
The renewable energy revolution is a feat of technology
At the turn of the century, sun and wind in the form of solar panels and wind turbines were expensive, primitive, utterly inadequate solutions to power our machines at scale, which is why early climate activism focused a lot on minimizing consumption on the assumption we had no real alternative to burning fossil fuels, but maybe we could burn less. This era did all too well in convincing people that if we did what the climate needs of us, we would be entering an era of austerity and renunciation, and it helped power the fossil fuel industry's weaponization of climate footprints to make people think personal virtue in whittling down our consumption was the key thing.
There's nothing wrong with being modest in your consumption, but the key thing to saving the planet is whittling down the fossil fuel industry and use of fossil fuels to almost nothing by making the energy transition to renewables and an electrified world. And that's a transformation that has to be collective and not just individual.
Other stuff is great – changing our diets, especially to reduce beef consumption and food waste, protecting natural systems that sequester carbon, better urban design and better public transit, getting rid of fast fashion, excessive use of plastic, and other wasteful climate-harming forms of consumption – all matter. But the majority of climate change comes from burning fossil fuels, and we know exactly how to transition away from that and the transition is underway – not nearly fast enough, not nearly supported enough by most governments around the world, actively undermined by the Trump administration and many fossil fuel corporations and states.
But still, it is underway. And, arguably, unstoppable. Because it's just a better way to do everything. One thing that's been striking in recent years, and maybe visible in recent years because there is now an alternative, is the admission that fossil fuel is a wasteful and poisonous way to produce energy. That's the case whether it's to move a vehicle or cook a dinner.
Oil, coal, and gas are distributed unevenly around the world and just moving the fuel to the sites where it will be used is hugely energy inefficient. About 40% of global shipping is just moving fossil fuel around, and more fuel is moved on trains and trucks. But also, fossil fuel is extracted, shipped, refined for one purpose: to be burned, and in the future coming fast, burning is going to look like a primitive way to operate machines.
As the Rocky Mountain Institute explains it: 'Today, most energy is wasted along the way. Out of the 606 EJ [exajoules] of primary energy that entered the global energy system in 2019, some 33% (196 EJ) was lost on the supply side due to energy production and transportation losses before it ever reached a consumer. Another 30% (183 EJ) was lost on the demand side turning final energy into useful energy. That means that of the 606 EJ we put into our energy system per annum, only 227 EJ ended up providing useful energy, like heating a home or moving a truck. That is only 37% efficient overall.' That's the old system, and it's dirty, toxic to human health and the environment – and our politics – as well as the main driver of climate chaos. And wasteful.
The new system, on the other hand, is far cleaner, and the fact that sun and wind are so widely available means that the corrosive politics of producer nations and their manipulations of dependent consumer nations could become a thing of the past. I know someone is about to pipe up with an objection about battery materials and there are two answers to that. One is that the race is on, with promising results, to produce batteries with more commonly available and widely distributed materials.
The other is that batteries are not like fossil fuel, which you incessantly burn up and have to replace; they are largely recyclable, and once the necessary material is gathered, it can be reused and extraction can wind down. But also the scale of materials needed for renewables is dwarfed by the materials to keep the fires burning in the fossil fuel economy (and the people who complain about extraction sometimes seem to forget about the monumental scale of fossil fuel extraction and all the forms of damage it generates, from Alberta to Nigeria to the Amazon).
And renewables are now adequate to meet almost all our needs, as experts like Australia's Saul Griffiths and California's Mark Z Jacobson have mapped out. Simply because it's cheaper, better and ultimately more reliable, the transition is inevitable – but if we do it fast, we stabilize the climate and limit the destruction, and if we don't, we don't. Almost no one has summed up how huge the shifts are since the year 2000, but the Rocky Mountain Institute has done that for the last decade, during which, they tell us, 'clean-tech costs have fallen by up to 80%, while investment is up nearly tenfold and solar generation has risen twelvefold. Electricity has become the largest source of useful energy, and the deep force of efficiency has reduced energy demand by a fifth.' Estimates for the future price of solar have almost always been overestimates; estimates for the implementation of solar have been underestimates.
Another hangover from early in the millennium is the idea that renewables are expensive. They were. They're not anymore. There are costs involved in building new systems, of course, but solar power is now the cheapest way to produce electricity in most of the world, and there's no sign that the plummet in costs is stopping. As Hannah Ritchie at Our World in Data said in 2021 of renewable energy, 'In 2009, it was more than three times as expensive as coal. Now the script has flipped, and a new solar plant is almost three times cheaper than a new coal one. The price of electricity from solar declined by 89% between 2009 and 2019.'
But even cheap is a misnomer: wind and sun are free and inexhaustible; you just need devices to collect the energy and transform it into electricity (and transmission lines to distribute it). Free energy! We need to get people to recognize that is what's on offer, along with energy independence – the real version, whereby if we do it right, we could build cooperatives, local (and hyperlocal or just autonomous individual) energy systems, thereby undermining predatory for-profit utilities companies as well as the fossil fuel industry. Renewable energy could be energy justice and energy democracy, as well as clean energy.
An energy revolution is underway in this century, though it's unfolded in ways slow enough and technical enough for most people not to notice (and I assume it's nowhere near finished). It is astonishing – a powerful solution to the climate crisis and the depredations of the fossil fuel industry and for-profit utilities. Making it more visible would make more people more enthused about it as a solution, a promise, a possibility we can, should, must pursue swiftly and wholeheartedly.
Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist. She is the author of No Straight Road Takes You There and Orwell's Roses
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Red state homeowners are rushing to make major home improvement to cut bills and bag 30 percent tax credit
In the wake of Donald Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill', Florida homeowners are clamoring to add solar panels to their homes before it's too late. Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law on July 4. Amongst restrictions to Medicaid and tightening on immigration, it also moved up the deadline for homeowners wishing to receive a tax credit for their solar panels. Now, homeowners who want to conserve energy and earn a 30 percent tax credit must have their solar panels installed by the end of the year. US Representative Kathy Castor told Floridians at a press conference this week: 'Our message today is if you are interested in lower–cost solar for your home or for your business, for your church, synagogue or mosque — you have to act now.' And act they have, but the rush is overwhelming local solar panel companies and creating a dismal future for the industry in Florida as a whole. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, the appropriately named Sunshine State ranked third in the solar industry. Over 20,000 solar panel systems have been installed, employing 14,000 Floridians. The often sweltering heat and sunny conditions makes low–coast solar a good way to decrease electric bills and promote environmentally-friendly living. President Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill was signed into law on July 4 Among other things, the act moved up the deadline for Americans to receive a 30 percent tax credit for installing solar panels on their homes Solar companies in Florida are now scrambling to meet the demands of citizens who wish to make changes to their home before the new December 31 deadline Florida House Representative Kathy Castor (pictured) ridiculed the decision in a press conference and encouraged residents to act fast Bill Johnson, who runs Brilliant Harvest in Sarasota, Florida told the Tampa Bay Times: 'Within 48 hours of the bill being signed, we had enough contracts to complete the year.' It could take weeks for companies like Johnson's to obtain the proper permits and contracts to even begin installing solar panels. So to get that tax credit homeowners must start immediately. Steve Rutherford, the CEO of Tampa Bay Solar said he can't train enough installers to fulfill every request by the December 31 deadline. But after that deadline has come and gone, solar industry professionals worry what a drastic decline in demand will do to their business. Without the government incentive to install green energy, Tampa businesses could see job losses. Rutherford said that these realizations are 'a bit of a funeral in the industry'. Johnson was a little more optimistic and noted that he'd already had clients create contracts for next year, despite losing out on the tax credit. 'This is a body blow,' he said. Bill Johnson (pictured), who runs Brilliant Harvest, said 'Within 48 hours of the bill being signed, we had enough contracts to complete the year' It can take weeks to obtain the proper permits and contracts for solar panel installation Steve Rutherford (pictured), the CEO of Tampa Bay Solar called the change 'a bit of a funeral in the industry' With or without a tax credit, Americans may save hundreds of dollars a year after installing solar energy. File photo above Officials worried that losing federal support for solar programs could cause electric bills everywhere to rise, especially amidst the heat waves Tampa had seen this summer. 'As TECO, Duke and FP&L ask for higher rate increases and your electric bills go up, part of the reason is because of the big ugly bill, and taking away the tax credits you were enjoying for cleaner, cheaper energy,' said Castor. According to the United States Department of Energy, solar panels may still be a good thing for your wallet with or without a 30 percent tax cut. Installation can increase the value of a home by an average of $15,000. Depending on a home's location, sunlight exposure, and climate, owners could still save hundreds of dollars a year, per the US Department of Energy.


Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
RICHARD TICE: Why ditching Miliband's Net Zero madness could save every family £1,000 a year
Labour is facing a make-or-break moment when it comes to its new cult, Net Stupid Zero. This week, Ed Miliband opens his latest renewable energy auction, which allows green developers to bid for lucrative taxpayer-funded contracts. The eco lobby says the auction, officially titled Allocation Round 7 (AR7), will be the centrepiece of Labour's plan to decarbonise the grid by 2030, and that this seventh round must be the biggest yet to 'keep the dream alive'. But it's a dream Britain cannot afford. Inflation is rising. Food prices are once again on the up. And families across the country are cutting back – not just on holidays or takeaways, but on essentials. According to research consultancy More In Common, 60 per cent of Britons list the cost of living as their top concern – and have done so consistently since January last year. And one of the biggest contributory factors to this crisis is an issue that almost no one in Westminster wants to talk about: Net Zero and the spiralling cost of Britain's green energy agenda. Expensive energy is the grenade exploding Britain's economic model. It is not just about switching on the lights and heating homes. It powers industry, transports goods, and underpins every job and price tag. When energy becomes expensive and unreliable, everything else does too. When you hear ministers blaming this crisis on Russian president Vladimir Putin and international fossil fuel markets, remember this: UK energy prices were already among the highest in the developed world before Russia invaded Ukraine. This emergency didn't start in Moscow. It was manufactured in Westminster. We blew up coal plants, messed up nuclear, banned fracking, deterred North Sea investment (which drove up gas imports) and prioritised unreliable green energy. From the other side of the Atlantic, even Donald Trump can see that, writing on his social media site Truth Social: 'North Sea Oil is a treasure chest for the United Kingdom. The taxes are so high, however, that it makes no sense... Incentivise the drillers, fast.' He rightly added that wind is 'the worst form of energy' and a con. When it comes to energy, Westminster has been Putin's most useful idiot. If the US is waking up to that fact, when will Labour? For nearly two decades, clueless politicians from Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have clung to a fantasy: that we could eliminate all hydrocarbon use, build a national grid dominated by wind and solar power, and suffer no consequences. The result? At a time of rising demand we are reliant on an unreliable energy supply and lumbered with higher bills. Three-quarters of the rise in electricity bills over the past decade can be attributed to green energy policies and the multi-billion-pound subsidies paid to renewable investors, according to Net Zero Watch. Yet hundreds of thousands of jobs are being destroyed by high energy prices, while millions more are at risk. Now suppliers are warning that prices will rise again in 2026. Professor Gordon Hughes, a former energy adviser at the World Bank, has warned they could approach 40p per kilowatt hour by 2030 – up from 25p today, which is a catastrophic increase. That's why I took action. Last month, I wrote to major windfarm developers, warning them and their investors to stay away from the AR7 auction. I made it clear that if they press ahead, a Reform government will make them regret it. As Nigel Farage said a few weeks ago about the renegotiation of green subsidy contracts, investors will see 'some haircuts'. Naturally, activists, consultants and subsidy-hunters – the 'Green Blob' – erupted in outrage. But, if these windfarms go ahead, it will be an act of grave economic self-harm. By putting a spanner in the works of Miliband's mad plan, we can stop the 20-year rise in bills. By 2030, my letter alone might be saving households £1,000 a year. But this isn't just about price. It's about security. Much of our ageing fleet of gas-fired power stations is nearing retirement. Thanks to subsidised renewables, few developers are willing to invest in replacements. Why build a power station that often won't run to full capacity, especially when Miliband's plan would make the existing situation even worse? Meanwhile, demand for new gas-fired electricity generating units is exploding globally as countries race to power the AI boom. Lead times of gas infrastructure projects are now as long as eight years. Even if we ordered replacements today, they wouldn't arrive until 2033. That's years after the capacity crunch is expected to bite. If we don't act fast, we'll be forced to ration power. Renewables may also be making the grid dangerously unstable. That's not just an economic risk, it's a public safety threat. Look at Spain and Portugal, where a blackout triggered by solar farm switch-offs killed at least eight people in June. Iberian grid operators restored power in a day, but our system is just as vulnerable. No one knows if the 'smart' gizmos grid managers hope will stabilise the system will actually work when it is under stress. Clearly, they need only fail once – and the whole country goes dark. Worse still, under political pressure, resources have been poured into connecting new renewables to the grid, rather than maintaining what we already have. As a result, our electricity grid infrastructure is crumbling. Ageing transformers are already catching fire, most famously the one that routed power to Heathrow Airport, which went up in flames in March causing the airport to close for 16 hours and 1,000 flights to be cancelled. With demand for replacements sky-high in Europe, those problems will not be fixed any time soon. This is not a functioning energy system. It's a slow-motion car crash. But Mad Miliband is determined to step on the accelerator. Labour cannot say they weren't warned. Just after the election, a YouGov poll found more than half of voters expected Labour to deliver real progress on the cost of living within two years. Twelve months in, and with Reform leading in the polls, we will be there every step of the way holding them to account. We must end the decline, not manage it. As an immediate first step that means trying to minimise the damage of AR7. It means cancelling the folly that is Net Stupid Zero. And it means restoring energy policies that prioritise affordability, reliability, and national security. This isn't just an economic battle. It's a democratic reckoning. The public, rightly, cares about the environment. But they never voted to be poorer, or to be saddled with unsustainable costs like green levies and hidden network charges that flow from Westminster's Net Zero agenda. That's why I won't apologise for going to war with the root causes of this crisis: green energy subsidies and their vested interests. The British people deserve leaders who will fight, not flinch, when livelihoods, families and the national interest are on the line. Let the battle begin.


The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Countries under pressure to finalise UN plastic pollution treaty as talks resume
Negotiators looking to secure the world's first treaty to combat plastic pollution are under pressure to secure an ambitious deal this week after previous talks ended without consensus. Countries will gather in Geneva, Switzerland, on Tuesday for another attempt to reach a legally binding international agreement on plastics. The 10-day conference has been organised after negotiators failed to adopt a treaty in November during what was meant to be the final round of talks in South Korea. Since negotiations began in 2022, countries have struggled to resolve some key issues, resulting in a deadlock that has stalled global efforts to tackle the pollution crisis. Going into Geneva, the rift between countries persists, with some continuing to push for a less ambitious deal that solely focuses on reducing plastic waste while others want a treaty that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics, including limiting production. The UK has been part of a 'high ambition coalition' of countries which are calling for binding obligations on reducing production and consumption, sustainable product design, environmentally sound management of plastic waste and clean-up of pollution. Environment minister Emma Hardy, who will be attending the conference, said: 'Millions of tonnes of plastic flow into our ocean, rivers and lakes each year, washing up on our beaches and littering the seabed; threatening precious habitats and wildlife. 'We urgently need a bold and ambitious global agreement that will end plastic pollution by 2040. 'The UK is continuing to play a leading role in pushing for an effective treaty that ensures the sustainable consumption and production of plastics, tackles problematic plastic products, and paves the way to a circular economy.' The high ambition coalition includes more than 60 members, such as Canada, France, Germany, Chile, New Zealand and Rwanda. But Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Kazakhstan have questioned the most ambitious proposals for limiting production, arguing they are incompatible with the treaty's core agenda and could interfere with global trade. Environmental campaigners have said that progress on tackling pollution has been mired by both obstructions from petrostates as well as lobbying by plastics and petrochemical companies. Christina Dixon, ocean campaign leader for the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), said: 'This is the make-or-break moment to determine whether countries are capable of coming together, overcoming the pressure to compromise on a weak agreement and stand firm on the level of ambition required. 'The biggest obstacles remain the fact that a small group of countries either don't want a treaty or don't want one that meaningfully addresses the problem of plastic pollution.' Rudy Schulkind, political campaigner with Greenpeace UK, called the treaty 'our best opportunity to turn off the tap on unnecessary plastic production'. 'Allowing fossil fuels lobbyists and their dirty tactics anywhere near the treaty negotiations is a recipe for disaster – their sole aim is to derail and sabotage the talks on behalf of their profit hungry paymasters,' he said. 'UN member states must stand firm for a strong Global Plastics Treaty.' Elsewhere, nearly 300 businesses, financial institutions and campaign groups, including Coca-Cola, Mars, Nestle, PepsiCo, SC Johnson, Unilever and Walmart signed an open letter to lead negotiators in June, calling for a robust plastic pollution treaty that includes strong obligations in phase-out, product design and a level playing field for international regulation. According to Our World in Data, plastic production has increased sharply over the last 70 years and has more than doubled in the last two decades. The world has gone from producing two million tonnes in 1950 to more than 450 million tonnes today, with its use for daily items such as home appliances and food packaging soaring. But just 9% of the world's plastic waste is recycled, while 43% is landfilled, 19% is burned and 22% is mismanaged – with the risk it ends up in the countryside, rivers, lakes and oceans, figures from the OECD show. Once in the environment, plastic waste can entangle, choke or be eaten by wildlife and livestock, clog up waterways and litter beaches, while bigger items break down into microplastics entering food chains. And producing plastic, primarily from fossil fuel oil, has a climate impact, with the World in Data and OECD saying 3.3% of global emissions is down to the production and management of global plastics.