Comments not related to oil or natural gas production in this thread please. Thank you.
29 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum May 10, 2025”
EVEN AS EMISSIONS LEVEL OFF, CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS GROWING FASTER THAN EVER.
Over the last decade, humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) have stabilized after a period of huge growth. Average growth is now down to just 0.6% per year, compared to 2% per year in the previous decade. But leveling off isn’t the same as declining—and we’ve leveled off at a very high rate of emissions. The Global Carbon Project estimates human activities released a record high of 10.2 gigatons of carbon (GtC) in 2024.
Last year, the atmosphere’s concentration of CO₂ rose at the fastest rate on record. Over the last decade, atmospheric CO₂ increased an average of 2.4 parts per million (ppm) a year. But last year, concentrations jumped by 3.5 ppm, reaching 424 ppm in the atmosphere. These concentrations are more than 50% higher than the pre-industrial period.
Take a look at the Mauna Loa CO2 graph. Now consider the reduction of energy consumed in 2020 due to Covid. Now go back to the Mauna Loa graph and find the corresponding drop in CO2 in the atmosphere. Oh that’s right, there isn’t any. It is complicated.
May I post my latest article here? It is ostensibly about the emerald ash borer “invasion” in the US, but I use this as a platform to discuss persons and issues many here hold dear: Malthus, Darwin, Catton, population, agriculture, and — of course — the fossil fuels.
Nick,
You seem to be an advocate of a Jetson’s future, but mostly from the perspective of qualitative arguments. Your last post on the other side cited some world-in-data information about sustainability of fisheries. This is more like it.
How many people does the earth sustain in your FF free technotopia future? How long does it take to get there? And, can you point to some solid analysis which backs you up across the range of systems required for life and a modern society (not just the questionable Stanford analysis of energy transition to renewables you pointed to recently).
Regarding agrarian societies, do you have a deep expertise in ag and ecological systems? Sincere question, not a pointed barb. I do not myself, but have taken a few baby steps in that direction. For example, A. Duncan Brown wrote ‘Feed or Feedback : Agriculture, Population Dynamics and the State of the Planet’. One particular quote from Chapter 5 of this work gives me some hope:
“A large uniformly distributed agrarian population can farm ‘for ever’ (climate permiting) if it farms well”.
Mr Duncan argues from ecological first principles as well as a historical review spanning thousands of years of human efforts. Our current system is a blip on the scale of the human story.
It seems like the onus is on proving the current ‘modern’ standard of living can be expanded and sustained globally with high incomes, clean water, health care, relative safety and food that is both plentiful and relatively cheap. Can you prove it?
the onus is on proving the current ‘modern’ standard of living can be expanded and sustained globally
I would disagree.
It seems to me that the most important argument on PeakOilBarrel is whether we should push as hard as possible, as fast as possible, for a transition away from fossil fuels. The rest of the arguments seem to me to be a sideshow: FF is at the root of most of our ills. Just look at the GFN footprint analysis: the majority of our “footprint” comes directly from FF.
FF advocates have made many different arguments for the FF status quo – one of the latest is that we’re heading for The End Of The World As We Know It, so there’s no point in disrupting the status quo. What’s the point, if everything is going away anyway? I know people who live in rural areas who can’t get anyone to listen to ideas about conservation, or improving our treatment of the environment, or use of FF, or, well, anything, because they believe the end of the world is nigh. 40%(!) of the US population agrees with this idea, and many more have it lurking in their subconscious, fed by Mad Max movies, etc., etc. It seems to me useful to combat these unrealistic ideas about TEOTWAWKI. But, still, they’re mostly a distraction, a red herring. Just one of many distracting, irrelevant arguments.
So…
Do you agree that we should transition away from FF as soon as possible (however you define ASAP)?
Yes, I agree that we should transition away from FF as soon as possible.
The need has been painfully obvious for decades.
I would define ASAP as equivalent to the 40% of GDP peak that the US spent at the height of world war 2.
Not happening now and not going to happen ASAP if at all this century.
Too many entrenched interests, too many stranded assets, too many people earning high salaries in the industry, too many politicians on board, too much propaganda, too little understanding of math and science.
too many people earning high salaries in the industry,
That is what I find revolutionary about solar: Not so much that it is a replacement for FF, but that it is a profit killer.
I don’t think anyone knows whether the current profligate energy consumption is caused by a real need for energy. The entire structure of modern economies is partially driven by the profitability of the FF industry.
This never happened when Germany produced most of its electricity from coal.
Now it has one of the highest percentage of wind and solar in the world and company executives are saying they are being crippled by the cost of electricity. These are people losing their jobs.
China on the other hand produces 50% from coal and it has one of the cheapest electricity prices in the world.
So like for like a factory in Uk or Germany pays £1 million for energy in China they pay £200,000. That is why we buy so much from China because our factories have shut down.
It seems that this argument ignores the vast externalities associated with our dependence on fossil fuels.
Why did Germany decide to stop using coal?
Is electricity cost the only ore even primary reason we buy so much from China?
Is fossil fuel burning harmful to the ecosystem humans need to survive?
Are FFS a diminishing resource?
Unless we can agree on these issues we can hardly have a productive conversation about electricity cost or the diminution of American manufacturing.
Jj
When dedicated factory owners say electricity prices have forced them to close then they should be believe if you don’t then just p off.
Transition away from fossil fuels is certainly something to aim for. As fast as possible?; maybe as sensible as possible due to the long lead times and costs involved in getting sizable renewable capacity online (and not at least grid capacity).
The main sub plot of this aim is to make electricity based on renewables anywhere from 50% up to 100% of the total, dependent on the natural environment. The natural given prospects for renewables varies very much for every region. But to include primary heavy industry into the overall aim is questionable. What we will end up with is a declining industrial sector and a vital electric grid capacity wise trying to be “the last man standing” based on renewables (in my humble opinion). And it is actually great if we can get more efficient at utilising electricity and “play” with how supply/demand can be served in a grid (or more grids, microgrids?).
to include primary heavy industry into the overall aim is questionable. What we will end up with is a declining industrial sector
The problem here is competitiveness. If every country were to levy a fairly stiff carbon tax, heavy industry would be just fine: they’d build the new cost into their cost structure for the short term, and in the long term they’d reduce their power costs with efficiency and optimal sourcing. It would make very little difference to these industries overall.
But, if one country increases power costs to heavy industry unilaterally, then domestic industry will be at a disadvantage and it may move to places with cheaper power.
Germany has several things going on: IIRC one is that natural gas prices have jumped due to the Ukraine war. How much of increased industrial power pricing is due to this?
The industrial clusters all around the world have several things going for them as long as they have maritime access and surplus of skilled labour. So the question is more how to transport energy to the clusters in a cost competitive way. Coal is a major problem over long distances, gas in the form of LNG lesser so. Oil is as we know – is the king of being a flexible and energy dense resource in the puzzle. Electricity based on renewables is a long term solution if the cost structure and application is good enough. Even if fossil fuel access declines or prices increase, the clusters will likely stay the same. The main important assets being maritime access, infrastructure available and surplus skilled labour pool. I am not holding my hopes too high when it comes to industrial and other efficiency gains will keep prices down for a very long time. For now we are fine in the western world.
The beauty of the energy transition is that it so slow moving that it is possible to live your life without seeing the consequences. Correction; true in 1970s, and partly in 1990s, not so much in the 2010, true still in the 2020s but not if you intend to live for a long time.
Gas prices would not have mattered had idiot governments under pressure from minority green coalition forced FORCED closure of coal and nuclear.
Shutting down power plants that had paid for themselves years before. Producing the cheapest electricity.
Loadsofoil
said at 05/14/2025 at 3:02 am:
“While India and China are booming we go bankrupt, they are laughing at us.”
That’s not laughing…its coughing from all the coal dust and various other pollutants in their air.
I suppose the rate of action that is warranted on the energy transition (+others) depends to a great degree on your personal circumstances and personal discount rate even assuming you’re starting with a similar understanding of likely future consequences.
40 years old, profiting from the current system and not concerned about the future? Fuggedaboutit, let the good times roll.
Maybe put a few spiritual leaders or those already at the pointy end of consequences at the other end of the spectrum with a much different perspective.
uhmmmm, well, the personal circumstances are important: I’d say that people in the O&G industry, and allied industries like cars, really dread the transition. For instance, car dealers really hate the loss of maintenance and repair income that will be caused by the move to EVs.
Most people will be better off. Cars will be much better, and have cheaper TCO. Passive houses are much more comfortable, and quieter and cleaner to boot.
And, of course reducing climate change, oil wars, pollution induced illness, and oil-induced corruption (e.g., Russia becomes much more aggressive when it’s oil income is up, and KSA has been subsidizing religious extremism to hide it’s kleptocracy) makes almost everyone’s lives better.
T Hill,
I agree with all of that. I’m glad to hear it.
Now, I’m not sure what you have in mind when you refer to my point. My largest argument is the one we’ve just agreed on: that a transition from FF is essential, and a good thing. Feasible and necessary.
Now, there are other things we can talk about, like agrarian lifestyles vs industrial ones. That’s kind of interesting, but very abstract, given that we’re nowhere near a point where that might possible be needed. I’m mostly interested in the public policies we should be fighting for right now.
I have 2 questions: what would we do if we were king? And, given that we’re not king, how do we create social and political changes to support good public policy?
As a start on the 1st question: I’m thinking that a good policy might be adding 5 cents per gallon to fuel taxes each month until we get to about $8.00 per gallon (and the equivalent carbon tax on coal and gas). Seems like that would incentivize change pretty fast, while minimizing disruption. The revenue would go 10% to R&D and other costs of the transition, and 90% to rebates to individuals as a progressive reverse-tax to counter any regressivity and macroeconomic impact, and political resistance to carbon taxes.
I have taken your prior posts as focused on the energy transition from FF to 100% electric as nearly the sole challenge to sustainability facing the world. I disagree with this perspective. Your comments have seemed dismissive of other aspects of what is sometimes described as a polycrisis. Many of these other issues remain critical aspects of the overshoot situation that Ron and others have pointed to. A globally pervasive Jetsons future is exceedingly unlikely on the facts. I’m also skeptical about the feasibility of an energy transition at the scale required to support current or future population peak at current levels of consumption. I had asked for you to make a stronger, quantitative argument in support of that technotopia future.
I pointed to data indicating an agrarian lifestyle as more likely to be sustainable because of your negative comments to others on this topic. Nowhere near a point where that may possibly be needed? Really? Let’s look at a source you’ve pointed to elsewhere. Our-world-in-data suggests that 1/3 of the worlds food comes from roughly 480M agrarian, smallholder farms. Seems pretty necessary right now.
I don’t see your policy suggestions as having any practical chance of global adoption. FFs are relatively inexpensive for the huge energy density that they provide. Globally we’re going to keep burning them and the associated impacts will continue.
NickG, given that the FedFuel tax has been 18.4 cents unchanged for 32 yrs the idea that you could increase it $.60 a year and not cause major disruption is right up there with Donald starting a trade war and think it won’t cause major disruption.
Disruption is in the cards.
At one time I thought changing the fuel tax policy and getting rid of the schedule 179 tax incentive for light trucks would be a worthwhile start but we’re too far down the road attempting to maintain unsustainable levels of consumption that we’re defaulting to crisis and collapse.
While rabid Green lobbies in UK have destroyed the U K coal, steel heavy industries.
We are heading towards the most pessimistic climate scenarios. And now we don’t have the money to protect ourselves from the floods and drought that are already happening.
Loads of Oil knows full well that it was not “rabid Green lobbies in UK have destroyed the U K coal, steel heavy industries”. It was rabid blue right wing Tory Margaret Thatcher who financialised the British economy and demoted the UK down the league table of manufacturing nations from number 5 to currently 13 or lower. Or perhaps Loads of Oil is too young to have lived through the Blessed Margaret’s creation of the British rust belt in South Wales, the Midlands and North of England, and in Scotland during the eighties, and to have seen the massed mounted or truncheoned charges of police against the working class miners defending their communities from her assaults. But to do her justice, it was she who was perhaps the first leader of any developed country in the world to warn of the threat of climate change resulting from burning of fossil fuels. And what L of O says is true about the fact that currently, the country in Europe that with Ireland and Norway has the highest rates of rainfall is seeing diminishing stocks of water in reservoirs and prolonged drought and probable crop failures.
EVEN AS EMISSIONS LEVEL OFF, CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS GROWING FASTER THAN EVER.
Over the last decade, humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) have stabilized after a period of huge growth. Average growth is now down to just 0.6% per year, compared to 2% per year in the previous decade. But leveling off isn’t the same as declining—and we’ve leveled off at a very high rate of emissions. The Global Carbon Project estimates human activities released a record high of 10.2 gigatons of carbon (GtC) in 2024.
Last year, the atmosphere’s concentration of CO₂ rose at the fastest rate on record. Over the last decade, atmospheric CO₂ increased an average of 2.4 parts per million (ppm) a year. But last year, concentrations jumped by 3.5 ppm, reaching 424 ppm in the atmosphere. These concentrations are more than 50% higher than the pre-industrial period.
https://phys.org/news/2025-05-emissions-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-faster.html
I thought the giga-tonnage was closer to 40 than 10.2, or is this a different measure:
https://climatechangetracker.org/co2/human-induced-yearly-co2-emissions
Mike —
Gigatonnes of carbon; one GtC is equal to 109 tonnes of carbon or 1012 kg. 3.7 Gt carbon dioxide will give one GtC.
Ah–I should have paid closer attention!
Take a look at the Mauna Loa CO2 graph. Now consider the reduction of energy consumed in 2020 due to Covid. Now go back to the Mauna Loa graph and find the corresponding drop in CO2 in the atmosphere. Oh that’s right, there isn’t any. It is complicated.
Almost twice as many bikes as private cars on the streets of London now.
https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/assets/Services-Environment/City-Streets-2025-Summary-Report.pdf
(Page 11)
May I post my latest article here? It is ostensibly about the emerald ash borer “invasion” in the US, but I use this as a platform to discuss persons and issues many here hold dear: Malthus, Darwin, Catton, population, agriculture, and — of course — the fossil fuels.
A Tree-Hugger’s Parable.
It’s a parable in the sense that there is a clear moral — and an obvious one to many here on POB.
“Whoever has two ears to hear with, let them hear it!”
Thanks, now I understand why the ash trees outside my windows have died. I hope your successful keeping your’s healthy.
1960
Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann captured in Argentina
Nick,
You seem to be an advocate of a Jetson’s future, but mostly from the perspective of qualitative arguments. Your last post on the other side cited some world-in-data information about sustainability of fisheries. This is more like it.
How many people does the earth sustain in your FF free technotopia future? How long does it take to get there? And, can you point to some solid analysis which backs you up across the range of systems required for life and a modern society (not just the questionable Stanford analysis of energy transition to renewables you pointed to recently).
Regarding agrarian societies, do you have a deep expertise in ag and ecological systems? Sincere question, not a pointed barb. I do not myself, but have taken a few baby steps in that direction. For example, A. Duncan Brown wrote ‘Feed or Feedback : Agriculture, Population Dynamics and the State of the Planet’. One particular quote from Chapter 5 of this work gives me some hope:
“A large uniformly distributed agrarian population can farm ‘for ever’ (climate permiting) if it farms well”.
Mr Duncan argues from ecological first principles as well as a historical review spanning thousands of years of human efforts. Our current system is a blip on the scale of the human story.
It seems like the onus is on proving the current ‘modern’ standard of living can be expanded and sustained globally with high incomes, clean water, health care, relative safety and food that is both plentiful and relatively cheap. Can you prove it?
the onus is on proving the current ‘modern’ standard of living can be expanded and sustained globally
I would disagree.
It seems to me that the most important argument on PeakOilBarrel is whether we should push as hard as possible, as fast as possible, for a transition away from fossil fuels. The rest of the arguments seem to me to be a sideshow: FF is at the root of most of our ills. Just look at the GFN footprint analysis: the majority of our “footprint” comes directly from FF.
FF advocates have made many different arguments for the FF status quo – one of the latest is that we’re heading for The End Of The World As We Know It, so there’s no point in disrupting the status quo. What’s the point, if everything is going away anyway? I know people who live in rural areas who can’t get anyone to listen to ideas about conservation, or improving our treatment of the environment, or use of FF, or, well, anything, because they believe the end of the world is nigh. 40%(!) of the US population agrees with this idea, and many more have it lurking in their subconscious, fed by Mad Max movies, etc., etc. It seems to me useful to combat these unrealistic ideas about TEOTWAWKI. But, still, they’re mostly a distraction, a red herring. Just one of many distracting, irrelevant arguments.
So…
Do you agree that we should transition away from FF as soon as possible (however you define ASAP)?
Yes, I agree that we should transition away from FF as soon as possible.
The need has been painfully obvious for decades.
I would define ASAP as equivalent to the 40% of GDP peak that the US spent at the height of world war 2.
Not happening now and not going to happen ASAP if at all this century.
Too many entrenched interests, too many stranded assets, too many people earning high salaries in the industry, too many politicians on board, too much propaganda, too little understanding of math and science.
But how does any of this prove your point?
too many people earning high salaries in the industry,
That is what I find revolutionary about solar: Not so much that it is a replacement for FF, but that it is a profit killer.
I don’t think anyone knows whether the current profligate energy consumption is caused by a real need for energy. The entire structure of modern economies is partially driven by the profitability of the FF industry.
Profit killer is exactly right.
https://www.azernews.az/region/235119.html
This never happened when Germany produced most of its electricity from coal.
Now it has one of the highest percentage of wind and solar in the world and company executives are saying they are being crippled by the cost of electricity. These are people losing their jobs.
China on the other hand produces 50% from coal and it has one of the cheapest electricity prices in the world.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-electricity-by-country
So like for like a factory in Uk or Germany pays £1 million for energy in China they pay £200,000. That is why we buy so much from China because our factories have shut down.
What job do you have?
It seems that this argument ignores the vast externalities associated with our dependence on fossil fuels.
Why did Germany decide to stop using coal?
Is electricity cost the only ore even primary reason we buy so much from China?
Is fossil fuel burning harmful to the ecosystem humans need to survive?
Are FFS a diminishing resource?
Unless we can agree on these issues we can hardly have a productive conversation about electricity cost or the diminution of American manufacturing.
Jj
When dedicated factory owners say electricity prices have forced them to close then they should be believe if you don’t then just p off.
Transition away from fossil fuels is certainly something to aim for. As fast as possible?; maybe as sensible as possible due to the long lead times and costs involved in getting sizable renewable capacity online (and not at least grid capacity).
The main sub plot of this aim is to make electricity based on renewables anywhere from 50% up to 100% of the total, dependent on the natural environment. The natural given prospects for renewables varies very much for every region. But to include primary heavy industry into the overall aim is questionable. What we will end up with is a declining industrial sector and a vital electric grid capacity wise trying to be “the last man standing” based on renewables (in my humble opinion). And it is actually great if we can get more efficient at utilising electricity and “play” with how supply/demand can be served in a grid (or more grids, microgrids?).
to include primary heavy industry into the overall aim is questionable. What we will end up with is a declining industrial sector
The problem here is competitiveness. If every country were to levy a fairly stiff carbon tax, heavy industry would be just fine: they’d build the new cost into their cost structure for the short term, and in the long term they’d reduce their power costs with efficiency and optimal sourcing. It would make very little difference to these industries overall.
But, if one country increases power costs to heavy industry unilaterally, then domestic industry will be at a disadvantage and it may move to places with cheaper power.
Germany has several things going on: IIRC one is that natural gas prices have jumped due to the Ukraine war. How much of increased industrial power pricing is due to this?
“The problem here is competitiveness”
The industrial clusters all around the world have several things going for them as long as they have maritime access and surplus of skilled labour. So the question is more how to transport energy to the clusters in a cost competitive way. Coal is a major problem over long distances, gas in the form of LNG lesser so. Oil is as we know – is the king of being a flexible and energy dense resource in the puzzle. Electricity based on renewables is a long term solution if the cost structure and application is good enough. Even if fossil fuel access declines or prices increase, the clusters will likely stay the same. The main important assets being maritime access, infrastructure available and surplus skilled labour pool. I am not holding my hopes too high when it comes to industrial and other efficiency gains will keep prices down for a very long time. For now we are fine in the western world.
The beauty of the energy transition is that it so slow moving that it is possible to live your life without seeing the consequences. Correction; true in 1970s, and partly in 1990s, not so much in the 2010, true still in the 2020s but not if you intend to live for a long time.
Gas prices would not have mattered had idiot governments under pressure from minority green coalition forced FORCED closure of coal and nuclear.
Shutting down power plants that had paid for themselves years before. Producing the cheapest electricity.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/germany
https://euracoal.eu/info/country-profiles/germany-8/
While India and China are booming we go bankrupt, they are laughing at us.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-by-country-terawatt-hours-twh?tab=chart&country=IND~DEU~GBR~CHN
Loadsofoil
said at 05/14/2025 at 3:02 am:
“While India and China are booming we go bankrupt, they are laughing at us.”
That’s not laughing…its coughing from all the coal dust and various other pollutants in their air.
I suppose the rate of action that is warranted on the energy transition (+others) depends to a great degree on your personal circumstances and personal discount rate even assuming you’re starting with a similar understanding of likely future consequences.
40 years old, profiting from the current system and not concerned about the future? Fuggedaboutit, let the good times roll.
Maybe put a few spiritual leaders or those already at the pointy end of consequences at the other end of the spectrum with a much different perspective.
uhmmmm, well, the personal circumstances are important: I’d say that people in the O&G industry, and allied industries like cars, really dread the transition. For instance, car dealers really hate the loss of maintenance and repair income that will be caused by the move to EVs.
Most people will be better off. Cars will be much better, and have cheaper TCO. Passive houses are much more comfortable, and quieter and cleaner to boot.
And, of course reducing climate change, oil wars, pollution induced illness, and oil-induced corruption (e.g., Russia becomes much more aggressive when it’s oil income is up, and KSA has been subsidizing religious extremism to hide it’s kleptocracy) makes almost everyone’s lives better.
T Hill,
I agree with all of that. I’m glad to hear it.
Now, I’m not sure what you have in mind when you refer to my point. My largest argument is the one we’ve just agreed on: that a transition from FF is essential, and a good thing. Feasible and necessary.
Now, there are other things we can talk about, like agrarian lifestyles vs industrial ones. That’s kind of interesting, but very abstract, given that we’re nowhere near a point where that might possible be needed. I’m mostly interested in the public policies we should be fighting for right now.
I have 2 questions: what would we do if we were king? And, given that we’re not king, how do we create social and political changes to support good public policy?
As a start on the 1st question: I’m thinking that a good policy might be adding 5 cents per gallon to fuel taxes each month until we get to about $8.00 per gallon (and the equivalent carbon tax on coal and gas). Seems like that would incentivize change pretty fast, while minimizing disruption. The revenue would go 10% to R&D and other costs of the transition, and 90% to rebates to individuals as a progressive reverse-tax to counter any regressivity and macroeconomic impact, and political resistance to carbon taxes.
What do you think?
Nick,
I have taken your prior posts as focused on the energy transition from FF to 100% electric as nearly the sole challenge to sustainability facing the world. I disagree with this perspective. Your comments have seemed dismissive of other aspects of what is sometimes described as a polycrisis. Many of these other issues remain critical aspects of the overshoot situation that Ron and others have pointed to. A globally pervasive Jetsons future is exceedingly unlikely on the facts. I’m also skeptical about the feasibility of an energy transition at the scale required to support current or future population peak at current levels of consumption. I had asked for you to make a stronger, quantitative argument in support of that technotopia future.
I pointed to data indicating an agrarian lifestyle as more likely to be sustainable because of your negative comments to others on this topic. Nowhere near a point where that may possibly be needed? Really? Let’s look at a source you’ve pointed to elsewhere. Our-world-in-data suggests that 1/3 of the worlds food comes from roughly 480M agrarian, smallholder farms. Seems pretty necessary right now.
I don’t see your policy suggestions as having any practical chance of global adoption. FFs are relatively inexpensive for the huge energy density that they provide. Globally we’re going to keep burning them and the associated impacts will continue.
NickG, given that the FedFuel tax has been 18.4 cents unchanged for 32 yrs the idea that you could increase it $.60 a year and not cause major disruption is right up there with Donald starting a trade war and think it won’t cause major disruption.
Disruption is in the cards.
At one time I thought changing the fuel tax policy and getting rid of the schedule 179 tax incentive for light trucks would be a worthwhile start but we’re too far down the road attempting to maintain unsustainable levels of consumption that we’re defaulting to crisis and collapse.
They are laughing at us.
https://thecoalhub.com/indias-coal-production-hits-all-time-high-in-2024.html
The Indian government has stated in the past that it intends to develop coal to it’s fullest capacity.
And they sure are.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-by-country-terawatt-hours-twh?tab=chart&country=IND~DEU~GBR
While rabid Green lobbies in UK have destroyed the U K coal, steel heavy industries.
We are heading towards the most pessimistic climate scenarios. And now we don’t have the money to protect ourselves from the floods and drought that are already happening.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/06/england-faces-drought-summer-reservoir-water-levels-dwindle
Farmers in many areas are saying crops will fail.
I have asked Greenpeace why they do not hold demonstrations outside Chinese and Indian embassies to highlight the worst offenders of climate change.
Loads of Oil knows full well that it was not “rabid Green lobbies in UK have destroyed the U K coal, steel heavy industries”. It was rabid blue right wing Tory Margaret Thatcher who financialised the British economy and demoted the UK down the league table of manufacturing nations from number 5 to currently 13 or lower. Or perhaps Loads of Oil is too young to have lived through the Blessed Margaret’s creation of the British rust belt in South Wales, the Midlands and North of England, and in Scotland during the eighties, and to have seen the massed mounted or truncheoned charges of police against the working class miners defending their communities from her assaults. But to do her justice, it was she who was perhaps the first leader of any developed country in the world to warn of the threat of climate change resulting from burning of fossil fuels. And what L of O says is true about the fact that currently, the country in Europe that with Ireland and Norway has the highest rates of rainfall is seeing diminishing stocks of water in reservoirs and prolonged drought and probable crop failures.
Climate turmoil is already here and getting worse at a rate far quicker than scientists predicted just a few years ago.
https://climateandeconomy.com/2025/05/13/13th-may-2025-todays-round-up-of-climate-news/