The only recent time fossil decreased was during covid, and even then it barely was a dent. To meet our climate goals we'd need something in the same vein as covid... constantly
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...
> Phil MacDonald, Ember's managing director, said: "Paired with battery storage, solar is set to be an unstoppable force.
"As the fastest-growing and largest source of new electricity, it is critical in meeting the world's ever-increasing demand for electricity."
> Despite the rise in renewable power, electricity from more polluting fossil fuels crept up by 1.4% last year due to surging demand, meaning emissions from the sector rose too to an all-time high.
> Ember forecasts the growth in clean power will soon outpace the growth in demand, helping to displace fossil fuels from the system.
Is fossil fuel use growing at an increasing rate or decreasing rate? Is non-carbon emitting energy supplies growing at an increasing rate or decreasing?
https://climateanalytics.org/comment/will-2024-be-the-year-e...
> To keep global warming to no more than 1.5°C – as called for in the Paris Agreement – emissions need to be reduced by 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050.
Even if we stopped right now we'd need to be back to ~2000 co2 emissions by 2030, that's in 5 years. Even if we had 5 years of covid with the same restrictions as we had in peak 2020 we wouldn't reach that point...
I do not want to start a whole political tirade so the following is meant more as humor:
Wouldn't that be ironic. Trump's actions help curb global climate change and bankrupts billionaires.
I have another question then, does the planet care about "per capita" or about "total" emissions ?
Every few years they come up with the same fucking graph were the solid line goes straight up until "now" and the dotted line magically decreases in the close future and reach 0 in 50+ years, when none of us will be alive and accountable. meanwhile: https://climatanthropocene.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/co...
If you look at which is growing faster you see that renewables appear to be growing faster relative to fossil fuels.
Assuming the number of humans don't drastically change from year to year, those are roughly proportional.
If per capita emissions drop by 2% and the population increases by 1%, it's still a win.
The headline was clearly written to tell a story - that renewables are winning. According to what metric? If the goal is to reduce dependence of fossil-fueled carbon emissions (remember that pesky detail?) then renewables are evidently failing at their core objective. It's observable truth but a very uncomfortable one, as shown by the number of people downvoting - most would rather shift the goalpost than admit failure.
> Solar power has doubled in just three years, according to thinktank Ember, but rising electricity demand from air conditioning, AI and electric vehicles means electricity from fossil fuel sources still grew.
This is beyond burying the lede. This is an intentionally misleading headline. Holding ourselves accountable to the real goal (reducing CO2) is the only way to succeed - as soon as we start fudging the goalpost and claiming victory, we're no longer doing credible science communication.
