Or perhaps tilting at China. Given the trend in the article, purchasing Green energy products clearly contributes to Chinese economic and military power.
One side point is that China's strategic focus on leading in EVs, batteries, and renewables has little to do with fighting climate change. They make some noises about climate for sure, and they do want to reduce smog and pollution that affects the quality of life for their citizens, but their real motivation for setting out to lead in these industries is 1) they know their dependence on fossil fuel imports is a security vulnerability and 2) they see leadership in these key 21st century technologies as a path to economic and military dominance.
Noah has talked about this before, but I don't think he mentioned it in this article.
I mostly agree with this, but not 100%. I think a more nuanced take is this: in China, the idea that GHG emissions produce warming is accepted as scientific fact. Their leadership is largely composed of engineers, and they live in a country that has potentially large exposure to climate change. So instead of arguing about the effect of emissions on IR radiation as though it was a matter of opinion, they simply address it as an engineering challenge. It may not go *at the top* of their list of problems, but it's treated as a valid technical problem to be solved. (Conveniently, it also aligns with priorities that are higher in their stack. I assume that's why they're not pursuing large-scale coal gasification or some other climate-unfriendly tech.)
I think we're so immersed in the "debate" about climate change that it's hard for us to understand what governing even looks like in an environment where we can treat climate as a technical problem to be prioritized. Here in the US we need analogies like "Don't Look Up" just to temporarily help us appreciate how insanely we've been brainwashed by politics and fossil fuel lobbying.
In which countries is the idea of GHG emissions producing global warming not considered scientific fact? Even Bozo Trump’s recently released DOE report A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate which the climate activists derided states this fact and regularly cited the IPCC as scientific facts, while disagreeing with the doomsaying climate panicking who regularly distort the science by using the RCP8.5 scenario as probable when it has always been totally implausible, and claim that current hurricanes and other disasters are tied to global warming when the IPCC clearly say there is no evidence yet for these.
Respectfully, sea temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico, by late summer going into fall are now, annually at dangerously high levels. That is, well above the threshold of about 80F that gooses/fuels (rapidly intensifies) hurricanes that do form. Last year, there were two of these critters, the strongest, Hurricane Milton, formed in the Gulf of Mexico and explosively intensified into the second Category 5 hurricane of the season; it was also the strongest tropical cyclone worldwide in 2024. Milton later made landfall near Siesta Key, Florida, on October 9, as a Category 3 hurricane. As I understand it, these Gulf elevated sea temperatures are directly linked to climate change and the prediction of "bigger, wetter, stronger". The stochastic nature of major weather events might mask this trend, but it isn't evidence it doesn't exist.
That maybe the case, but the IPCC conclusion on tropical storms is the following:
Tropical Cyclones and Severe Storms: Low confidence in overall trends or human attribution for frequency/intensity, though medium confidence that human warming increases rainfall within storms.
This is a current graph of tropical cyclone activity by storm strength since 1970 and it is basically flat for all types.
Low confidence means “we don’t know what this massive change in weather patterns will do to us”, not “this massive change in weather patterns is going to be fine.”
Insofar as your entire argument here has amounted (incorrectly) to “the IPCC says it’s fine” you don’t want to be quoting the low confidence parts. The high confidence parts are already pretty bad though.
According to the IPCC, the "middle of the road" scenario (SSP3-7) puts us at 2.7 degrees C by 2100 optimistically, to 4.7 in the worst case. Even the better scenario SSP2-4.5 puts us at 2.1 to 3.5 degrees. These are very bad places to be. You know this perfectly well, since you've clearly done your homework in order to generate so much climate denial. But imagine living in a country where this kind of malignant junk wasn't ubiquitous.
You claimed that countries deny that GHG cause warming is a scientific fact, and fail to show,an example of one, I just showed that the US does not deny this.
The IPCC scenario SSP3-7 is not considered plausible, it is assumed on a world with no reductions in emissions (doubling by 2100) and high population in developing countries and low economic growth, and despite Trump’s crazy efforts this still isn’t the case. SSP2-4.5 is considered likely, and does have a range of 2.1 to 3.5 ℃ so I admit to rounding down, but I still don’t consider that ‘roasting’.
Clearly stating IPCC consensus and saying that improbable scenarios like SSP5-RCP8 should not be used by activists is not an instance of ‘climate denial’.
3.5 degrees is globally devastating, and that’s assuming climate sensitivity isn’t higher and there are no unexpected tipping points (which we absolutely can’t rule out.) But I am also an optimist that emissions will be low and everything will go perfectly. Unlike you I don’t treat it as a guarantee enforced by science.
Deindustrializing one’s strategic competition is certainly not a dowside in their view. So what does this mean for North American advocates of Chinese EVs that I now regularly see? They never seem to acknowledge the strategic concerns.
Agreed. I'm conflicted about what to do now about Chinese EVs in terms of policy. Biden's strategy of 100% tariffs, strong industrial policy, and consumer subsidies to push adoption made sense to give legacies a fighting chance with the inevitable tech transition that's going to happen with or without legacy US automakers.
The Biden approach made a lot of sense in 2022, but with recent events I'd say the US legacy automakers have a better than even chance of all going bust over the next decade or so. It really looks like they're going to continue to lose global market share and scale as Chinese exports overtake market after market.
The Trump Admin is trying to help the legacies by strong arming Canada and countries in Central and South America to block Chinese competition with trade barriers, but that won't hold back the wave that's coming for very long.
Canada’s canola farmers are being hit hard by retaliatory tariffs from China so there’s some discussion here now on loosening the Chinese EV tariffs (especially since we don’t recognize the US these days as the longstanding ally we’re used to).
That's interesting. On an related side note, I keep seeing info from Canadian sources claiming there's a massive pivot going on in Canada away from trade with the US toward diversification with Europe and Asia.
I'm sure there's at least something to that, given US actions lately, but in terms of actual trade deals and future macro level volumes for stuff like ag products, timber, and energy, do you think this pivot is likely to be significant and long-lasting or is it mostly just posturing now?
I can never tell with this stuff how much is just announcements and intent versus actual on the ground changes in where stuff eventually goes.
10:1 this is intentions over results in the short term. The habits and structural advantages of trade with the US are considerable. Tariffs overall are quite low right now so not much direct financial incentive to find new customers in Europe or elsewhere. Whatever we’re calling the NA free trade agreement is up for negotiation in 2026 — the results of that will be instrumental in shaping future flows.
With NAFTA still intact, the tight supply chains that dominate trade in North America remain in place, despite strains caused by some sectoral tariffs like steel, aluminum and copper.
If Trump destroys NAFTA, the political and economic incentives for trade diversification in Canada will be far greater than ever before, and so it will become a growing phenomenon.
The intermediate goods trade patterns across the world would alter tremendously.
So let’s extend the argument. Now that China completely dominates Green energy production, doesn’t every nation or individual that purchases Green energy products contribute to Chinese economic and military power, which in other essays Noah called a very potent threat that the West needs to take seriously.
The trend in this essay may solve one problem (increasing carbon emissions) and create another (an even more potent military threat from China).
"None of the proponents of degrowth are asking China to stop growing its economy" - I find many on the progressive-left side rarely discuss China at all. It doesn't fit into most frameworks (racism, colonialism, etc.).
Most people on the "progressive-left" don't talk about China because they don't live in China and tend to focus more on domestic concerns. A similar argument can be made for their counterparts in China, who are mostly concerned with internal matters and devote comparatively less time to international affairs.
"Historically, China has only accounted for 15% of total carbon emissions, but its share is rising quickly." To put this in perspective, China has 18% of the world population.
Solar is great, batteries are great ... and their cost reduction is fantastic. For China, a deep connection to carbon-based sources is a massive national security issue...so shifting to a supply chain they can control makes a lot of sense. However, it is hard to beat the energy density of gasoline (another form of "battery' storage) and it appears hybrid cars offer the best solution for transportation. For utility generation, cost typically wins, and in some cases natural gas and nuclear are the right solutions. For the US, a broader mix of energy sources, including traditional carbon-based, seem to make sense.
It is not clear to me anyone is really focused on climate change.
I agree about security concerns being a major motivation for China's investment in these areas, but what makes you think hybrid cars offer the best solution for transportation" Energy density is less relevant when 2/3 of that energy is waste heat and doesn't help propel the vehicle, as is the case with gasoline.
The latest generation of Chinese batteries support cars with ranges similar to gas cars and fast charging times almost on par with gas fill ups. IMO, the race is over and BEVs have clearly won on a technology standpoint.
Now it's just a long slog until adoption gets to 100% over the next couple of decades. There's disagreement about the timeline, but I don't know of anyone in the auto industry that doesn't think this is going to happen.
Can you point me to some auto industry experts that say something different?
On BEV vs Hybrid, the baseline is the infrastructure is gasoline based, and as I said, gasoline is order-of-magnitude superior to electric battery for energy density. To get the same range in a battery, you need a bigger battery...thus weight. This is also a shame since most trips are short. In terms of translating energy to motion, the "electric" powertrain is much more efficient, less wear/tear, and you get the advantage of regenerative braking. All of this leads to a reasonable combination as an outstanding solution.
In terms of "experts," Toyota is standardizing on hybrid for their whole fleet. Most of the other OEMs are shifting a similar manner. BEV may well make sense in a lot of contexts... especially interesting are micromobility.
Respectfully, I think you're confusing short and medium term shuffling (eg Toyota) with longer term direction.
Toyota got caught flat footed with their hydrogen based electrification strategy and needed to pivot fast. They have superior hybrid technology and they're doing a great job leveraging that. The US political situation and slower EV adoption here vs other countries have helped them enormously.
So their short/medium term strategy makes a lot of sense and is working out great for them. Still, outside analysts warn that unless Toyota can execute better on EVs (vs the bZ4X flop), they will lose share everywhere but the US and Japan, and the loss of scale from that will eventually make them uncompetitive everywhere.
Perhaps..... let us respectfully disagree than..... hybrids are here to stay for certain form-factors. BEV have their place... The success of hybrids or toyota is not limited to the US. Hydrogen is a different issue... it is yet another supply chain...unlikely to scale in transportation. However, it has interesting properties at utility scale with some innovation in transportation/storage.
You'll see my other comment on hydrogen, but I agree that with innovation and some breakthroughs, it might eventually have something to offer.
OTOH, the tech has a long long way to go. It's much farther away from widespread adoption than say SMRs, which have a pretty tough road ahead themselves.
All that said, I'm glad to see research funding for stuff like this that may be a breakthrough or two away from viability.
Akio Toyota continues to say Hybrids are better than BEVs at this point, even looking at net emissions. Obviously the chairman of the world’s largest auto producer that makes both types of vehicles is absolutely at auto industry expert.
Again though, he's just talking his book (and doing it very well - no disrespect at all).
The bottom line is that although their plan will work fine in the US (where lots of their profits come from), they just don't have any competitive EV offering in much of the rest of the world, especially in China. (they're rebadging a BYD/GAC vehicle as the BZ7 there).
You're saying the industry is convinced electric is the future, but it seems that for the last year a lot of auto execs have walked back their EV projections claiming customers don't want them as much as they thought. So what makes you think that's the case? From my cursory reading the EV future doesn't seem like a foregone conclusion in the US and Europe, although it already seems a reality in China.
On a personal note my car is 8 yo and I'm starting to look at options. When I bought it in 2017 I assumed my next one would be an EV but it seems very unlikely that will be the case. Although maybe if we allowed Chinese EVs in at Chinese prices it would be!
Take a look at the Toyota RAV4 Prime .... you get 40 miles city driving on battery, 500 miles total range, if you have solar, you basically drive daily for free. It also drives like an EV...very smooth... I personally cannot go back to ICE based just on driving quality. Finally, it is reasonably affordable, and the hybrid mpg is around 70. Even when you fill the car with gas, it is not a big bill. BTW... I have two.. and a F-150 Lightening (for use as backup power).
My wife has been a Rav4 owner forever. She's not into gadgets and is definitely not an early adopter type. But when it came time for a Rav replacement, I sort of talked her into going with the Prime. I figured I'd be the one plugging it in every night.
Boy was I wrong. She loves how it drives in electric mode versus gas, especially the smooth, quiet, robust acceleration. On the rare chance she forgets to charge it, she mentions how much she hates driving it on gas vs electric. Really, she's the best ad for Electric drivetrains there is. Not a techie at all but for her It's all about the driving experience.
One thing I didn't appreciate (as a someone who doesn't own a car and drives rarely) about EVs until I drove one for a week was that they're just _better_ than ICE cars.
Adoption in the US is slower than most places because of the politics and because we haven't put much effort into the infrastructure problem so consumers face real obstacles adopting EVs.
What we're seeing by the legacies in the US is a plan to milk the next 5-10 years of ICE dominance for all they can and hope the profits from that will be enough to keep them alive to fund the transition to EVs. It's the best they can do given how much they're lagging.
OTOH, the cost and capability trajectories for batteries and overall EV tech are locked in and within 5-10 years EVs will be considerably cheaper than their ICE counterparts everywhere, including the US. On top of that, nearly all auto R&D, including autonomous driving, assumes something called a "software defined vehicle" architecture and that's based on a fully electric drivetrain. ICE tech is a dead end technologically.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but your analysis has a number of assumptions baked in that IMO are not guaranteed. For instance that:
1. The US will figure out the infrastructure problem, even though Republicans are opposed, won't fund it, and it's hard to see private companies tackling it without public support.
2. That the cost of batteries will continue to go down, even though we are now levying large taxes on China where most of these get produced. China is now also tackling it's involution problem which would lead to consolidation and, you'd think, higher prices. Right now all companies are losing money which is unsustainable. You could onshore these but won't see the much cheaper prices then.
3. That customers will want to pivot to EVs, where they haven't so far shown strong demand for them. So far hybrids are still winning the race against EVs.
The Honda Legend EX is the first autonomous Level 3 car certified in Japan in 2023, and it uses a hybrid powertrain. A vehicle having control of braking, acceleration and steering is no way tied to having a battery electric drivetrain.
No disrespect, but this sort of proves my point. They went after a limited and conservative target with a hardware-first focus and now with a couple years of baking time have obviously come up short.
At this point they're so far behind the competition that most observers don't see a path for them to catch up. I mean, I hate to count out Japan since they have a such huge and deep bench with auto expertise, but it seems like they don't quite get that this is a software/big data problem more than an auto/hardware problem.
Ask yourself this: If the energy density of batteries is so much lower than that of gasoline, why does a Tesla have the same amount of room inside as a similarly sized gasoline car?
I know the answer to this, of course, but it is a good mental exercise to think about this question any time you use "energy density" to make arguments like this.
Energy density by weight is definitely worse for EVs, but energy density by volume is mitigated by the much smaller electric motors and lack of a need for a traditional transmission.
Hmm.. it appears you want to question basic physics. A car has two parts... energy storage and translation to movement. The electric power train is very efficient, but energy storage sucks. A similarly sized gasoline car has more range. In the case of a RAV4, around 500 miles with a few gallons of fuel. Also, as you need more power/energy, the energy density difference matters more. .. airplanes, rockets, etcs.
Several companies such as Terraform Industries (U.S.) and Rivan (UK) are starting to make hydrocarbons from photovoltaics. These can be a drop-in net-zero replacement for fossil hydrocarbons. Expensive now but dropping as photovoltaics become less expensive…
Peter, this makes a lot of sense... after all, with few exceptions, all the energy we are talking about is coming from sunlight, and then various transformations for usage.
Note... a similar trend is the use of remote solar farms to produce hydrogen/ammonia and physical transport via train/trucks. I suspect we will see all variations based on the circumstances.
I think you may be overestimating how far solar-powered hydrogen has come. The tech is promising, but the math still works against it without huge tech breakthroughs. Electrolysers cost a lot, solar is intermittent, storage/transport losses are real, and that means the hydrogen still costs so much more than fossil alternatives there's little to no chance of widespread adoption.
It is a trend in announcements, pilot projects, and hype, but in actual deployment and cost-competitiveness, it's not even close. IMO, the most reasonable voice on this is Michael Liebreich with his hydrogen ladder.
Yes.. am aware of all of this.. never the less, combination of natural gas, hydrogen, solar are popping up in the southeast. The combination is effective in addressing the intermittent nature of solar, leverages hydrogen without the need for transport, uses existing natural gas pipelines. I don't claim this is the future, but commercial instillations are happening.
Noah, you really need to spend some time listening to intelligent sceptics of the dominant climate change orthodoxy. There are various good arguments to electrify transportation and industry when the non-carbon route is cost-effective (poor Germany) and the environmental damage caused by the carbon alternatives is understood and not too severe.
Bjorn Lomborg’s exhaustive multidecadal analysis of the opportunity costs of our colossal obsession with carbon dioxide makes the most sense to me after looking at this stuff for 30 years.
A recent analysis of sea level rise detects mere millimetres a year. We don’t appear to be roasting. Plus the world is getting greener. Plants just work better at these higher CO2 concentrations. Marijuana greenhouses enrich CO2 to achieve 1200 or 1400 ppm and our atmosphere has reached 430.
I am sceptical that China’s ruthless oligarchy has been seized by environmental anxiety. Seems more likely that Xi wants acres of solar panels as part of the package which will deliver the most self-sufficiency in the face of eventual trade sanctions, just like the nuclear plants and coal fired plants will.
I doubt he cares about the dangerous amounts of mercury being released by all that coal. Things like mercury are the real pollutants, not carbon dioxide.
I think what Noah is saying is that the costs of solar plus battery storage are dropping so rapidly that their adoption around the world is now independent of the climate change narrative. Indeed, the import of solar panels by African countries is on a parabolic curve across the continent. It is impressive. The skeptical take on this is that, yes, intermittent electricity is better than no electricity. The optimistic take is that these mini-grids provided by solar plus battery can catalyze further economic development, which can then support a transition to the reliable electrical grid that is necessary for true industrial development.
Right now on my international side for planning, we had to update (re investment mental benchmark) our several years long "rule of thumb" of 1MW = 1 million in investment (USD/EUR before Trump dollar trade...)
Now 1MW is looking in African Middle Income contexts like 1MW = 500k USD (industrial scale).
Africa is not simply the mini-grid to off-grid, dear to development people, it's also industrial self-gen in supposedly grid connected areas (where grid reliability is shit) and now battery is within reach to replace diesel gen (solar plus battery) and reducing grid instability exposure. Industrial/commercial scale
As seen better known in Pakistan case.
I had lunch with another investor who had ~7-8 odd years ago financed a natgas in Pakistan, now they're reflecting on repo and selling for scrap.
??? well false on lighting (even old school batteries are quite workable for small solar for that).
Refrig
Of course the idea that Africa is nothing but Poverty Porn photogenic rural villages is very 1970s and not really the core point for industrialising and urbanising Africa of 2020s-2030s.
I said solar is useless for lighting without batteries, and your response is ‘just use a battery’.
I didn’t say anything about poverty porn, just that rural areas have basic needs, cooking, refrigeration and lighting, and solar is often pushed in rural areas because of the lack of transmission lines. Of course urban Africa has and needs more industrialization and it’s also impossible to run a factory if you just have solar generation without batteries. These countries need the same reliable electricity that the US and China have now, and climate concerns shouldn’t even be a secondary factor until their emissions approach developed country levels.
Yes you said solar is uselss w/o batteries for lighting - an idiotic statement. Like saying solar is useless for lighting without lamps. Batteries of the most basic kind are and have been easily available for that purpose for decades.
It's a purely nonsense observation. A form of sophistry in objection from someone whos quite evidently Politically Anti.
Now I am no particular fan of the mini-grid and rural electrification hobby horses of the development people, although pricing may start to work, but it's not the sole thing.
As for industrial, as my own comment above indicated, real investment is going into self-generation within contexts where grid is there but is and always has been unreliable.
Of course in such areas one CAN run industrial off of solar sans batteries, in grid supplement to reduce reliance / risk (as well as cost) on the already unreliable grids subject to load-shedding and brown-outs. Grid unreliaibility that's ongoing for decades. Batteries at current pricing along with panels at current pricing on is seeing displacement of back-up gen and as diminuation of grid reliance (as like Pakistan).
Your fallacious black-white statements are at best gross logical errors.
Noah shows the worst in scientific thinking when it comes to global warming and solar/battery energy. He twice says in this piece that the world is roasting when the current forecast is less than 2℃ warming by 2100, which will have small impacts (and according to the IPCC there has been little impact from warming on disasters so far).
He also says “the only way” to decarbonize is solar and batteries, when in fact nuclear, geothermal, hydro, wind, tidal and others are all zero carbon emitting sources of electricity, and that decarbonization will not happen without solutions for steel, cement and fertilizer and plastic production, in which solar and batteries don’t help at all.
And even for cars, the US now has less than 10% of new cars sold (a much smaller percentage on the road) being BEV and depending on how much they are driven, replacing 20% of ICE cars with hybrids would have almost as much reduction in GHG considering the amount used in manufacturing and the sources of electricity generation used to charge the BEVs.
Noah shows the worst in scientific thinking when it comes to global warming and solar/battery energy. He twice says in this piece that the world is roasting when the current forecast is less than 2℃ warming by 2100, which will have small impacts (and according to the IPCC there has been little impact from warming on disasters so far).
He also says “the only way” to decarbonize is solar and batteries, when in fact nuclear, geothermal, hydro, wind, tidal and others are all zero carbon emitting sources of electricity, and that decarbonization will not happen without solutions for steel, cement and fertilizer and plastic production, in which solar and batteries don’t help at all.
And even for cars, the US now has less than 10% of new cars sold (a much smaller percentage on the road) being BEV and depending on how much they are driven, replacing 20% of ICE cars with hybrids would have almost as much reduction in GHG considering the amount used in manufacturing and the sources of electricity generation used to charge the BEVs.
I wish the UK had cheaper electricity. We are looking at buying a car and between the higher insurance costs for EV and the negligible savings on charging, it still makes more sense to buy petrol. Governments need to make the economics of adopting green energy make sense for consumers.
I don’t remember all the details but I have definitely read a couple articles in the past year about UK electricity prices. I feel like I recall something having to do with their prices for natural gas to supplement when renewables aren’t sufficient being much higher than in, say, the US.
I assume that means either you can't charge at home or you don't have access to overnight EV charging rates where you are?
IMO, it's inexcusable to make EV owners pay the same price for charging overnight, when there's lots of excess grid capacity, as they do for using power during peak periods.
I don't think the UK plans on doing that but I agree that the few grids that limit themselves to solar only plus batteries won't have a ton of cheap generation in the overnight hours. I expect that to be the exception rather than the rule, but who knows. Wind is often strongest in the early/mid morning hours and Texas has wind energy powered overnight EV charging rates that are practically free.
Also, on most grids nowadays, over half of the cost of electricity is delivery, not generation. Overnight charging rates allow utilities to get much higher average utilization out of their distribution/tx assets which saves them lots of money. On a marginal cost basis, delivering that power is basically free for them.
Why no mention of China’s building of nuclear. Solar is great as a component of green energy but equally important is building out nuclear for baseload. And China is doing it.
They’re also still building coal plants. Lots of them. So half clap for their nuclear & solar, but on;y half because of their building out coal.
Climate change is a 2 stakeholders problem. If the US and China achieve carbon neutral status then it's essentially solved. So this is immensely positive.
What about the world’s most populous country India and the fastest growing population in Africa. Your statement only is true if you assume these countries won’t be as rich as China in the near future, which I think they will rightfully demand and achieve but only using economical energy generation.
India and Africa will hit Chinese levels of prosperity using renewables. Not because they care about the environment, but because they will be the cheapest option.
This comment is for you piece on Bluesky and cancel culture. While I completely agree with your thesis, please do not repeat the Bari Weiss' self-generated, self-martyring, self-aggrandizing myth that she was cancelled. She quit. If the bullying was so bad, why are there still a number of columnists at the paper who express views that diverge from the canceling left? John McWhorter, Brett Stephens, David French. Pamela Paul actually was laid off, and I've never heard her claim she was cancelled. Yes, she got a lot of unwarranted shit for her Twitter post on the Japanese-American skater. But she comes across as mostly a professional victim,
It is in the world’s best strategic interest to reduce oil consumption because OPEC nations have funded terrorism, war, information war for many decades, and that includes Qatari petrodollars funding anti-democracy far-left indoctrination factories like elite universities and legacy news media. Climate change is a secondary concern.
Same funders for Ivy league schools (maybe you missed $13B of Qatari investment) and of Madrassas. Agreed that most terrorism and wars currently in the world (Ukraine, Hamastan, Yemen, Sudan) are funded by OPEC nations.
Don’t forget the 600 million people in Central and South America. Most have inexpensive electricity and the Chinese brands are setting up shop. Cabs switching over to EV’s in Colombia to make money not to be green.
Meanwhile...our dominant political class tilts at windmills - literally.
Or perhaps tilting at China. Given the trend in the article, purchasing Green energy products clearly contributes to Chinese economic and military power.
One side point is that China's strategic focus on leading in EVs, batteries, and renewables has little to do with fighting climate change. They make some noises about climate for sure, and they do want to reduce smog and pollution that affects the quality of life for their citizens, but their real motivation for setting out to lead in these industries is 1) they know their dependence on fossil fuel imports is a security vulnerability and 2) they see leadership in these key 21st century technologies as a path to economic and military dominance.
Noah has talked about this before, but I don't think he mentioned it in this article.
I mostly agree with this, but not 100%. I think a more nuanced take is this: in China, the idea that GHG emissions produce warming is accepted as scientific fact. Their leadership is largely composed of engineers, and they live in a country that has potentially large exposure to climate change. So instead of arguing about the effect of emissions on IR radiation as though it was a matter of opinion, they simply address it as an engineering challenge. It may not go *at the top* of their list of problems, but it's treated as a valid technical problem to be solved. (Conveniently, it also aligns with priorities that are higher in their stack. I assume that's why they're not pursuing large-scale coal gasification or some other climate-unfriendly tech.)
I think we're so immersed in the "debate" about climate change that it's hard for us to understand what governing even looks like in an environment where we can treat climate as a technical problem to be prioritized. Here in the US we need analogies like "Don't Look Up" just to temporarily help us appreciate how insanely we've been brainwashed by politics and fossil fuel lobbying.
In which countries is the idea of GHG emissions producing global warming not considered scientific fact? Even Bozo Trump’s recently released DOE report A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate which the climate activists derided states this fact and regularly cited the IPCC as scientific facts, while disagreeing with the doomsaying climate panicking who regularly distort the science by using the RCP8.5 scenario as probable when it has always been totally implausible, and claim that current hurricanes and other disasters are tied to global warming when the IPCC clearly say there is no evidence yet for these.
Respectfully, sea temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico, by late summer going into fall are now, annually at dangerously high levels. That is, well above the threshold of about 80F that gooses/fuels (rapidly intensifies) hurricanes that do form. Last year, there were two of these critters, the strongest, Hurricane Milton, formed in the Gulf of Mexico and explosively intensified into the second Category 5 hurricane of the season; it was also the strongest tropical cyclone worldwide in 2024. Milton later made landfall near Siesta Key, Florida, on October 9, as a Category 3 hurricane. As I understand it, these Gulf elevated sea temperatures are directly linked to climate change and the prediction of "bigger, wetter, stronger". The stochastic nature of major weather events might mask this trend, but it isn't evidence it doesn't exist.
That maybe the case, but the IPCC conclusion on tropical storms is the following:
Tropical Cyclones and Severe Storms: Low confidence in overall trends or human attribution for frequency/intensity, though medium confidence that human warming increases rainfall within storms.
This is a current graph of tropical cyclone activity by storm strength since 1970 and it is basically flat for all types.
https://climatlas.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png
Low confidence means “we don’t know what this massive change in weather patterns will do to us”, not “this massive change in weather patterns is going to be fine.”
Insofar as your entire argument here has amounted (incorrectly) to “the IPCC says it’s fine” you don’t want to be quoting the low confidence parts. The high confidence parts are already pretty bad though.
According to the IPCC, the "middle of the road" scenario (SSP3-7) puts us at 2.7 degrees C by 2100 optimistically, to 4.7 in the worst case. Even the better scenario SSP2-4.5 puts us at 2.1 to 3.5 degrees. These are very bad places to be. You know this perfectly well, since you've clearly done your homework in order to generate so much climate denial. But imagine living in a country where this kind of malignant junk wasn't ubiquitous.
You claimed that countries deny that GHG cause warming is a scientific fact, and fail to show,an example of one, I just showed that the US does not deny this.
The IPCC scenario SSP3-7 is not considered plausible, it is assumed on a world with no reductions in emissions (doubling by 2100) and high population in developing countries and low economic growth, and despite Trump’s crazy efforts this still isn’t the case. SSP2-4.5 is considered likely, and does have a range of 2.1 to 3.5 ℃ so I admit to rounding down, but I still don’t consider that ‘roasting’.
Even climate activized Reuters will explain this for you. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/un-climate-reports-five-futures-decoded-2021-08-09/
Clearly stating IPCC consensus and saying that improbable scenarios like SSP5-RCP8 should not be used by activists is not an instance of ‘climate denial’.
Stating these facts is not climate denial.
3.5 degrees is globally devastating, and that’s assuming climate sensitivity isn’t higher and there are no unexpected tipping points (which we absolutely can’t rule out.) But I am also an optimist that emissions will be low and everything will go perfectly. Unlike you I don’t treat it as a guarantee enforced by science.
Deindustrializing one’s strategic competition is certainly not a dowside in their view. So what does this mean for North American advocates of Chinese EVs that I now regularly see? They never seem to acknowledge the strategic concerns.
Agreed. I'm conflicted about what to do now about Chinese EVs in terms of policy. Biden's strategy of 100% tariffs, strong industrial policy, and consumer subsidies to push adoption made sense to give legacies a fighting chance with the inevitable tech transition that's going to happen with or without legacy US automakers.
The Biden approach made a lot of sense in 2022, but with recent events I'd say the US legacy automakers have a better than even chance of all going bust over the next decade or so. It really looks like they're going to continue to lose global market share and scale as Chinese exports overtake market after market.
The Trump Admin is trying to help the legacies by strong arming Canada and countries in Central and South America to block Chinese competition with trade barriers, but that won't hold back the wave that's coming for very long.
Canada’s canola farmers are being hit hard by retaliatory tariffs from China so there’s some discussion here now on loosening the Chinese EV tariffs (especially since we don’t recognize the US these days as the longstanding ally we’re used to).
That's interesting. On an related side note, I keep seeing info from Canadian sources claiming there's a massive pivot going on in Canada away from trade with the US toward diversification with Europe and Asia.
I'm sure there's at least something to that, given US actions lately, but in terms of actual trade deals and future macro level volumes for stuff like ag products, timber, and energy, do you think this pivot is likely to be significant and long-lasting or is it mostly just posturing now?
I can never tell with this stuff how much is just announcements and intent versus actual on the ground changes in where stuff eventually goes.
10:1 this is intentions over results in the short term. The habits and structural advantages of trade with the US are considerable. Tariffs overall are quite low right now so not much direct financial incentive to find new customers in Europe or elsewhere. Whatever we’re calling the NA free trade agreement is up for negotiation in 2026 — the results of that will be instrumental in shaping future flows.
I'd like to second this.
With NAFTA still intact, the tight supply chains that dominate trade in North America remain in place, despite strains caused by some sectoral tariffs like steel, aluminum and copper.
If Trump destroys NAFTA, the political and economic incentives for trade diversification in Canada will be far greater than ever before, and so it will become a growing phenomenon.
The intermediate goods trade patterns across the world would alter tremendously.
The current period is just the phony war.
So let’s extend the argument. Now that China completely dominates Green energy production, doesn’t every nation or individual that purchases Green energy products contribute to Chinese economic and military power, which in other essays Noah called a very potent threat that the West needs to take seriously.
The trend in this essay may solve one problem (increasing carbon emissions) and create another (an even more potent military threat from China).
"None of the proponents of degrowth are asking China to stop growing its economy" - I find many on the progressive-left side rarely discuss China at all. It doesn't fit into most frameworks (racism, colonialism, etc.).
It's a long-running problem.
Most people on the "progressive-left" don't talk about China because they don't live in China and tend to focus more on domestic concerns. A similar argument can be made for their counterparts in China, who are mostly concerned with internal matters and devote comparatively less time to international affairs.
Except to advocate for buying their EVs and solar panels anyways.
Good point, on the climate change side, at least for solar panels. Sun Day is coming up fast.
Trump’s war in green and support for oil is not only bad for the world it is bad for the U.S. economy long term.
"Historically, China has only accounted for 15% of total carbon emissions, but its share is rising quickly." To put this in perspective, China has 18% of the world population.
But now declining quickly.
Solar is great, batteries are great ... and their cost reduction is fantastic. For China, a deep connection to carbon-based sources is a massive national security issue...so shifting to a supply chain they can control makes a lot of sense. However, it is hard to beat the energy density of gasoline (another form of "battery' storage) and it appears hybrid cars offer the best solution for transportation. For utility generation, cost typically wins, and in some cases natural gas and nuclear are the right solutions. For the US, a broader mix of energy sources, including traditional carbon-based, seem to make sense.
It is not clear to me anyone is really focused on climate change.
I agree about security concerns being a major motivation for China's investment in these areas, but what makes you think hybrid cars offer the best solution for transportation" Energy density is less relevant when 2/3 of that energy is waste heat and doesn't help propel the vehicle, as is the case with gasoline.
The latest generation of Chinese batteries support cars with ranges similar to gas cars and fast charging times almost on par with gas fill ups. IMO, the race is over and BEVs have clearly won on a technology standpoint.
Now it's just a long slog until adoption gets to 100% over the next couple of decades. There's disagreement about the timeline, but I don't know of anyone in the auto industry that doesn't think this is going to happen.
Can you point me to some auto industry experts that say something different?
On BEV vs Hybrid, the baseline is the infrastructure is gasoline based, and as I said, gasoline is order-of-magnitude superior to electric battery for energy density. To get the same range in a battery, you need a bigger battery...thus weight. This is also a shame since most trips are short. In terms of translating energy to motion, the "electric" powertrain is much more efficient, less wear/tear, and you get the advantage of regenerative braking. All of this leads to a reasonable combination as an outstanding solution.
In terms of "experts," Toyota is standardizing on hybrid for their whole fleet. Most of the other OEMs are shifting a similar manner. BEV may well make sense in a lot of contexts... especially interesting are micromobility.
Respectfully, I think you're confusing short and medium term shuffling (eg Toyota) with longer term direction.
Toyota got caught flat footed with their hydrogen based electrification strategy and needed to pivot fast. They have superior hybrid technology and they're doing a great job leveraging that. The US political situation and slower EV adoption here vs other countries have helped them enormously.
So their short/medium term strategy makes a lot of sense and is working out great for them. Still, outside analysts warn that unless Toyota can execute better on EVs (vs the bZ4X flop), they will lose share everywhere but the US and Japan, and the loss of scale from that will eventually make them uncompetitive everywhere.
Perhaps..... let us respectfully disagree than..... hybrids are here to stay for certain form-factors. BEV have their place... The success of hybrids or toyota is not limited to the US. Hydrogen is a different issue... it is yet another supply chain...unlikely to scale in transportation. However, it has interesting properties at utility scale with some innovation in transportation/storage.
You'll see my other comment on hydrogen, but I agree that with innovation and some breakthroughs, it might eventually have something to offer.
OTOH, the tech has a long long way to go. It's much farther away from widespread adoption than say SMRs, which have a pretty tough road ahead themselves.
All that said, I'm glad to see research funding for stuff like this that may be a breakthrough or two away from viability.
I am w Liebrich, hydrogen is a complete dead end - it is not going to work as thermodynamics in conversion are the iron law, excepting very very niche
Akio Toyota continues to say Hybrids are better than BEVs at this point, even looking at net emissions. Obviously the chairman of the world’s largest auto producer that makes both types of vehicles is absolutely at auto industry expert.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlyon/2025/06/14/toyota-chairman-claims-hybrids-are-cleaner-than-evs/
Again though, he's just talking his book (and doing it very well - no disrespect at all).
The bottom line is that although their plan will work fine in the US (where lots of their profits come from), they just don't have any competitive EV offering in much of the rest of the world, especially in China. (they're rebadging a BYD/GAC vehicle as the BZ7 there).
https://youtu.be/G1OV1Rch7gU?t=81
You're saying the industry is convinced electric is the future, but it seems that for the last year a lot of auto execs have walked back their EV projections claiming customers don't want them as much as they thought. So what makes you think that's the case? From my cursory reading the EV future doesn't seem like a foregone conclusion in the US and Europe, although it already seems a reality in China.
On a personal note my car is 8 yo and I'm starting to look at options. When I bought it in 2017 I assumed my next one would be an EV but it seems very unlikely that will be the case. Although maybe if we allowed Chinese EVs in at Chinese prices it would be!
Take a look at the Toyota RAV4 Prime .... you get 40 miles city driving on battery, 500 miles total range, if you have solar, you basically drive daily for free. It also drives like an EV...very smooth... I personally cannot go back to ICE based just on driving quality. Finally, it is reasonably affordable, and the hybrid mpg is around 70. Even when you fill the car with gas, it is not a big bill. BTW... I have two.. and a F-150 Lightening (for use as backup power).
My wife has been a Rav4 owner forever. She's not into gadgets and is definitely not an early adopter type. But when it came time for a Rav replacement, I sort of talked her into going with the Prime. I figured I'd be the one plugging it in every night.
Boy was I wrong. She loves how it drives in electric mode versus gas, especially the smooth, quiet, robust acceleration. On the rare chance she forgets to charge it, she mentions how much she hates driving it on gas vs electric. Really, she's the best ad for Electric drivetrains there is. Not a techie at all but for her It's all about the driving experience.
One thing I didn't appreciate (as a someone who doesn't own a car and drives rarely) about EVs until I drove one for a week was that they're just _better_ than ICE cars.
Adoption in the US is slower than most places because of the politics and because we haven't put much effort into the infrastructure problem so consumers face real obstacles adopting EVs.
What we're seeing by the legacies in the US is a plan to milk the next 5-10 years of ICE dominance for all they can and hope the profits from that will be enough to keep them alive to fund the transition to EVs. It's the best they can do given how much they're lagging.
OTOH, the cost and capability trajectories for batteries and overall EV tech are locked in and within 5-10 years EVs will be considerably cheaper than their ICE counterparts everywhere, including the US. On top of that, nearly all auto R&D, including autonomous driving, assumes something called a "software defined vehicle" architecture and that's based on a fully electric drivetrain. ICE tech is a dead end technologically.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but your analysis has a number of assumptions baked in that IMO are not guaranteed. For instance that:
1. The US will figure out the infrastructure problem, even though Republicans are opposed, won't fund it, and it's hard to see private companies tackling it without public support.
2. That the cost of batteries will continue to go down, even though we are now levying large taxes on China where most of these get produced. China is now also tackling it's involution problem which would lead to consolidation and, you'd think, higher prices. Right now all companies are losing money which is unsustainable. You could onshore these but won't see the much cheaper prices then.
3. That customers will want to pivot to EVs, where they haven't so far shown strong demand for them. So far hybrids are still winning the race against EVs.
Of course I may be wrong, but I'd bet anything that if I'm wrong, it'll just be on timing.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if we're slow followers, lagging more advanced countries by a decade or more. That's very possible.
The Honda Legend EX is the first autonomous Level 3 car certified in Japan in 2023, and it uses a hybrid powertrain. A vehicle having control of braking, acceleration and steering is no way tied to having a battery electric drivetrain.
No disrespect, but this sort of proves my point. They went after a limited and conservative target with a hardware-first focus and now with a couple years of baking time have obviously come up short.
At this point they're so far behind the competition that most observers don't see a path for them to catch up. I mean, I hate to count out Japan since they have a such huge and deep bench with auto expertise, but it seems like they don't quite get that this is a software/big data problem more than an auto/hardware problem.
Ask yourself this: If the energy density of batteries is so much lower than that of gasoline, why does a Tesla have the same amount of room inside as a similarly sized gasoline car?
I know the answer to this, of course, but it is a good mental exercise to think about this question any time you use "energy density" to make arguments like this.
Energy density by weight is definitely worse for EVs, but energy density by volume is mitigated by the much smaller electric motors and lack of a need for a traditional transmission.
Hmm.. it appears you want to question basic physics. A car has two parts... energy storage and translation to movement. The electric power train is very efficient, but energy storage sucks. A similarly sized gasoline car has more range. In the case of a RAV4, around 500 miles with a few gallons of fuel. Also, as you need more power/energy, the energy density difference matters more. .. airplanes, rockets, etcs.
Several companies such as Terraform Industries (U.S.) and Rivan (UK) are starting to make hydrocarbons from photovoltaics. These can be a drop-in net-zero replacement for fossil hydrocarbons. Expensive now but dropping as photovoltaics become less expensive…
Peter, this makes a lot of sense... after all, with few exceptions, all the energy we are talking about is coming from sunlight, and then various transformations for usage.
Note... a similar trend is the use of remote solar farms to produce hydrogen/ammonia and physical transport via train/trucks. I suspect we will see all variations based on the circumstances.
I think you may be overestimating how far solar-powered hydrogen has come. The tech is promising, but the math still works against it without huge tech breakthroughs. Electrolysers cost a lot, solar is intermittent, storage/transport losses are real, and that means the hydrogen still costs so much more than fossil alternatives there's little to no chance of widespread adoption.
It is a trend in announcements, pilot projects, and hype, but in actual deployment and cost-competitiveness, it's not even close. IMO, the most reasonable voice on this is Michael Liebreich with his hydrogen ladder.
https://fuelcellsworks.com/2025/06/26/green-hydrogen/liebreich-calls-green-hydrogen-misguided-sparks-fierce-pushback-at-london-hydrogen-summit
The companies I mentioned use the hydrogen as quickly as they produce, eliminating many of the issues often associated with hydrogen.
Yes.. am aware of all of this.. never the less, combination of natural gas, hydrogen, solar are popping up in the southeast. The combination is effective in addressing the intermittent nature of solar, leverages hydrogen without the need for transport, uses existing natural gas pipelines. I don't claim this is the future, but commercial instillations are happening.
Synthetic fossil fuels may well have a role in very weight-sensitive applications, like aviation.
Most optimistic article I have read in a long time.
Noah, you really need to spend some time listening to intelligent sceptics of the dominant climate change orthodoxy. There are various good arguments to electrify transportation and industry when the non-carbon route is cost-effective (poor Germany) and the environmental damage caused by the carbon alternatives is understood and not too severe.
Bjorn Lomborg’s exhaustive multidecadal analysis of the opportunity costs of our colossal obsession with carbon dioxide makes the most sense to me after looking at this stuff for 30 years.
A recent analysis of sea level rise detects mere millimetres a year. We don’t appear to be roasting. Plus the world is getting greener. Plants just work better at these higher CO2 concentrations. Marijuana greenhouses enrich CO2 to achieve 1200 or 1400 ppm and our atmosphere has reached 430.
I am sceptical that China’s ruthless oligarchy has been seized by environmental anxiety. Seems more likely that Xi wants acres of solar panels as part of the package which will deliver the most self-sufficiency in the face of eventual trade sanctions, just like the nuclear plants and coal fired plants will.
I doubt he cares about the dangerous amounts of mercury being released by all that coal. Things like mercury are the real pollutants, not carbon dioxide.
I think what Noah is saying is that the costs of solar plus battery storage are dropping so rapidly that their adoption around the world is now independent of the climate change narrative. Indeed, the import of solar panels by African countries is on a parabolic curve across the continent. It is impressive. The skeptical take on this is that, yes, intermittent electricity is better than no electricity. The optimistic take is that these mini-grids provided by solar plus battery can catalyze further economic development, which can then support a transition to the reliable electrical grid that is necessary for true industrial development.
Right now on my international side for planning, we had to update (re investment mental benchmark) our several years long "rule of thumb" of 1MW = 1 million in investment (USD/EUR before Trump dollar trade...)
Now 1MW is looking in African Middle Income contexts like 1MW = 500k USD (industrial scale).
Africa is not simply the mini-grid to off-grid, dear to development people, it's also industrial self-gen in supposedly grid connected areas (where grid reliability is shit) and now battery is within reach to replace diesel gen (solar plus battery) and reducing grid instability exposure. Industrial/commercial scale
As seen better known in Pakistan case.
I had lunch with another investor who had ~7-8 odd years ago financed a natgas in Pakistan, now they're reflecting on repo and selling for scrap.
In rural Africa the biggest impact uses of electricity would be for lighting and refrigeration both of which are useless with batteryless solar.
??? well false on lighting (even old school batteries are quite workable for small solar for that).
Refrig
Of course the idea that Africa is nothing but Poverty Porn photogenic rural villages is very 1970s and not really the core point for industrialising and urbanising Africa of 2020s-2030s.
I said solar is useless for lighting without batteries, and your response is ‘just use a battery’.
I didn’t say anything about poverty porn, just that rural areas have basic needs, cooking, refrigeration and lighting, and solar is often pushed in rural areas because of the lack of transmission lines. Of course urban Africa has and needs more industrialization and it’s also impossible to run a factory if you just have solar generation without batteries. These countries need the same reliable electricity that the US and China have now, and climate concerns shouldn’t even be a secondary factor until their emissions approach developed country levels.
Yes you said solar is uselss w/o batteries for lighting - an idiotic statement. Like saying solar is useless for lighting without lamps. Batteries of the most basic kind are and have been easily available for that purpose for decades.
It's a purely nonsense observation. A form of sophistry in objection from someone whos quite evidently Politically Anti.
Now I am no particular fan of the mini-grid and rural electrification hobby horses of the development people, although pricing may start to work, but it's not the sole thing.
As for industrial, as my own comment above indicated, real investment is going into self-generation within contexts where grid is there but is and always has been unreliable.
Of course in such areas one CAN run industrial off of solar sans batteries, in grid supplement to reduce reliance / risk (as well as cost) on the already unreliable grids subject to load-shedding and brown-outs. Grid unreliaibility that's ongoing for decades. Batteries at current pricing along with panels at current pricing on is seeing displacement of back-up gen and as diminuation of grid reliance (as like Pakistan).
Your fallacious black-white statements are at best gross logical errors.
Noah shows the worst in scientific thinking when it comes to global warming and solar/battery energy. He twice says in this piece that the world is roasting when the current forecast is less than 2℃ warming by 2100, which will have small impacts (and according to the IPCC there has been little impact from warming on disasters so far).
He also says “the only way” to decarbonize is solar and batteries, when in fact nuclear, geothermal, hydro, wind, tidal and others are all zero carbon emitting sources of electricity, and that decarbonization will not happen without solutions for steel, cement and fertilizer and plastic production, in which solar and batteries don’t help at all.
And even for cars, the US now has less than 10% of new cars sold (a much smaller percentage on the road) being BEV and depending on how much they are driven, replacing 20% of ICE cars with hybrids would have almost as much reduction in GHG considering the amount used in manufacturing and the sources of electricity generation used to charge the BEVs.
Noah shows the worst in scientific thinking when it comes to global warming and solar/battery energy. He twice says in this piece that the world is roasting when the current forecast is less than 2℃ warming by 2100, which will have small impacts (and according to the IPCC there has been little impact from warming on disasters so far).
He also says “the only way” to decarbonize is solar and batteries, when in fact nuclear, geothermal, hydro, wind, tidal and others are all zero carbon emitting sources of electricity, and that decarbonization will not happen without solutions for steel, cement and fertilizer and plastic production, in which solar and batteries don’t help at all.
And even for cars, the US now has less than 10% of new cars sold (a much smaller percentage on the road) being BEV and depending on how much they are driven, replacing 20% of ICE cars with hybrids would have almost as much reduction in GHG considering the amount used in manufacturing and the sources of electricity generation used to charge the BEVs.
I wish the UK had cheaper electricity. We are looking at buying a car and between the higher insurance costs for EV and the negligible savings on charging, it still makes more sense to buy petrol. Governments need to make the economics of adopting green energy make sense for consumers.
Jennie:
What are the reason(s) that electricity is expensive in the UK?
I don’t remember all the details but I have definitely read a couple articles in the past year about UK electricity prices. I feel like I recall something having to do with their prices for natural gas to supplement when renewables aren’t sufficient being much higher than in, say, the US.
I assume that means either you can't charge at home or you don't have access to overnight EV charging rates where you are?
IMO, it's inexcusable to make EV owners pay the same price for charging overnight, when there's lots of excess grid capacity, as they do for using power during peak periods.
There isn’t a lot of excess grid capacity at night if you switch your grid to be dependent on solar generation.
I don't think the UK plans on doing that but I agree that the few grids that limit themselves to solar only plus batteries won't have a ton of cheap generation in the overnight hours. I expect that to be the exception rather than the rule, but who knows. Wind is often strongest in the early/mid morning hours and Texas has wind energy powered overnight EV charging rates that are practically free.
Also, on most grids nowadays, over half of the cost of electricity is delivery, not generation. Overnight charging rates allow utilities to get much higher average utilization out of their distribution/tx assets which saves them lots of money. On a marginal cost basis, delivering that power is basically free for them.
Technology is our ultimate savior
Why no mention of China’s building of nuclear. Solar is great as a component of green energy but equally important is building out nuclear for baseload. And China is doing it.
They’re also still building coal plants. Lots of them. So half clap for their nuclear & solar, but on;y half because of their building out coal.
Climate change is a 2 stakeholders problem. If the US and China achieve carbon neutral status then it's essentially solved. So this is immensely positive.
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/oco-2/nasa-space-mission-takes-stock-of-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-countries/
What about the world’s most populous country India and the fastest growing population in Africa. Your statement only is true if you assume these countries won’t be as rich as China in the near future, which I think they will rightfully demand and achieve but only using economical energy generation.
India and Africa will hit Chinese levels of prosperity using renewables. Not because they care about the environment, but because they will be the cheapest option.
This comment is for you piece on Bluesky and cancel culture. While I completely agree with your thesis, please do not repeat the Bari Weiss' self-generated, self-martyring, self-aggrandizing myth that she was cancelled. She quit. If the bullying was so bad, why are there still a number of columnists at the paper who express views that diverge from the canceling left? John McWhorter, Brett Stephens, David French. Pamela Paul actually was laid off, and I've never heard her claim she was cancelled. Yes, she got a lot of unwarranted shit for her Twitter post on the Japanese-American skater. But she comes across as mostly a professional victim,
China is quietly saving the world from climate change
Sounds good. Problem solved.
It is in the world’s best strategic interest to reduce oil consumption because OPEC nations have funded terrorism, war, information war for many decades, and that includes Qatari petrodollars funding anti-democracy far-left indoctrination factories like elite universities and legacy news media. Climate change is a secondary concern.
Not to mention Russia
Are madrassas in Pakistan "Far left indoctrination machines" in this typology?
OPEC petro dollars caused 90% of the problem of Islamic terrorism since 20th century.
Same funders for Ivy league schools (maybe you missed $13B of Qatari investment) and of Madrassas. Agreed that most terrorism and wars currently in the world (Ukraine, Hamastan, Yemen, Sudan) are funded by OPEC nations.
Don’t forget the 600 million people in Central and South America. Most have inexpensive electricity and the Chinese brands are setting up shop. Cabs switching over to EV’s in Colombia to make money not to be green.