Countries are falling short on reducing emissions, but British data scientist Hannah Ritchie looks at the numbers and sees the world making real gains on climate change. In an interview, she talks about the unheralded progress she sees in the global shift to clean energy.
You haven’t actually articulated any solutions here, realistic or otherwise. And if you think that over a terawatt of power is “tiny”, then really don’t know what else to say https://reneweconomy.com.au/just-staggering-china-installs-100-solar-panels-a-second-as-total-pv-capacity-tops-1-terawatt/
So less than .0001% of global power useage? That doesn’t qualify as tiny? You’re right I don’t have an answer but you’re proposing magic which is worse.
Clean generation met 81% of the 2024 demand increase in China https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-review-2025/major-countries-and-regions/
China’s emissions fall despite increased energy demand https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-clean-energy-just-put-chinas-co2-emissions-into-reverse-for-first-time/
China’s total installed renewable power capacity reached about 1.41 billion kilowatts at the end of 2024, accounting for over 40% of its total elecricity capacity and surpassing coal-fired power installations https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/statistics/202504/25/content_WS680b7b79c6d0868f4e8f2141.html
China alone accounts for approximately 30% of the world’s electricity production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China
So not sure where you pulled your .0001% power usage there. Seems to me like you’re just pulling numbers out of thin air here.
Meanwhile, I’m not proposing any magic. I’m pointing out that we have to do what we can to mitigate the damage. Not sure how that qualifies as magic in your mind. You’re not even trying to engage with anything being said yo you here.
Global power consumption is somewhere in the neihborhood of 25000 terawatt hours. Is 1 terawatt supposed to mitigate some damage? I’d love to know how.
See this is what I mean by you refusing to engage with what’s being said to you. I consistently and repeatedly stated that the point is not simply reduction of emissions, but using local power generation to mitigate the effects of global warming that are already baked in. You’ve consistently ignored this point, and continued talking about percentage of emissions reduction.
However, even if we look at that, it’s quite obvious that renewables and nuclear are already a large chunk of energy production https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption
Me thinking you are completely full of shit is not the same as me not engaging with your ideas. A terawatt is not going to meaningfully mitigate the climate apocalypse by any metric whatsoever but you think it will. I am not saying solar is bad or China is bad for doing large scale solar projects but at some point we actually have to live in the real world.
I love how you keep making personal attacks, but can’t actually articulate what you claim I’m wrong about. Absolute clown shit on display here.
The clown shit here is you thinking a minuscule Chinese solar farm (which is a good thing) is going to make a difference.
Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, is it? I’ve said about five times now that this is about building resilience, but you’re so married to your one pre-programmed talking point you can’t deviate. And you’re still flat-out wrong about the renewables data I already linked you. This is just pathetic.