I believe that I can confidently claim that one thing that Trump is not guilty of is smart long-term thinking.

I wonder what Big Oil is thinking these days.

War is Good (for Big Oil)

Among the consequences of the US/Israel-Iran War is the ongoing rise in oil prices. Another consequence of this war is the significant increase in the resources and money the US directly provides Big Oil, whether through the purchase of higher volumes of fossil fuels (at higher costs) to feed military actions or in the indirect expenses of insurance and military protection coverage of the significant chunk of the oil transport market that passes through the Strait of Hormuz. That’s right: the United States government is now getting into the business of insuring oil tankers, since Lloyds of London and the other main marine insurers aren’t interested in covering loss of shipping when their clients ply the waters adjacent to Iran. There are other geopolitical consequences, too, such as today’s “permission” by our government to allow India to buy Russian oil, where the higher prices for oil will bring in more revenue to Russia and thus help that country prosecute its war against Ukraine, but hey, that doesn’t seem to be a bug for Trump’s program, but rather a feature.

And then, of course, armed conflict causes a noticeable spike in greenhouse gas emissions. Here’s a Gemini AI summary to the search, “war and greenhouse gas emissions”:

Global military activity contributes approximately 5.5% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions, a figure larger than the entire aviation industry. Wars, such as in Ukraine and Gaza, release immense CO₂ through fuel-heavy combat, infrastructure destruction, and future reconstruction needs, often operating outside mandatory international reporting standards. 

Key Aspects of War and GHG Emissions:

• • Massive Carbon Footprint: If the world’s militaries were a country, they would rank as the fourth largest emitter globally.
  • Major Conflicts: The first 15 months of the war in Gaza resulted in at least 32 MtCO₂e, comparable to Croatia’s annual emissions. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has generated an estimated 230 MtCO₂e in roughly two years.
  • Fuel Consumption: Militaries are intensive consumers of fossil fuels. The U.S. Department of Defense is considered the world’s largest institutional consumer of oil.
  • Infrastructure & Rebuilding: Beyond immediate combat, destroying cities and the subsequent carbon-intensive reconstruction efforts create significant, long-term environmental impacts.
  • Transparency Gaps: Military emissions are often exempted from international climate agreements like the Paris Agreement, making their true impact hard to track.

So now add to the above count the US-Israel-Iran War and the expansion of the conflict throughout the Middle East.

Big Oil—Happy, Sad, or Confused?

I’ll play an amateur psychologist for Big Oil and try to think through the emotive state of the industry. The good (i.e., happy) news for Big Oil is that the price per barrel has been quickly climbing due to the latest Mideast conflict, and that means profitability is up, and especially for the U.S. industry. Big Oil has been operating on a surplus basis price-wise, hovering not that far above profit margin make-or-break levels with per-barrel costs around the sixty-dollar mark. But today, Brent Crude is up $7.28 per barrel, or $92.69. Natural gas too is climbing. It is great for the U.S. fossil fuel corporations having Trump as their front man, considering that the supply of Mideast oil and gas is curtailed, so profits accrue more to the U.S. corporations. Headlines talk about oil hitting $150 per barrel in weeks.

If you’re happy and you know it, clap your hands.

Big Oil’s applause—especially for the U.S. corporations—grows louder when you consider the anti-clean energy efforts of President Big Oil Stooge. The States are facing growing electricity demand with the much-ballyhooed AI data center predictions, but also for the welcome electrification of heating and cooling, transportation, and some electrification expansion in various segments of industry.

Dark Clouds in Reality Land

But this boon has the capacity to go bust. Not because AI and data centers aren’t a real thing, although there’s a bunch of questions about this, too. One big question centers on just how real the electricity growth load demand really is, but I’ll leave further discussion on this topic to another recent post, “Fossil Fuel Demand Growth Uber Alles.”

On the other hand, any price rise in fossil fuels makes clean energy that much more competitive and the issue of affordability is rising across the country. Even in Trumpland, there’s a growing chorus for solar power. From Solar Energy Industries Association,” published on February 19, 2026:

A recent poll from Fabrizio, Lee & Associates, chief pollster for President Trump, found that a clear majority of Republicans support expanding solar power in the United States. In the survey, 68% of GOP voters agreed that “we need all forms of electricity generation, including utility solar, to be built to lower electricity costs,” while 70% said they support utility-scale solar deployment when projects use American-made materials. Another poll from Kellyanne Conway’s KA Consulting showed that three-quarters of Trump voters (75%) in Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and Texas believe that solar energy should be used in the U.S. to strengthen and increase our energy supply.

This story is not simply wishful thinking on the part of pro-solar outfits like the SEIA. This story is making headlines and getting coverage in the mainstream media.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects a record 86 GW of new utility-scale electric generating capacity will be added to the U.S. grid in 2026, driven by a 62% increase in renewable energy additions over 2025 levels. Solar (51%) and battery storage (28%) dominate the growth, with 93% of new capacity coming from renewables and storage, including 43.4 GW of solar and 24.3 GW of battery capacity.

If these projections hold, renewables (including small-scale solar) are expected to surpass natural gas in total capacity by the end of 2026. And these projections were done well before the US/Israel-Iran War. Consider, too, that the Trump’s administration is hostile to clean energy. Consider, too, that most other nations aren’t hostile to clean energy and with spikes in price of natural gas, I’m guessing other nations reliant on natural gas and other fossil fuel imports grow even less happy with such dependency.

It remains to be seen how long the price jump for fossil fuels will continue. The cost of running a gasoline-powered car or diesel-based transport continues to climb, and there are already signs of a resurgence of EVs in the U.S., although there’s already been plenty of solid growth of EVs in the majority of the world.

So, How Happy is Big Oil?

As much as I’m horrified by Trump’s stupid fantasy play with real world life-and-death ramifications, I find myself wondering if the foreign military entanglements might boost the move away from Trump and his madness. The 2026 midterms look better than ever for the shift in Congress toward the Democrats and with Trump’s gang of incompetents mucking up the economy and dealing out threats to democracy, 2028 looks good for a full ousting. Of course, if Democrats keep their fealty to corporations as a priority, my bet is off.

Dear Josephine, the second book of The Steep Climes Quartet, takes place in 2029. There’s a new, unnamed Democratic administration just in, and the Congress has moved toward progressive gains. Energy and climate policies are back in play, with the sort of 100-Day advances a guy can hope for, but politics still has its partisan problems and by no means are all Democrats clear about working for citizens instead of corporations. Campaign funding reform has not been accomplished, but the fight is on. Progress moves more slowly than many of us might like, but progress takes place. Big Oil’s efforts to maintain business continues, especially in the push to get more and more gas plants built. By 2035, which is the year Over Brooklyn Hills, the third book of The Steep Climes Quartet, takes place, Big Oil is on its back foot, but still has plenty of kick left, even as court cases against the industry and pro-energy transition legislation do well. The problem remains of too much money in the political system, although real progress to kill Citizens United and the absurd legal foundation for that awful decision is finally imminent. Everyday life continues: people struggle with bills and are exasperated or delighted in relationships, work, and circumstances beyond an individual’s control.

The carbon emission tide is turning, but slowly, like the proverbial change in direction of a large ship’s course. Plenty of damage has been done and shows up in climate change consequences. Tipping points are an ongoing concern. Greed, power, and selfishness are counterpoints to our better angels.

We Are All Sad, Really

As excited Big Oil may be about expanded sales and profits, they live in the same world as the rest of us, and that world is getting hotter because of Big Oil’s expanded sales and profits. From the AGU Journals collection, Advancing Earth and Space Sciences posted a Geophysical Research Letter titled “Global Warming Has Accelerated Significantly,” authored by G. Foster, S. Rahmstorf, and first published on March 6, 2026. Fortunately for us non-scientists, AGU offers a plain text summary, as follows:

The rise in global temperature has been widely considered to be quite steady for several decades since the 1970s. Recently, however, scientists have started to debate whether global warming has accelerated since then. It is difficult to be sure of that because of natural fluctuations in the warming rate, and so far no statistical significance (meaning 95% certainty) of an acceleration (increase in warming rate) has been demonstrated. In this study we subtract the estimated influence of El Niño events, volcanic eruptions and solar variations from the data, which makes the global temperature curve less variable, and it then shows a statistically significant acceleration of global warming since about the year 2015. Warming proceeding faster is not unexpected by climate models, but it is a cause of concern and shows how insufficient the efforts to slow and eventually stop global warming under the Paris Climate Accord have so far been.

If even this is too long to read, here are the key points:

Key Points

• • During the last decade, the rate at which Earth warmed increased substantially
  • After removing the influence of known natural variability factors, the increase of the warming rate is statistically significant
  • At the present rate, we will exceed the 1.5°C limit of the Paris Climate Accord by 2030

We no longer have the opportunity to keep global warming from occurring, but we do have the capacity to slow down carbon emissions and make it more likely that climate change consequences are less severe.

If you’re happy and you know it, clap your hands.

The post Oil War and Counter-War on Oil first appeared on David Guenette.

This is the first paragraph of one of my posts from earlier in the year, “AI is Giving Me Gas: The Collision of Tech Hype and the Carbon Budget.” It may be bad form to start a Substack post citing another Substack post, but clearly these two posts are related. The sub-title of the above referenced post” “We are scraping the bottom of the 1.5°C carbon budget. Big Oil’s response? Build 252 gigawatts of new gas power to feed the AI boom.”

I also wrote about this back in September of last year, in a post titled “New Gas Generator Plants and the Plan to Flood the (Electricity Demand Growth) Zone.” In this post there’s a link to an AI analysis I did in a report called “The Future of U.S. Natural Gas Power Generation: Projections, Accuracy, and the Confluence of Limiting Factors to 2030.”

The electricity demand growth tied to AI and data centers has Big Oil salivating, with plans—dreams?—of 100-plus new gas-fired generation plants in place by 2030. Not that the supply chain and turbine manufacturing capacity can deliver, but the explosion in small diesel or natural gas generators nonetheless seems a happy enough ending, boding well for Big Oil sales.

This doesn’t bode well for the rest of us, unfortunately. In the news of late is Elon Musk’s xAI company, which has used a large fleet of mobile, trailer-mounted gas turbines (rather than diesel generators) to power its “Colossus” AI data center in Memphis, Tennessee. These turbines are deployed as a temporary, “quick and dirty” solution to bypass power grid constraints while constructing the facility, which houses Nvidia H100 GPUs for training the Grok AI model.

To get the data center operational in just 122 days, xAI used mobile turbines (approximately 35 to 62, depending on the report and timeline). Each turbine is capable of providing 2.5 MW of power, with reports indicating a total capacity exceeding 35 MW to over 100 MW. There’s been pushback from local residents and environmental group. It turns out that neither noise pollution or emissions of nitrogen oxides and formaldehyde are being welcomed, and in January 2026, the EPA ruled that xAI violated the law by operating dozens of these, at times, unpermitted, gas generators. I’m guessing any fines actually levied against xAI will be just part of the cost of doing business. The broader AI data center industry is facing a shortage of power, with many companies increasingly using on-site, fossil-fuel-based generators to bridge the gap.

By the way, if you want to dive deeper into the issue of power strategies and developments for AI data centers, check out Distilled, on Substack. Distilled is written by Michael Thomas and he’s undertaken as series of articles on the issue of AI data centers and approaches being pursued for power, including data centers building their own power plants.

Wet Dreams and Sloppy Seconds

The accuracy of future demand predictions itself is highly questionable, considering the wide-ranging numbers and, among other issues, the double, triple, or greater duplicate counting of generation sources among data center hyperscalers. These eager corporations reach out to more than one potential generation source to cover their bets. Accurate forecasting seems hindered by some combination of wishful thinking and double counting. Here’s an AI summary of this issue:

The “duplication issue” (often called “phantom load” or “speculative queuing”) refers to the practice where data center developers submit multiple applications for electrical grid interconnection for the same single project. 

Because securing power is now the primary bottleneck for AI and hyperscale facilities, developers “spam” the queue to hedge their bets. They might file requests for the same 500 MW project in three different states (or three different sites within the same utility territory) to see which one gets approved first. Once one is approved, the others are withdrawn, but in the meantime, they clog the study queue and artificially inflate demand forecasts. 

Grid operators warn that these “phantom” requests make it impossible to accurately plan for new power plants, as the requested demand on paper is often 5x to 10x higher than what will actually be built. 

Estimate Ranges of Duplication

Industry data suggests that the vast majority of current interconnection requests are duplicate or speculative. 

• • Overall “Phantom” Rate: Experts estimate that 80% to 90% of the data center capacity currently in US interconnection queues will never be built.
  • Realization Rate: Utilities often project that only 10% to 20% of the requested data center load in their pipelines will actually materialize.
  • Speculative Ratios (Firm vs. Requested):
    • AEP (American Electric Power):Reported 24 GW of firm commitments but has requests for 190 GW of additional load—a ratio of nearly 8:1 (speculative to firm).
    • Oncor (Texas Utility):Reported a queue of 186 GW of data center requests. For context, the utility’s entire current peak demand for all customers is only ~50 GW, suggesting the queue is inflated by nearly 400% of the grid’s total existing capacity.
    • PSE&G (New Jersey):Reported a 9.4 GW large load pipeline but expects only 10–20% of those inquiries to result in actual projects.
    • ERCOT (Texas Grid):Has received requests for over 220 GW of new load by 2030 (mostly data centers), which is more than double the state’s all-time peak demand record. 

Why This Is a Problem

1. 1. Planning Paralysis: Utilities cannot distinguish real projects from “zombie” projects. If they build transmission lines for all 190 GW (in AEP’s case), they would bankrupt ratepayers. If they wait to see which are real, they risk being too slow for the 24 GW that is real.
   2. Queue Backlogs: The “phantom” requests force grid engineers to perform complex impact studies for projects that don’t exist, delaying the connection of viable power plants and real factories by years.
   3. Artificial Scarcity: The illusion of zero capacity drives up power prices and panic-buying of land, further fueling the cycle of speculative multiple-filing. 

Why is this a Problem?

You might also ask, from the perspective of Big Oil, “Why is this an opportunity?”

Big Oil loves the high estimates of power demand and the expanded market for their products, and not just more volume, but more over the next several decades, just when we need to reduce carbon emissions, not raise them. Big Oil is in a frenzy to keep their business going for decades more, despite the counter need for this industry to decline.

There’s temptation, too, for the utilities who contract or build new generation capacity. While solar/wind/batteries can meet new energy needs (and be quicker and cheaper), power utilities remain drawn to action that follows business-as-usual thinking, and for many utilities, especially without governmental and regulatory guidance, that means more power plants.

The opportunity is now for Big Oil to future-proof the industry.

Does the Trump Administration strike you as leaning on governance and regulation to push for clean energy?

I don’t think so, but then maybe I’m as wrong as all those wild estimates about power requests to feed the AI industry.

The post Fossil Fuel Demand Growth Uber Alles first appeared on David Guenette.

I’ve been saying that AI’s projected electricity demand is celebrated by fossil fuel companies because this growth in electricity demand provides an anchor for Big Oil to keep selling natural gas for decades to come.

What me worry?

Sure I worry. A much clearer and devasting understanding about the “carbon budget” mankind faces has recently been recalculated and the general gist is that we have a smaller amount of carbon we can dump into the atmosphere before we push beyond 1.5C.

Or, as AI Summary puts it:

The 2025 Global Carbon Budget reports that the remaining budget to limit global warming to 1.5°C is “virtually exhausted”. Fossil fuel emissions continue to rise, projected to reach a record 38.1 billion tonnes in 2025, driven by, for example, high demand. While emissions from land-use change have declined, total global emissions remain at record highs. 

Key Findings on Recent Carbon Budget Changes 

• • 5°C Budget Exhaustion: Scientists warn that at the current rate of emissions, the budget for limiting warming to 1.5°C could be exhausted in approximately three years, with only about 130 billion tonnes of CO2 left to emit.
  • Rising Emissions (2024-2025): Fossil fuel emissions have continued to grow, with 2024 seeing a 0.8% increase. The 2025 projection is a 1.1% increase in fossil fuel CO2 emissions.
  • Total Emissions Flat: Despite rising fossil fuel emissions, the total CO2 emissions (including land-use changes) for 2025 are projected to remain relatively flat compared to 2024, due to a decrease in emissions from deforestation.
  • Weakened Sinks: The Global Carbon Project (GCP) notes that climate change has weakened natural land and ocean sinks, accounting for 8% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1960.
  • The “Carbon Clock”: The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research continues to track the rapid shrinking of the remaining carbon budget for both 1.5°C and 2°C, highlighting the urgency of the situation.

The 2025 Global Carbon Budget, often highlighted by sources like Carbon Brief and Euronews, indicates that while some nations are transitioning to cleaner energy, the overall global trajectory is not yet declining fast enough to meet international climate targets. 

Want to worry more? Many scientists are now projecting that we are already on the path to or actually at 1.5C, with higher temperature increases in the average global temperature moving faster than previously considered.

“US leads record global surge in gas-fired power driven by AI demands, with big costs for the climate,” written by Oliver Milman and published in The Guardian on January 29, 2026, puts the issue of overspending our carbon budget squarely on gas generation and the new and planned gas generation planned to address the electricity-hungry AI data centers. The main projected culprit for the voracious spending down of said carbon budget largely rests with the U.S.

The article reports that “Much of this new capacity will be devoted to the vast electricity needs of AI, with a third of the 252 gigawatts of gas power in development set to be situated on site at datacenters.” I wrote about this back in September of last year, in a post titled “New Gas Generator Plants and the Plan to Flood the (Electricity Demand Growth) Zone.” In this post there’s a link to an AI analysis I did in a report called “The Future of U.S. Natural Gas Power Generation: Projections, Accuracy, and the Confluence of Limiting Factors to 2030.” Here’s that report’s Executive Summary:

Executive Summary

1.1 Overview of Projections and Core Findings

An analysis of U.S. energy market trends and projections indicates a notable ambition for future natural gas power generation. A key projection from the firm Enverus suggests the United States is on a trajectory to construct 80 new natural gas power plants by 2030, which would add an estimated 46 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity. This figure is a focal point for assessing the future of the nation’s energy infrastructure. However, a comprehensive review of the current market and regulatory landscape reveals that this aggressive projection is highly speculative. It is a needs-based assessment rather than a realistic forecast of what can be built, as its feasibility is called into question by a complex and multi-faceted set of constraints.

Looks like Big Oil has been busy selling the idea of new gas generation for AI and other growing electricity demand. Forty-six GW has blossomed to 252 GW, although the first number is U.S. back in 2025, and the second number is worldwide in 2026.

You have to admire the ambition of the fossil fuel industry. The amount of additional carbon emissions these new plants will spew is staggering… and staggeringly dangerous. Here’s a quote from The Guardian article:

The gas projects in development in the US will, if all completed, cause 12.1bn tonnes in carbon dioxide emissions over their lifetimes, which is double the current annual emissions coming from all sources in the US. Worldwide, the planned gas boom will cause 53.2bn tonnes of emissions over projects’ lifetimes if fulfilled, pushing the planet towards even worse heatwaves, droughts, floods and other climate impacts.

Of course, as I discovered in my analysis, the desire to build new gas plants is tempered by ability, especially in terms of supply chains, where turbines from the two main manufacturers of gas generators—GE Vernova and Siemens Energy—are mightily backlogged. Building out manufacturing capacity for such complex machines is no fast undertaking. Unfortunately, a recent development has entered the market, as described in the AI Summary of the search prompt “Using jet turbines for new gas generator plants and capacity”:

Using jet turbines, specifically “aeroderivative” gas turbines derived from aircraft engines, has emerged as a critical, fast-deployable solution for new, high-demand gas generator plants, particularly for data centers and AI-driven power needs. Companies like ProEnergy are retrofitting used military and commercial jet engines (e.g., GE CF6-80C2) into 48-megawatt power generators to provide rapid, “behind-the-meter” electricity. 

This approach addresses severe bottlenecks in securing new, large-scale utility turbines, which often face 3- to 7-year wait times. 

There’s a lot more to find with this prompt, but nothing to keep you calm if you worry about carbon emissions.

Here’s what it all means: All efforts to restrict and reduce carbon emissions will be more than offset by all these goddam new gas generators if they come to be. Offset and then some.

A Brief Interruption About My AI Overlords

I use AI as an effective productivity tool. My purview for climate change is a wide one. I write climate fiction that seeks to be based on realistic and accurate information about the causes and consequences of climate change, which means I’ve been hard at work understanding the science (enough to tell the difference between truth and bullshit). I give talks about climate change, and I have little interest in providing information that is wrong, so I make an ongoing effort to get things right and up to date. I find myself researching climate policy, political realities, and economic benefits of the clean energy transition. I’m active within the climate fiction world, reading widely in the genre and critiquing the various approaches to it. I’ve been at all of this for many years.

The world of climate change is extremely wide and multi-faceted. Keeping up on the latest findings of science and technology and policy proposals and economic and political realities is gained by triangulated a diverse and wide range of information resources. I’ve found that AI can be useful as a research agent, where, in response to a thoughtful prompt, AI ranges far and wide across the Web to collect and then collate and then analyze the relevant sources and then synthesize these findings into well-produced reports.

I have high confidence in these reports, and I haven’t found hallucinations to be a problem, but that’s because I know the subject well enough and broadly enough to cast a critical eye on sources and am able to review AI’s findings. What I can’t so easily do—although, of course, I’ve done this all too often and with all too much effort—is to search the Web high and low for the information, explanation, and opinion I seek.

For me, AI is a useful tool. It is not my buddy, nor do I spend much time generating funny images. For me, AI’s current capabilities are impressive.

This is not to say that the present hysteria about AI—the very hysteria that supports Big Oil’s play to flood the world with greenhouse gas-generating electricity—is sensible. My take is that there is wild financing being accumulated mainly in the hope of the debt accumulators being first to market. I believe that AI’s market will actually take a long time to develop as a deeply useful and pervasive embedded tool—evolving human culture is still a slow undertaking. I believe that there’s likely to be something on the order of a crash or bubble because of the disconnect between all that money and all that non-market.

I also believe that the rush for adding huge amounts of electricity generation is hysterical, albeit not in a funny way. I believe that whatever additional capacity may be required can be more cost-effective and more quickly produced with clean energy and by bringing digital management to the grids that already contain huge amounts of spare capacity that currently cannot be managed well.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Big Oil is the Enemy

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the fossil fuel industry doesn’t care about carbon emissions. If Big Oil did care, Big Oil would have a lot to care about.

There’s no rational explanation for the fossil fuel industry not knowing that carbon emissions must come down, not go up. Denial doesn’t cut it, not with the now long-held and clear scientific consensus on global warming and all the resulting data collection. Denial doesn’t cut it, not with the growing evidence in the form of extreme weather and not with the majority of individuals’ personal experiences. It is as if a competent adult would argue that he didn’t know that someone could be killed if he pointed a loaded gun at that person and pulled the trigger. The “Go figure” argument is as absurd for Big Oil as it is for our proverbial idiot.

Speaking of idiots, in America, Trump is the gaslighter-in-chief in regard to climate and the contributory role of fossil fuels, just as he is on so many other topics, including, of late, the ridiculous and entirely and patently demonstrable falsehoods around the ICE/CBP killings and related inciting behaviors. That’s why the connection between fighting for the American democracy and the climate fight are one in the same. The old order of Big Oil, along with a rogue’s collection of other “Bigs,” has placed its bet on a rising fascist state, damn the consequences.

I’m placing a different bet.

The post AI is Giving Me Gas first appeared on David Guenette.

 This post is about “Extinctions and Optimism: What a recent study says and doesn’t say about extinctions,” by Jason Anthony. I’ll admit that I was concerned this Substack post of his would be another apology for cautious thinking about what we should do today.

But really, this is a delightful post. Anthony is looking at geological timeframes and presents, early in, a graph of “Big Five Mass Extinctions in Earth’s History,” which he got from Our World in Data. I love me a good graph and this one is a terrifically rich infographic that shows the five mass extinctions throughout geological history, but it also presents spikes of 16 lesser extinction events. Now there’s a phrase I’d never imagined writing: “lesser extinction events.”

By the way, I came across this post through Andy Revkin’s cross-posting on Sustain What. A tip of the cap, sir.

Later in the post Anthony reports that species extinctions have been declining for the last hundred years, contradicting the typical cry about vast biodiversity losses. He quotes Peter Brannen’s book, The Ends of the World. Here’s an interesting Brennen quote:

Though we’ve proven to be a destructive species, we have not produced anything even close to the levels of wanton destruction and carnage seen in previous planetary cataclysms.

Of course, considering that one such “planetary cataclysm“ was the super high speed collision of Earth with a really large asteroid, I’m not sure there’s much comfort to be taken in Brannen’s quote.

Anthony goes on to examine the geological record and argues that “the common wisdom about biodiversity in the Anthropocene is that it is in steep decline and that the losses are piling up.” He suggests that we’re possibly past “peak extinction,” but he also argues that past extinctions turn out not to be good predictors of future extinctions. If I understand this right, that’s because we’re talking about complex Earth systems of different sorts and characteristics. It turns out that one mass extinction is not like any other. Makes sense.

Anthony also writes: “A warming climate over the last two centuries was found, surprisingly, not to have increased extinctions. Not yet, anyway.”

“Not yet, anyway.” Sobering words.

While we can’t extrapolate from the earlier extinctions to understand the threats to biodiversity now, we do know that the disruption of the carbon cycle is a constant factor in mass extinctions. Global warming is disrupting the carbon cycle in our time, and that’s troubling. He writes:

Homo sapiens are a recent Pleistocene/Holocene blip in terms of our time on Earth, but in a geological nanosecond our population and culture have metasticized into something like a CO2-spewing supervolcano. Looked at another way, the impacts of our species have not arrived as quickly as those from the End-Cretaceous Manhattan-sized asteroid, but they’re certainly occurring faster than the millennia of volcanic purges that led to other mass extinctions. We’re neither asteroid nor supervolcano, of course, but we are consciously exhibiting symptoms of both.

And that, friends, is a clear statement about dangers from runaway carbon emissions, a.k.a., climate change. Apparently, those people who may feel offense in Anthony’s counter-intuitive report that biodiversity is doing okay at present really only have to wait a while longer to be proved right, unfortunately.

Anthony’s post is an interesting mixture of hope—we’re protecting biodiversity to the point where extinctions have been slowing—and distress—the oceans are turning acidic, major ocean systems like AMOC are slowing down, oxygen is being reduced under the waves. “The extinction rate is not what we thought it was, but the future remains unclear.” Indeed.

He ends with some grounds for aspiration, meditating on an old fossil he describes as his talisman; “…we live in relationship with deep time, and that even in our mayfly-like little lives, we get to decide what that relationship will be.”

Part of this relationship with today has to be the rejection of fossil fuel corporations as anything other than an enemy to our future and as a threat continuing to mess with the Earth’s carbon cycle in negative ways. Just because specie extinctions aren’t as bad as they could be today doesn’t mean we’re unlikely to avoid all sorts of ecological collapses if we don’t get greenhouse gas emissions moving toward net zero. But don’t look to me for that answer. Look at geological history.

And then get to work on the clean energy transition.

Here’s a nifty infographic Anthony includes in his recent Substack post. I love a good infographic.

The post Extinctions are Interesting in Relation to Climate Change first appeared on David Guenette.

Andy Rivkin writes Sustain What on Substack, and a post of his has been languishing in my starred email folder since the summer, my wanting to comment on the post titled “Human Progress versus Climate Evangelism.” Except that this post isn’t Rivkin’s but rather a “cross post” in the nomenclature of Substack, since the actual author is Roger Pielke Jr. on his own Substack called The Honest Broker.

Rivkin writes (and includes a bit of Pielke’s quotes, so here, basically, is a quote quoting someone else):

Hi all, I want to be sure you catch Roger Pielke Jr.’s exploration of 2025 worldwide stats for human peril when the climate system throws its worst at us. As he writes:

[A]t no point in human history have humans had less risk of death related to extreme weather and climate. Understanding why that is so is central to keeping that trend moving forward into the future.
Smart energy and climate policies, as I’ve long argued, make good sense. Climate evangelism centered on scaring people about the weather does not make sense — in politics, policy, or science.”

Even after 38 years of reporting on human-driven global warming, I concur.

The above quote that quotes another is not my taking joy in being meta. The cross-posted “The Last Gasp of the Climate Thought Police,” runs the subtitle “Climate cancelling had a good run — but my Cornell lecture showed its finally over.”

I may have been triggered because Pielke’s argument carries similarities to Bill Gates’ recent sermon on climate change that’s caused quite a tizzy down Belem way. (I posted on the Gates’ dictum recently on Substact, “Bill Gates–the long and the sort of it,” and in fuller detail on my website, in a post titled “The Headlines are Full of Bill Gates’ Latest Wisdom—It’s Hysterical!” I couldn’t resist diving into this recent brouhaha.

Apparently I can’t resist critiquing the Pielke post, either.

Before I proceed to scold Rivkin and Pielke, let me acknowledge that both writers have contributed mightily to the climate debate. Rivkin was among the first to cover climate change and spent a long time at The New York Times doing so, and he continues to do so these days with Sustain What, alongside the occasional playing on songs. Aside from the songs (hey, taste being quite variable among us humans), I’ve gotten a lot from Rivkin. I have noticed that he’s been beating a similar drum to Pielke for a while, and that drum is a running critique of the hysteria and mis-thinking that plagues some climate change writers and activists. I acknowledge that this aspect of the climate movement can be irritating, but this is a far smaller problem than that of climate change, I’m pretty sure.

Pielke’s main beat is about what we don’t know about climate change, and he isn’t a climate denier, but rather is focused on the practice of good science and scientific processes and, no surprise, he’s found plenty of fault in the world of climate change science, to which I’m tempted to say, “Duh.” Science, like every other human endeavor (with the possible exception to my making clams and linguini) is bound to faults and failures. Prejudices reign, whether intentionally or unconsciously, and errors get made, both in measurement and in the interpretation of what the measurement may mean. The undercurrent for both Rivkin and Pielke is that some climate folk exaggerate, and even some climate scientists, and, gosh, doesn’t that hurt the debate on how to progress with positive climate action? Sure, probably, but according to Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the 89 Percent Project, most people already have an understanding that progress on climate change is desired, some incorrect climate data interpretation not withstanding.

So why all this attention pointed at finding fault here and there in the work of some climate scientists and journalists? Beats me. It feels like a blood sport of some sort. Maybe Pielke hasn’t really left academia. A recent public battle of the “Red Team” experts critiquing Trump’s DOE Climate Report–some 85 climate experts, with Andrew Dressler of The Climate Brink one of the more noticeable public faces–had Pielke on the attack. Maybe he has some valid points, but boy did his attack on the attack against Trump’s DOE report bring joy to the anti-climate progress gang. And for what? It seems as much or more a matter of intra-department struggling over gets to teach the Whit Waltman seminar next semester. Now boys, play nice. We don’t want fighting while there’s a climate crisis, right?

A larger battle for Pielke is the climate attribution arena. I understand his frustration that too many journalists present connections to climate change causation for any specific extreme weather event, and this is beyond today’s science. Not because there is no causation, but because we can’t confidently prove it yet. This can be extremely important policy-wise and in the courts. It also makes the work of climate reporting simpler and headlines easier to think up. But really, how much does this matter for most of us?

Just because climate change attribution science can’t confidently prove a confident link to any one extreme weather event as yet doesn’t nix-nay the understanding that of course there’s a relation between climbing temperatures and the force and frequency of extreme weather. Sure, we’ve had fierce hurricanes in the past, and unusual floods, hot spells, and droughts, and any one of those may or may not be anything more than a tough bit of luck for those people and places devastated by the event, but there’s science and there’s practical sense, and the combination of the two—the understanding of basic principles such as warmer air holds more moisture and that temperature of the Earth is rising, along with a bit of common sense—convincingly argues that we should do something about treating the ongoing rise in greenhouse gases.

I know that neither Rivkin or Pielke dismiss climate change, but I can’t see the value of pointing out publicly on the front pages (instead of in technical journals and working groups of the IPCC) some pretty arcane scientific arguments that are happily hoovered up by any and all sides seeking any rhetorical advantage.  It is like talking to the morons out there running around telling everyone that the sky is falling today. The sky—to murder this metaphor—is falling at some point, and pieces of the sky have already tumbled down, but, sure, the end of life on the planet isn’t part of this precipitation any time soon. But do you know what is soon? Soon, like twenty years ago already? The need to take action to stop the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as in this is already a big fucking deal and there’s little point in dilly-dallying. I’m sure Rivkin and Pielke and Gates agree that the best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago, but the next best time is now. So why, for goodness sake, undermine the urgency of climate change, however much that may not be the intention?

For Pielke, the title, “The Last Gasp of the Climate Thought Police,” shows his pique. Sure, nobody like thought police, but if there are “climate thought police,” how much does this matter? If you’re involved in academia—as Pielke has been until sometime in 2024, thought police are a professional hazard and something of a blood sport. You might not like it, but you can always just ignore it, as my mother used to say.

According to a quick Google AI search return, “Roger Pielke Jr. has transitioned from his long-term college teaching position at the University of Colorado Boulder to a new role as a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute [emphasis mine]. While at CU Boulder, he was a professor in the Environmental Studies Program, where he taught about science, innovation, and policy, and directed the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research.”

The plot thickens. You’ve likely heard about the American Enterprise Institute, but another quick look at Google AI has this to say about AEI:

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has received funding from fossil fuel corporations such as ExxonMobil and from foundations associated with the owners of fossil fuel conglomerates, such as the Charles Koch Foundation. 

Specific affiliations and support elements include:

• • ExxonMobil: Over the years, ExxonMobil has contributed significantly to AEI, with reports indicating contributions exceeding $4 million.
  • Koch-Affiliated Foundations: Foundations linked to the Koch brothers, involved in the petroleum industry through Koch Industries, have been major donors to AEI. Since 1997, contributions from these foundations have totaled over $2 million.
  • Other Fossil Fuel-Supported Think Tanks and Funding Sources: AEI has also received substantial funding from other conservative foundations that support organizations known for challenging climate science. These include Donors Trust & Donors Capital Fund, the Bradley Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust. 

AEI describes itself as an independent, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) educational organization that relies on private donations and does not take institutional stances on issues. However, its financial connections to the fossil fuel industry have drawn scrutiny, particularly given its past work that has been characterized as questioning climate science. 

At least some of the problems the climate movement has with AEI darkens Pielke’s critique of some climate science. To my English Major’s mind, Pielke raises good points about scientific practice and he calls out—justifiably or not— examples of what he describes as sloppy science about climate change. The problem is that Pielke’s critiques are enthusiastically pointed to by interests that wish climate change to be ignored or under-attended, and Pielke has become something of a go-to guy for those who wish to counter climate change action. After all, this looks good: he’s a scientist, or sounds like one, anyway, although he is actually a political scientist. By the way, I don’t think that should be a strike against him, and in fact, some of my favorite ex-in-laws are political scientists I greatly admire.

But his recent Substact’s first several paragraphs start with his complaining about the pushback he got from his recent talk at Cornell University, and specifically the Cornell Atkinson Institute for Sustainability. Apparently a Cornell professor who is a “well-known climate activist,” according to Pielke, wanted the director of the Cornell institute fired for inviting him, and he mentions some social media digs from others, including a NASA scientist and the “ever-present “Michael E. Mann” and some supposedly hysterical guy from Hong Kong. It looks like he’s left academia but academia hasn’t left him.

Yeah, I get it. Nobody likes Negative Nancies. Unfortunately, Pielke only links to his Cornell talk in his Substack and doesn’t reprise it or even summarize a thesis or two he suspects may have upset some academics. The talk was titled “What Climate Science Says About Extreme Weather” and I’ve read Pielke on this specific topic a number of times. I’ve sometimes referenced him in talks and posts on the problems of climate change attribution to specific extreme weather events. I understand that the science for this sort of specific and exact attribution is not established. I get it that there is a long history of extreme weather events that long pre-date climate change or fossil fuels.

Big deal, I say. No kidding, I say. The issue of attribution is a second-order issue. What is well-established is that the increase in greenhouse gases within our atmosphere from man’s two-century long use of fossil fuels is affecting the weather and the climate, and climate change and its predictable negative consequences is a clear first-order issue. Considering the effect of climate change already experienced and sensibly forecast to worsen as greenhouse gas emissions continue to climb and considering the long period of time that CO2 persists in the atmosphere, maybe one should be extra careful to point out that one’s critiques of how science is sometimes being applied to climate change is VERY MUCH NOT dismissing climate change. Unfortunately, there’s not one line to this effect in Pielke’s post.

Keep in mind that Pielke’s Substack carries over a quarter-million subscribers, and as Peter Parker says, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

There’s anger, vindictiveness, and (fortunately) some humor in Pielke’s post, but the danger of “climate thought police” is definitely a First-World Problem, and a second-order one at that.

By the way, I’m sure that when it comes to climate change, the American Enterprise Institute has been a Negative Nancy about climate change far longer than the other side’s “climate thought police,” but there you go. What’s that expression? “You lay down with the dogs, you rise with the fleas.”?

Let’s keep scratching away at building the clean energy transition and lowering greenhouse gas emissions. We’ll all have time for our favorite hobby horses later.

The post Let’s Not Worry So Much About “Climate Thought Police” first appeared on David Guenette.

The headlines are full of Bill Gates touting some version of “Bill Gates Doesn’t Think Climate Change is Important.”

It is hysterical. The general reaction mainly proves that too many reporters either can’t read or are too busy writing to read.

In his recent “Three tough truths about climate,” published on October 28, 2025, and sub-titled “What I want everyone at COP 30 to know,” Uncle Bill sternly reproaches the world. This sermon appeared in GatesNotes. I guess he has an in there.

I suspect that Bill Gates, with all his money, probably doesn’t worry about what he pays for services. But with the publication of “Three tough truths about climate: What I want everyone at COP30 to know,” he should ask for his money back. At minimum, I’d suggest a title change. Maybe something along the lines of, “Like, Duh.”

Most news articles and opinion pieces about Gates’ recent pronouncements have rankled me. Me being rankled is no big thing, but there may be an important point being raised beyond simply how to annoy me. Of course, one sure-fire way is to state that Gates has declared that the climate change thingy is over, which is definitely not what he is saying. What he is saying is that the challenge of climate change is very important, but we might want to reframe this within the context of other pressing needs like severe poverty and threats to human health.

Like, duh.

Unfortunately, he’s missed a few studs in his reframing.

Climate Change Work is Poverty and Health Work

Of course, climate change has always contained human health and poverty issues within itself, and Gates’ pronouncements are oddly timed considering that renewables have emerged as the least expensive, faster, and most easily deployed widescale energy generation. Faster, cheaper, and wider isn’t the only strong argument, though. With renewables “build-once, generate always” systems don’t require constant re-fueling and the infrastructure for constant re-fueling demands. Renewables is the prime “give once, bless forever” counter to poverty. If you can get to a location by the sort of trucking that general contractors typical own or rent, with construction equipment general contractors use regularly, solar and batteries systems can be installed, and I’m talking anywhere there’s a road, but there’s dirigibles too, and boats and helicopters. Bringing power to people oppressed by poverty and illness has become a realistic option and a world-wide option at that.

I’m sure Bill Gates understands the connection between energy access and productivity and health, so doubling down on the spread of renewables seems like a large part of the answer to the other needs he’s identified. I’m not saying that there are no other mechanisms to address poverty and health across the world. I’m saying that getting energy into those areas that lack widely and equitably available energy—yes, a still shockingly high number—is a foundational element toward Uncle Bill’s non-climate change solutions. Sending in the gas tankers sure ain’t the solution, not unless the problem you are trying to solve is how to keep petrostates in power.

Of course, there are direct connections between renewable energy, climate change, and today’s and tomorrow’s climate threats that make poverty and illness that much more likely. Sure, wealthy countries have the means to more effectively adapt to the consequences of global warming, but for developing countries effective adaptation is weaker, and by far. The reason to keep climate change the priority is that it is a preventative, just like the variety of Gates’ global health initiatives: we can work toward a climate that kills and sickens fewer people in vulnerable parts of the world if we keep the rise in average global temperature more in check.

The fact is that climate change is a problem set of a different order than humans have faced, despite Uncle Bill’s efforts to reduce climate anxiety. If we don’t draw down greenhouse gas emissions, mankind is f—ed in a way our species hasn’t previously been f—ed, and by all current markers—including the fossil fuel industry’s in-place plans for long-term LNG expansion and their other well-funded wish list—we’ve already slipped beyond 1.5 C. Uncle Bill may be right when he points out that 2-point-something C sometime by 2100 is well within adaptation means for those from wealthy countries. He may call for that wealth to be shared equitably and therefore expand our capacity to adequately adapt to climate change more widely. But there is the very real danger that GHG is a runaway train, considering our slow pace to date in reducing these emissions and in the effort to quickly and widely transition to clean energy. We are already threatening planetary boundaries. There are tipping points that demand serious concern. The human world is under threat.

Yeah, not extinction level threats for us monkey boys, sure, but the potential for cataclysmic collapse of our vulnerably complex societies, that is already too real, and if not by 2100 but instead more likely later is not a comfort, no matter how many fusion reactors eventually get built. We don’t need magic solutions sometime in the future. We have the material understanding today to reverse GHG emissions and this understanding has become common knowledge. Just like the proverbial instruction for escaping from a hole in the ground, which is to first stop digging, we have to stop dumping GHG into our air. We already have the capacity to transition from fossil fuels for much of our energy needs, and the economic promise therein can be widely and fairly distributed.

Oh, Bill

It’s ironic that Gates’ arguments for focusing on alleviating human suffering rather than on the energy transition should arrive at the point of pushing nuclear and fusion down the road. It makes you suspect that he’s got some interest in data enters and AI.

He (or whoever was hired) writes:

In short, climate change, disease, and poverty are all major problems. We should deal with them in proportion to the suffering they cause. And we should use data to maximize the impact of every action we take.

To the first sentence above I reply, “So stipulated.” Yes, climate change, disease, and poverty are all major problems.

To the second sentence above I reply, Wow! How does one exactly determine the “in proportion to the suffering” clause? Is this at any given moment, or can we consider the effects of actions today to suffering in the years ahead? If the politically minded take up the misinterpreted meaning of this recent Gates missive and deemphasize climate change, won’t suffering in the future climb as we miss 1.5 C and race to 2.0 C, or 3.0 C, or higher. Can’t we confidently conclude that the proportion of suffering due to climate change is the greatest?

What is telling is Gates’ confidence that the the average global temperature isn’t going to go up that much, which makes me wonder if he has others read the news for him and they haven’t recently provided updates. Or maybe he doesn’t want to offend the King of the Green New Scam bent. That seems to be one of those little peccadillos billionaires have been displaying, playing nice with President Big Oil Stooge and his happy mission to keep fossil fuels going well past their natural use-by date.

To the third and last sentence of the quote above, this seems like a suggestion we move toward singularity, if indeed singularity brings us omniscience, and, well, don’t you know, he’s got interests in AI. I’ll have to check my data on this just-typed sentence and see if I’ve maximized the impact of derision.

Bill Gates has spent a lot of money trying to make things better, that is indisputable, although I’d suggest that the existence of billionaires reflects a serious pathology in our society is also indisputable, but that’s another rant. For the purpose of today’s complaint about Gates’s recent edict, I‘ll suggest the overall piece is kinda inhuman and gives nerds a bad name.

We finally have reached the point of technological development for clean energy to be clearly economically competitive, but we should slow down? How the hell does that reduce suffering?

To Relieve Human Suffering, First Take the Patient’s Temperature

Early on he writes:

This is a chance to refocus on the metric that should count even more than emissions and temperature change: improving lives. Our chief goal should be to prevent suffering, particularly for those in the toughest conditions who live in the world’s poorest countries.

Although climate change will hurt poor people more than anyone else, for the vast majority of them it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare. The biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been. Understanding this will let us focus our limited resources on interventions that will have the greatest impact for the most vulnerable people.

How is not raising the energy wealth for all not a solid prescription for reducing problems of poverty and disease? As for climate change not being the only or even the biggest threat to lives and welfare, what timescale should we consider? He’ll be dead by 2100, I’ll be dead by 2100. But slow work on addressing GHG emissions today makes 2100 pretty darn expensive, and unhealthy, and the cure is today for any hope of a better tomorrow. I’m pretty sure this is a physics-thingy.

He follows the quotes above with some proactive defense (“I know that some climate advocates will disagree with me…”), but his overall point is hardly radical, nor is it in any way “anti-climate.” However, the overall result, judging by how this jeremiad has been taken, is “anti-climate.”

He doesn’t make this any better with his Truth #1, which is, “Climate change is a serious problem, but it will not be the end of civilization.”

Let’s define terms, please, since “end of civilization” is mighty broad. After all, humans aren’t likely to go extinct from climate change, as miserable many will be, and as dead many may be, because of climate change. And humans, short of extinction, will collect together and form civilizations. But Gates doesn’t spend much time looking at how civilization is defined. Here’s a general definition from a jewel of our current civilization, Wikipedia:

A civilization is any complex society characterized by the development of the state, social stratification, urbanization, and symbolic systems of communication beyond signed or spoken languages (namely, writing systems).

A more realistic definition relevant to our day is “a system with great complexity and fragility that promotes hyper-consumption over sustainability, stressed by population growth and dangerous income disparity.”

Today’s Western society is incredibly intertwined with the rest of the world. This spans food production, energy, trade goods, raw materials… you know the drill. Western society is fragile, with major shocks capable of cascading into disasters, especially of the economic sort. Renewable energy got going back in the Oil Crisis of the 1970s, if you’ll recall. If anything, the supply chains are now more prone to disruptions, so failing to imagine what a series of major shocks might do to our society, that’s just tone-deaf on many levels.

I’m someone who thinks that a lot of climate fiction looks at apocalypse, collapse, and dystopia, and I think that’s too bad (hey, unless written snappily, I guess), and fighting over a can of beans in a desert wasteland or clinging to a floating fragment in a drowned world, well, that’s all she wrote, Katy bar the door. I think it is more useful to write climate fiction that looks at where we are and where we can be, and that makes the more interesting story, too. Nonetheless, there are better and worse scenarios regarding climate change and even the relatively good ones aren’t great and the worst ones are that much more terrifying. In terms of a complex society and all its various fragilities, ineffective and slow effort to address climate change is more than able to bring about a mightily high jump in mankind’s suffering.

Gates’ Truth #2 is that “Temperature is not the best way to measure our progress on climate.” Yeah? So? Omniscience would be nice, but Truth #2 could have said, “Human and environmental outcomes are the best way to measure our progress on climate.” He goes on to say that quality of life is the better measure and even cites U.N. tools for making such assessments, but quality of life is an obvious metric. It isn’t that man’s greatest goal is to continuously read thermostats. The whole thing about fighting climate change is to improve the quality of life, like, literally. Um, so, again, so stipulated, but again, so what.

One of the most chilling pieces in Gates’ piece is his casual projection of 3.0 C by 2100. Oh, sorry, he said 2.9 C, so I guess that future world will be okay. A bit hot under the collar maybe, but…what? Is he kidding?

With Great Wealth Comes Great Energy

Bill Gates didn’t really get great value from the authors of this piece.

He makes a valid observation when he says, “From the standpoint of improving lives, using more energy is a good thing, because it’s so closely correlated with economic growth. This chart shows countries’ energy use and their income. More energy use is a key part of prosperity.”

I’m with ya, Bill!

Oh, wait. He then says, “Unfortunately, in this case, what’s good for prosperity is bad for the environment. Although wind and solar have gotten cheaper and better, we don’t yet have all the tools we need to meet the growing demand for energy without increasing carbon emissions.”

It’s disappointing to see that Bill Gates hasn’t been paying attention.

It would have been nice to say something like, “If the wealthy nations of the world build out their own economies to support renewable energy, and then share that with the poor countries, we’ll all have more energy and all be more wealthy and all without increasing carbon emissions. But he didn’t say that.

In fact, there’s far too little talk about shaping the world’s economies around renewable energy buildout and the positive consequences for improving international relations even while expanding geopolitical advantage. The cost savings from reducing war would be a boon in and off itself. Foreign aid—including renewable energy buildout in poor countries—would increase the overall wealth of the world, and thus decrease the spending on foreign aid. All of this has onlypositive upsides, unless, of course, you are wedded to the concept of zero-sum gaming. You know who loves zero-sum gaming? Really rich people. Power comes not from the actual sums of wealth but from the relative differential between the rich and the poor.

Uncle Bill is confusing. He goes on to claim a talking point of climate action:

But we will have the tools we need if we focus on innovation. With the right investments and policies in place, over the next ten years we will have new affordable zero-carbon technologies ready to roll out at scale. Add in the impact of the tools we already have, and by the middle of this century emissions will be lower and the gap between poor countries and rich countries will be greatly reduced.

Isn’t he aware that the renewable energy transition has what it needs, but the effect of cumulative emissions is already set in place. He argues energy innovations have already curbed emissions and the guy is right, but unfortunately, we’re still adding emissions, and emission draw down has not yet been enough to compensate for additions of GHG. Even if we’re closing in—which we are—this calls for continuing our focus on climate change, not confusing people about climate change. Hoping for innovations is not the same as implementing existing innovations at sufficient scale and within advantageous timelines. Existing innovations is better than hoped-for innovations, I’m pretty sure.

Build, Baby, Build is the order of the day, and when I say build, I mean renewable energy and electrification and not new gas plants and LNG terminals. Gates’ hope for nuclear remains beyond the timelines we should be scrambling to meet ASAP. If you want to reduce suffering and improve the world’s health, maybe there’s better ways to spend that money today, but unfortunately, this message is not the core message in this recent diatribe by Uncle Bill. I’m as much in favor as the next guy of innovation to decarbonize the hard to decarbonize sectors of the economy (e.g., industrial processes, agriculture, and more), but we have the tools today to replace emissions-generating energy with clean energy, and it is unconscionable to delay and dilly-dally.

Truth #3: This is a Really Bad Position Paper

“Health and prosperity are the best defense against climate change.” That’s Truth #3.

Sure, let’s expand the wealth of all nations, delivering prosperity widely. Sure, if you have a well-insulated building and air conditioning and reliable and affordable electricity to run it, you are more likely to survive climate change’s increasing heatwaves.

Here’s the Uncle Bill nugget of wisdom:

This finding [that people with protection from the consequences of climate change have higher survival rates] is exciting because it suggests a way forward. Since the economic growth that’s projected for poor countries will reduce climate deaths by half, it follows that faster and more expansive growth will reduce deaths by even more. And economic growth is closely tied to public health. So the faster people become prosperous and healthy, the more lives we can save.

Yeah, of course. But how do poor countries get the power and wealth they need to afford such protection? This has been covered above: provide energy cleanly and replace costly dirty energy. Using fossil fuels to provide that energy makes the climate conditions worse. Ergo, use clean energy to save more lives. Huge numbers of people across the globe are energy poor, lacking energy infrastructure, but clean energy can leapfrog more expensive—and dirty!—energy infrastructure.

The Two Priorities

The report, or sermon, or diatribe ends with Gates’ strongly suggested two priorities for COP 30:

1. Drive the green premium to zero;
2. Be vigorous about measuring impact.

Uncle Bill, we know this about green premiums, your term for equalizing the cost for clean energy solutions to non-clean energy solutions. Been there, done that for clean energy already, so the real question is how to drive innovation for the hard to carbonize sectors, and the real answer is to have fossil fuels account for their true cost that includes direct health problems and the consequences of climate change, both very high coasts and both resulting from the pollution inherent in burning shit to boil water.

We also know that there is wealth available to undertake expansive clean energy buildout. Tax billionaires and corporations, and, like a lot, and fairly. Cut the trillion-dollar annual U.S. military budget, and, like a lot, and intelligently. Make carbon emissions pay, whether through a Carbon Fee and Dividend program or some other means, but make sure to address economic hardship by paying in dividends to those in need. Annual revenues for fossil fuels world-wide is somewhere near $5 trillion, so let’s get to the point where we don’t give fossil fuel corporations and petrostates so much money. We have better things to spend on.

Speaking of spending, the whole “measuring impact” point is to direct spending. Here’s the intro paragraph for this priority:

I wish there were enough money to fund every good climate change idea. Unfortunately, there isn’t, and we have to make tradeoffs so we can deliver the most benefit with limited resources. In these circumstances, our choices should be guided by data-based analysis that identifies ways to deliver the highest return for human welfare.

This is weird from a billionaire, frankly, especially one who touts innovation and the promised return on investment. We have plenty of good climate change ideas that have already established economies of scale—yeah, renewable energy and batteries—and as we build more and more, the economies of scale improve even more. I’m not sure how much additional measurements are needed for this good climate change idea to have a full-out green light.

Why, Oh Why?

What is the point of Gates’ piece, Three tough truths about climate?

If I were cynical I’d suggest he is looking to sow doubt about climate change, but I’m not that cynical. Gates has put up a lot of money for climate change work he could have instead used to buy a yacht or to go on a ride into orbit. I’m happy enough to assume he means well, and I know that diseases and vaccines are important priorities of his.

I loved Bill McKibben’s Substack on the Gates report, called “Climate Gates,” published on October 31, 2025, on The Crucial Years. The sub-title of McKibben’s latest is wonderful: “Maybe we don’t need billionaire opinions on everything.”

McKibben starts this way:

I feel quite strongly that we should pay less attention to billionaires—indeed that’s rather the point of this small essay—so let me acknowledge at the outset that there is something odd about me therefore devoting an edition of this newsletter to replying to Bill Gates’ new missive about climate. But I fear I must, if only because it’s been treated as such important news by so many outlets—far more, say, than covered the UN Secretary General’s same-day appeal to international leaders that began with a forthright statement of the science.

Maybe I just should have waited for this issue of The Crucial Years, because Bill M and I seem very much in agreement about the Gates piece. I especially loved this line, “It was wrong of him to write it because if his high-priced PR team didn’t anticipate the reaction, they should be fired.”

Amen, brother.

The Path Forward is Here and it’s a Good Deal

There are economic sectors that are currently resistant to decarbonization, it’s true. One example is concrete, which some estimates suggest contributes 8% of greenhouse gases each year, and this manufacturing process is still waiting for technology to provide useful solutions (there are some likely developments in the pipeline, fortunately). But what hard-to-decarbonize sectors mainly tell us is to take on those other sectors in which we already have economically effective solutions, and these include transportation, electricity production, and building heating and cooling, and these add up to a good chunk of the carbon load.

Cost is often cited as a barrier to clean electrification, but this is a framing issue, not an indisputable block. The big challenge for solar/battery generation buildout is that it is mainly upfront costs, but this is based on the short-term financial considerations that are rife in our economy: next quarter’s stock price or profit. Guess what? The world is not a short-term economic entity. The geological and climatological timelines make a twenty-year span seem like a blink of the eye.

Here’s a longer-term view on natural gas electricity generation and costs:

Over a 20-year period, the estimated total amount spent to buy natural gas for an average-sized (around 400 MW) combined-cycle electricity generation plant can range from approximately $500 million to over $1.5 billion, depending heavily on natural gas prices, the plant’s capacity factor, and its efficiency.

Of course, the totals above are only for the natural gas consumed by the plant. Here’s the cost to build the natural gas plant in the first place:

As of 2025, the estimated cost to build a 440 MW natural gas electricity generation plant generally ranges from approximately $880 million to $1.1 billion for a combined-cycle plant, and potentially less for a simple-cycle combustion turbine plant.

How much money is spent to build a 440 MW solar and battery electricity generation plant in 2025? The low-to-high range comparison between solar/battery and natural gas electricity significantly favors solar/battery:

The estimated cost to build a 440 MW utility-scale solar farm with co-located battery storage in 2025 is approximately $523.6 million to $946 million. This estimate is based on the average capital costs for utility-scale solar and battery energy storage systems (BESS).

Sure, such estimates represented above can vary greatly in the real world and there are plenty of details and conditions to consider. But whatever details one might want to nitpick pales when you add to the comparisons the more or less equal cost for the natural gas you have to buy over the twenty year period, and so the score remains solar/battery 1, natural gas 0. And then there is the issue of total Cost of Operations (COS) that is mostly maintenance and repair, and this also significantly favors solar/battery.

While twenty-year finance planning is different than the short-termism of today’s stock price-obsessed boardrooms, twenty years or thirty or forty is well within the sort of planning we have for retirement and a variety of institutional investing. It’s a wonder that pension plan managers and other long-term investors aren’t wholesale shifting their portfolios to solar/battery given the clear advantages, and that’s not even considering the economic benefits of reducing the consequences of climate change. And, oh, did I forget to mention that clean electricity prices will be lower, too?

Go figure. Maybe it is a matter of pension management fees. Maybe long-term investment is also addicted to making a fast buck. Maybe we are so uncomfortable looking beyond the next month that we’re willing to risk burning down the world to avoid thinking things through.

But don’t look to me to figure this out. I’m not a businessman.

But how come Uncle Bill isn’t pointing this out, hmmm? Long-term investment in clean and cheaper energy for all goes a very long way to alleviating poverty and disease and goes into effect as soon as the solar/battery generation is online. So, Bill, maybe we can be asking that COP 30 make clear to the businessmen of the world that clean energy is a great long-term investment strategy with live-saving benefits.

Green Savings Bonds, anyone?

Maybe we should work on ways to discourage the epidemic of short-termism that’s killing our world.

Maybe that’s Truth #1.

The post The Headlines are Full of Bill Gates’ Latest Wisdom—It’s Hysterical! first appeared on David Guenette.