Carbon emission reduction: News and technology

[Brian Peacock]

Absolutely. Our "commons" in this sense are all the components of the biosphere which are necessary for life - all things that keep Earth within it's zone of viability; within planetary boundaries. Sure we can have discussions about the use and distribution of the Earth's natural resources, but things like the chemical composition of the atmosphere, or the water, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen cycles are not something that can or should be traded away for profit, imo.

Biodiversity has to go in there too.

[Brian Peacock]

New research shows that governments are now planning more fossil extraction in the coming decades than they were in 2023...

Nations’ plans to ramp up coal, gas and oil extraction ‘will put climate goals beyond reach’

Governments around the world are ramping up coal, gas and oil extraction which will put climate goals beyond reach, new data has shown.

Far from reducing reliance on fossil fuels, nations are planning higher levels of fossil fuel production for the coming decades than they did in 2023, the last time comparable data was compiled.

This increase goes against the commitments that countries have made at UN climate summits to “transition away from fossil fuels” and phase down production, particularly of coal.

If all of the planned new extraction takes place, the world will produce more than double the quantity of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with holding global temperature rises to 1.5C above preindustrial levels.

Emily Ghosh, a programme director at the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) in the US, said: “Fossil fuel production should have peaked and started to fall. Every year of delay [to the peak and rapid fall required] significantly increases the pressure [on the climate].”

She said an urgent “course correction” from governments was needed, but the current and planned overproduction of fossil fuels meant the world was burning through its remaining “carbon budget” – the amount that can be emitted without permanently exceeding the 1.5C threshold – at a rapid rate....

[macdoc]

My glass is two thirds full by comparison

Renewable energy

The total amount of investment in low-carbon forms of energy is expected to be more than twice that for fossil fuels by the end of the year. Photogr

Global investment in renewable energy up 10% on 2024 despite Trump rollback
Growth rate slightly lower than previous first-half years but sector still strong and resilient, experts say

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... p-rollback

I'd rather focus on positive news instead of handwringing...

And another emerging scalable tech going into use.
https://www.latimes.com/environment/sto ... ng%20Point

[Brian Peacock]

Sure, but this is the carbon emissions reduction thread, so it's relevant to take a broader, balanced, more fact-based look at the issue. CO2 emissions are still rising in spite of significant growth in the renewable energy sector. The fossil energy sector is protecting increased demand, therefore extraction rates are also set to rise. This suggests that renewables are not replacing fossils but are contributing additional generating capacity to meet rising aggregate demand.

[rainbow]

Sure, but this is the carbon emissions reduction thread, so it's relevant to take a broader, balanced, more fact-based look at the issue. CO2 emissions are still rising in spite of significant growth in the renewable energy sector. The fossil energy sector is protecting increased demand, therefore extraction rates are also set to rise. This suggests that renewables are not replacing fossils but are contributing additional generating capacity to meet rising aggregate demand.

We need to use less, not more energy.

What is a complete buggeration is the expected demand from AI.
Who needs it?

Doesn't fold the laundry or fix potholes.
Artificial Senseless Stupidity more like --> ASS

[Svartalf]

trouble is that, stupid ideas of multiplying the use of computers all over to force humans into hungere riots aside, we still need ever more energy, and are nowhere near finding ways to achieve our needs while keeping power consumption lower than would have been previously expected.

[Brian Peacock]

Sure, but this is the carbon emissions reduction thread, so it's relevant to take a broader, balanced, more fact-based look at the issue. CO2 emissions are still rising in spite of significant growth in the renewable energy sector. The fossil energy sector is protecting increased demand, therefore extraction rates are also set to rise. This suggests that renewables are not replacing fossils but are contributing additional generating capacity to meet rising aggregate demand.

We need to use less, not more energy.

What is a complete buggeration is the expected demand from AI.
Who needs it?

Doesn't fold the laundry or fix potholes.
Artificial Senseless Stupidity more like --> ASS

Indeed. But if we accept that we need to use less, not more energy, then the question becomes how best to achieve that?

The assumption has generally been that if we build more renewable generation then for every GW/h of capacity renewables bring a GW/h can be taken away from fossil generated energy. If aggregate demand was static then that might actually work out, but energy demand is rising and is projected to continue to rise through to and past 2050 - not so much because of datacenters (though they can have a significant local impact), but because developing countries are rapidly expanding their energy infrastructure, which in turn allows them to expand things like agricultural production, urbanisation programs, investment in public institutions like education and health etc, and because we're starting to make progress in moving the c.70% of transport that's off-grid on-grid. It's somewhat ironic that we need more fossil extraction in order to charge all the electric vehicles we're buying.

Also, and as we discussed recently, although a GW/h of renewable electricity has been cheaper to produce than its fossil equivalent since about 2015, the fossil sector remains far more profitable than the renewable sector - mostly for historical and structural reasons - and long-term energy planning is in the hands of trans-national commercial entities that are essentially beyond democratic control.

[macdoc]

And once more ....no offered solution.

First world countries are most to blame for high emissions and can reach a tipping point in a decade.

Ontario eliminated coal in 1 decade.

China is moving very quickly to reduced emissions ( peak coal this year notably ) and will carry a lot of smaller countries with it by providing solar panels and EV cars at cheap prices.
The big issue is the orange idjit in the US....little solution for that tho economics of EV may yet prevail.

[pErvinalia]

Sure, but this is the carbon emissions reduction thread, so it's relevant to take a broader, balanced, more fact-based look at the issue. CO2 emissions are still rising in spite of significant growth in the renewable energy sector. The fossil energy sector is protecting increased demand, therefore extraction rates are also set to rise. This suggests that renewables are not replacing fossils but are contributing additional generating capacity to meet rising aggregate demand.

We need to use less, not more energy.

What is a complete buggeration is the expected demand from AI.
Who needs it?

Doesn't fold the laundry or fix potholes.
Artificial Senseless Stupidity more like --> ASS

Indeed. But if we accept that we need to use less, not more energy, then the question becomes how best to achieve that?

Africans need to use less lights in their huts.

[Brian Peacock]

And once more ....no offered solution.

You're worse than a broken record with that nonsense - it's almost as if it's become a kind of madness with you now. You cannot deny that I've talked directly to you about the issues, their scale, and the need to democratically restructure the global energy economy many times. Many, many times. At this point, the fact that you consistently and wilfully pretend I haven't has become indistinguishable from a kind of manic denialism.

First world countries are most to blame for high emissions and can reach a tipping point in a decade.

Ontario eliminated coal in 1 decade.

China is moving very quickly to reduced emissions ( peak coal this year notably ) and will carry a lot of smaller countries with it by providing solar panels and EV cars at cheap prices.

The big issue is the orange idjit in the US....little solution for that tho economics of EV may yet prevail.

I'm going to number my responses to all the points you raise so that you can't pretend that I'm not addressing them.

1. Yes, First World countries carry the vast majority of the responsibility for historical and ongoing CO2 emissions, but I was talking about projected global aggregate energy demand (International Energy Agency, Global Energy Review 2025. PDF) which is a different matter. Please read my previous remarks in that context.

2. In the context of a privatised, globalised energy economy what happens in a single state in single country is irrelevant. The world is not Ontario and Alberta. But while those Canadian states did phase-out coal-fired energy generation, which had a positive and measurable impact on emissions and human health, as well as cutting coal imports with all their associated carbon costs, what you don't mention is that both states are overly reliant on gas-fired energy generation, or that without a rapid expansion of clean energy to meet rising demand both states are at risk of losing the gains they'd previously made (The Green Mix, How Ontario and Alberta Phased Out Coal—and What Comes Next, 2025).

3. China's rapid economic expansion has only been possible off the back of a huge domestic expansion in fossil energy generation and, in turn, infrastructure. Only now that they have the economic and manufacturing base are they able to begin the transition to more sustainable energy sources. This is because energy infrastructure is a necessary precondition to ramping up a domestic economy, and in the early- to mid-stages of that development potential energy needs to be transportable. Nonetheless, while the % of China's energy mix from coal is projected to fall from c.70% at present to c.40% by 2050, in absolute terms China is set to increase the total GW/h generated by coal, oil and gas and last year approved the construction of 100 GW of new coal generation (CREA/GEM, When Coal Won't Step Aside: The Challenge of Scaling Clean Energy in China, 2025. PDF).

4. Trump in not the "big issue" in that sense - he's merely the current figurehead. The issue as far as renewables vs fossil goes in the US is that the political, economic and to a great extent the social landscape seems to have been thoroughly captured by trans-national fossil corporations, their financiers, votaries, officiates and related hangers-on. Again, we're back to talking about those who control the energy economy essentially being beyond democratic reach.

5. What are "the economics of EV's", and how might they "yet prevail"?

[rainbow]

Sure, but this is the carbon emissions reduction thread, so it's relevant to take a broader, balanced, more fact-based look at the issue. CO2 emissions are still rising in spite of significant growth in the renewable energy sector. The fossil energy sector is protecting increased demand, therefore extraction rates are also set to rise. This suggests that renewables are not replacing fossils but are contributing additional generating capacity to meet rising aggregate demand.

We need to use less, not more energy.

What is a complete buggeration is the expected demand from AI.
Who needs it?

Doesn't fold the laundry or fix potholes.
Artificial Senseless Stupidity more like --> ASS

Indeed. But if we accept that we need to use less, not more energy, then the question becomes how best to achieve that?

Africans need to use less lights in their huts.

We can repurpose Western Junk to make our lights, but thank you for thinking of us.

https://igrnet.org/Conference/1858/ICGEET/

[macdoc]

just need a few thousand more now

China Three Gorges commissions world’s largest PV-CSP solar plant
Hybrid project pairs a 100 MW linear Fresnel concentrated solar power (CSP) with a 900 MW PV facility, delivering 24-hour output and demonstrating large-scale storage integration.

snip At full capacity, the facility is expected to produce 2.07 TWh of electricity annually, enough to power 830,000 households. It will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1.63 million tons per year and improve grid integration of renewables in Xinjiang, lifting regional utilization rates above 95%.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 VINCENT SHAW

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/09/25/ ... lar-plant/

[macdoc]

India on track to add more than 45 GW of solar in fiscal 2026
India installed 18 GW of solar in the first five months of fiscal 2026 and is projected to exceed 45 GW for the year, with rooftop and open-access systems driving growth alongside tax cuts and expanding manufacturing capacity.
SEPTEMBER 24,

and the beat goes on ....

[macdoc]

Zoom zoom "into the future"

China launches world’s first dual-tower solar-thermal power plant in the Gobi Desert
The innovative plant combines 27,000 mirrors.

Updated: Oct 09, 2025 12:54 PM EST

https://interestingengineering.com/ener ... olar-plant

[Brian Peacock]

Faith in technosalvation is strong in you. Within this context, to talk meaningfully about global growth in renewable capacity as any kind of climate or global heating 'fix' without talking about the global growth rate in energy use and its actual and projected demand, is to deliberately ignore the most significant barrier towards progress.

As discussed recently, the energy sector's own data makes clear that the growth in renewable provision is in fact only adding to overall generation capacity rather than replacing fossil energy production - let alone reducing the heating impact of fossil emissions at the rate necessary to avoid 3-4° warming by 2100.

If we continue growing our planetary energy use at the same rate as we have since the industrial revolution we'll be exceeding all the energy that the Milky Way generates in about 3700 years. One needs to follow the money. Speaking of which...

+++

Forest Declaration Assessment 2025: Tracking progress on 2030 forest goals (PDF)

Deforestation and degradation rates remained stubbornly high in 2024, pushing the world even further off track from the shared goal of halting and reversing forest loss by 2030. While some countries are demonstrating that progress is possible, the global trend remains one of stagnation, not transformation.

The Forest Declaration Assessment 2025 finds that:

• 8.1 million hectares of forest were lost in 2024, a level of destruction 63% higher than the trajectory needed to halt deforestation by 2030.
• Loss of humid primary tropical forests—the irreplaceable stores of carbon and biodiversity—spiked In 2024, largely due to climate change-induced increase of forest fires.
• Forest degradation affected 8.8 million hectares affected in 2024—eroding ecosystem integrity and climate resilience.
• Restoration efforts are expanding, with at least 10.6 million hectares hosting forest restoration projects worldwide. But global data remain too fragmented to determine whether the world is recovering forests at the scale required.
• Financial flows are still grossly misaligned with forest goals, with harmful subsidies outweighing green subsidies by over 200:1. Despite new pledges, the flow of funds to forest countries and local actors remains far below what’s necessary to deliver on 2030 goals.
• Delivery on corporate and financial sector commitments is lagging, and transparency remains inconsistent.

At the halfway point to 2030, the world should be seeing a steep decline in deforestation. Instead, the global deforestation curve has not begun to bend...

my bold