and their resulting desperation gives the rich something to feed off of.
China is doing real things to move their transportation to battery electric too, including big trucks. They have infrastructure to swap several hundred kwh battery packs, the truck can be back on the road in about 5 minutes.
China also did massive overbuilding of infrastructure; ceasing that will reduce CO2 emission.
There are other reasons. Solar and batteries now have become so cheap that there is financial incentive to use them. The war on Iran has shown the volatility of fossil fuels, adding political and strategic incentive. More and more energy use is electrified (transportation, heating), which further reduces primary energy usage.
All that builds a momentum that actually makes me somewhat optimistic that we have at least reached peak emissions.
It’s not coordinated action, it’s primarily massive renewable and nuclear buildouts in China, which will hopefully be followed by similar buildouts all throughout Asia.
Well, holding your breath would decrease the CO2 output but I wouldn't recommend it :)
Now: Let's skip the AI build out and keep things in the right direction.
Decarbonization is going to happen by transitioning to non-fossil fuel electricity generation. That is, more solar, wind, and maybe nuclear power.
I don't see a plausible scenario in which there's a reduction in demand for artificial intelligence in the near future.
It would be really great if people started dialing back and started finding creative solutions for reusing old tech, developing less new stuff, and just slowed down the economy for a simpler life.
> started finding creative solutions for reusing old tech
As a general rule old tech is far more power hungry (per unit of work) than new tech. Sure my old Atari computer used very few watts compared to my modern 50 core server (I'm not sure what GPU), but the modern server can do a lot more per watt.
> developing less new stuff, and just slowed down the economy for a simpler life.
To each their own - I would find that world boring. I enjoy camping for a weekend, but I'm very glad to get back to modern civilization and there are plenty more luxuries that I want in development.
I laugh every time I see the power adapter for the Colecovision console [1]. I suspect that my laptop could emulate ten Colecovision consoles using less power than running a single real Colecovision.
[1] https://p.kagi.com/proxy/jaJn771.jpg?c=LeUEJczBkA3eiHIb6Q3EK... It doesn't quite come across in the picture but this adapter is gigantic.
> To each their own - I would find that world boring. I enjoy camping for a weekend, but I'm very glad to get back to modern civilization and there are plenty more luxuries that I want in development.
My point entirely is that people shouldn't have everything that they want if the creation of that thing is unsustainable.
Or do the build out to get to economies of scale with it faster.
And that helps us how...?
Scaling out causes us to climb an efficiency learning curve faster than bespoke, one-off weird data centers that require a jet engine to run
Jevons Paradox
0.4% sounds like one solid volcano eruption and all that effort is gone.
Pretty ironic that part of this is due to Trump: reducing global trade with tariffs, blocking Ormuz...
If we are just leveling off that’s a cause for celebration.
I realize anything other than doom wallowing is verboten on the Internet but it is a massive achievement, especially since global economic growth continues which means we are actually switching (renewables, nuclear, EVs) and decoupling (less energy per $ gdp).
Now for the other side of the curve!
Perhaps Trump was the dark knight of climate change activism all along?
When Ukraine burns a Russian refinery, do those emissions get counted?
Same with burning tankers in Iran...
It's not always directly counted, but we count CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to check CO2 emissions and we're able to attribute a large part of these emissions to countries. It's why it takes a long time to have accurate data on CO2 emissions. I'm not sure we even have the data for 2025 yet, they're usually released at the end of the next year. So obviously for 2026 it's only a vague estimate, we'll know at the end of 2027.
Burning a refinery likely reduces emissions, because the fuel this refinery produced would be burned anyway, and the destroyed refinery will cease producing fossil fuels. So it wouldn't be a surprise if all the refineries destroyed this year in Russia and in the Middle East contributed to a reduction in CO2 emissions.
Nitpick, some of the refineries products (~10-20%) are not burned but used to make plastics and other chemicals. I agree though, the effect of destroying the refinery, pushing up prices thus reducing demand dominates.
Ultimately most of those products get burned too. Waste-to-energy burns trash to make heat and electricity. It's an improvement over just straight up burning the oil but not by much.
Pushing up prices on new plastic does make recycling more economic but most of those products still get burned. If you're lucky on average they make it round the loop once, maybe your mountain dew bottle makes a plastic trash bag and then we burn the bag.
I wonder whether burning the refinery is better than burning the fuel efficiently since you get more soot.
The refinery is then offline for couple of weeks or months, during which it does not emit, and does not refine oil for further emissions.
Do you think the oil that Russia was producing was going to be stored underground, or ...burned in combustion engines therefore releasing the Co2 anyway?