
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, and 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
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Donald Trump tells Chuck Schumer to 'go to hell' as tensions escalate in senate nominee deal funding
President Donald Trump detonated a high-stakes Senate negotiation with an outburst on social media on Saturday night telling Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to 'GO TO HELL' and abruptly ending talks over dozens of pending nominee confirmations. The president's Truth Social tirade came just hours before lawmakers were expected to strike a deal and depart for their month-long recess. Instead, the Senate adjourned in chaos after voting on only seven of the more than 60 nominees in limbo. 'Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!' Trump wrote. 'Do not accept the offer, go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing, and have done, for our Country. Have a great RECESS and, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!' The outburst from the president came just as Senate leaders thought they were closing in on a long-sought agreement to confirm the nominees before the August break. Instead, the Senate rapidly voted through just seven names before adjourning until September. One nominee did break through the gridlock however, Jeanine Pirro, the former Fox News personality and New York judge, was confirmed 50-45 as the US Attorney for the District of Columbia. The president's Truth Social tirade came just hours before lawmakers were expected to strike a deal and depart for their monthlong recess The high-profile appointment that drew fierce opposition from Democrats. Pirro has been serving in the role in an acting capacity since May but her appointment drew sharp criticism from House Democrats, who warned she would be a 'partisan tool' for the White House. 'Over the past decade, Ms. Pirro has consistently demonstrated that her loyalty lies with Donald Trump the person, not with the Constitution or the rule of law,' Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) wrote in a letter to Senate leadership. Trump accused Schumer of demanding 'over One Billion Dollars' in return for advancing a limited slate of bipartisan nominees - a claim Schumer did not directly address but which derailed the fragile progress. The now-collapsed deal had been the product of marathon talks between Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), Schumer, and the White House. Both parties hoped to finalize a package that would greenlight Trump's nominees in exchange for Democrats' demands on National Institutes of Health (NIH) and foreign aid funding. The Senate held a rare weekend session as the two parties tried to work out the final details of a deal. But it was clear that there would be no agreement when Trump launched his attack on Schumer and told Republicans to pack it up and go home. Lawmakers had been expected to strike a deal before departing for their monthlong recess but the negotiations fell apart after Trump's online outburst Trump's Truth Social post blindsided negotiators and threw the entire Senate into disarray. 'This demand is egregious and unprecedented,' Trump wrote. 'It is political extortion, by any other name.' Schumer, speaking on the Senate floor hours later while flanked by a poster-sized copy of Trump's post, declared the negotiations dead and blamed the president directly. 'He took his ball, he went home, leaving Democrats and Republicans alike wondering what the hell happened,' Schumer said. 'Trump's all-caps tweet said it all. In a fit of rage, Trump threw in the towel.' Although Republicans and Democrats traded blame all weekend, there had been broad consensus that a deal was within reach. 'There were several different times where I think either or both sides maybe thought there was a deal,' said Thune. 'But in the end, we never got to a place where we had both sides agree to lock it in.' Democrats insisted their offer never changed, while Republicans claimed Schumer kept escalating his demands, especially by tying nominee confirmations to reversals of Trump's proposed spending claw backs. 'We've had three different deals since last night,' said Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK). 'And every time it's been, every time it's 'I want more.' According to Mullin, Trump's dramatic post didn't catch the GOP off guard - the White House had been heavily involved in the negotiations from the start. 'They want to go out and say the President's being unrealistic,' Mullin said. 'But this was never about making a deal.' With the Senate now gone until September, Republican leaders are already threatening to change Senate rules to break the logjam when they return. 'I think they're desperately in need of change,' Thune said of Senate rules following the breakdown of negotiations. 'I think that the last six months have demonstrated that this process, nominations is broken. And so I expect there will be some good robust conversations about that.' Schumer responded sharply, warning that Republicans will need Democratic votes to fund the government this fall and that any unilateral rule changes would be a 'huge mistake'. 'Donald Trump tried to bully us, go around us, threaten us, call us names, but he got nothing,' Schumer said. It's the first time in recent history that the minority party hasn't allowed at least some quick confirmations. Thune has already kept the Senate in session for more days, and with longer hours, this year to try and confirm as many of Trump's nominees as possible. This latest standoff is only the most recent escalation in the decades-long battle over judicial and executive branch confirmations. But Democrats had little desire to give in without the spending cut reversals or some other incentive, even though they too were eager to skip town after several long months of work and bitter partisan fights over legislation. Since 2013, both parties have changed Senate rules to erode the 60-vote threshold for nominees. In 2013, Democrats changed Senate rules for lower court judicial nominees to remove the 60-vote threshold for confirmations as Republicans blocked President Barack Obama's judicial picks. In 2017, Republicans did the same for Supreme Court nominees as Democrats tried to block Trump's nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch. With Republicans unable to secure unanimous consent for Trump's nominees, each confirmation vote has required full roll calls, a grueling process that can take hours or days for each nominee. 'We have never seen nominees as flawed, as compromised, as unqualified as we have right now,' Schumer said. Trump has been demanding for weeks that Republicans cancel recess and grind through the nominations, but his fury seems to have undone whatever deal was on the table. Democrats say they remain open to resuming talks in September.


The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Republicans slam Trump's firing of Bureau of Labor Statistics chief
Senior Republican lawmakers are condemning the decision of their party leader, Donald Trump, to fire the leading US labor market statistician after a report that showed the national economy added just 73,000 jobs – far fewer than expected – in July. The disappointing figures – coupled with a downward revision of the two previous months amounting to 258,000 fewer jobs and data showing that economic output and consumer spending slowed in the first half of the year – point to an overall economic deterioration in the US. Trump defended his decision to fire US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) commissioner Erika McEntarfer. Without evidence to back his claims, the president wrote on social media that were numbers were 'RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad' and the US economy was, in fact, 'BOOMING' on his watch. But the firing of McEntarfer, who had been confirmed to her role in January 2024 during Joe Biden's presidency, has alarmed members of Trump's own party. 'If the president is firing the statistician because he doesn't like the numbers but they are accurate, then that's a problem,' said Wyoming Republican senator Cynthia Lummis. 'It's not the statistician's fault if the numbers are accurate and that they're not what the president had hoped for.' Lummis added that if the numbers are unreliable, the public should be told – but firing McEntarfer was 'kind of impetuous'. North Carolina senator Thom Tillis, a Republican, said: 'If she was just fired because the president or whoever decided to fire the director just … because they didn't like the numbers, they ought to grow up.' Kentucky senator Rand Paul, another Republican, questioned whether McEntarfer's firing was an effective way of improving the numbers. 'We have to look somewhere for objective statistics,' he said. 'When the people providing the statistics are fired, it makes it much harder to make judgments that you know, the statistics won't be politicized.' According to NBC News, Paul said his 'first impression' was that 'you can't really make the numbers different or better by firing the people doing the counting'. Tillis and Paul were both opponents of Trump's recent economic legislative package, which the president dubbed the 'big, beautiful bill'. But Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican who supported the legislation after winning substantial economic support for her state, remarked that the jobs numbers could not be trusted – and 'that's the problem'. 'And when you fire people, then it makes people trust them even less,' she said. William Beach, a former BLS commissioner appointed by Trump in his first presidency, posted on X that McEntarfer's firing was 'totally groundless'. He added that the dismissal set a dangerous precedent and undermined the BLS's statistical mission. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Beach also co-signed a letter by 'the Friends of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' that went further, accusing Trump of seeking to blame someone for bad news and calling the rationale for McEntarfer's firing 'without merit'. The letter asserted that the dismissal 'undermines the credibility of federal economic statistics that are a cornerstone of intelligent economic decision-making by businesses, families and policymakers'. The letter pointed out that the jobs tabulation process 'is decentralized by design to avoid opportunities for interference', adding that US official statistics 'are the gold standard globally'. 'When leaders of other nations have politicized economic data, it has destroyed public trust in all official statistics and in government science,' the letter said. Democrats have also hit out at Trump's decision. Vermont senator Bernie Sanders described it as 'the sign of an authoritarian type', and he said the decision would make it harder for the American people 'to believe the information that comes out of the government'. Paul Schroeder, executive director of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, described the president's allegation against McEntarfer as 'very damaging and outrageous'. He said: 'Not only does it undermine the integrity of federal economic statistics, but it also politicizes data which need to remain independent and trustworthy. This action is a grave error by the administration and one that will have ramifications for years to come.'


Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Victory for attorneys who waved guns at BLM protesters as they are rewarded after five-year battle
The St. Louis couple who drew national attention in 2020 for pointing firearms at Black Lives Matter protesters outside their home has finally regained possession of one of those weapons after a years-long legal dispute. Mark and Patricia McCloskey, both attorneys, went viral during the summer of 2020 when they were seen armed on their front lawn as demonstrators passed through their private neighborhood. The couple said they felt threatened after protesters broke through a gate and ignored 'No Trespassing' signs displayed on their private street - no one was hurt in the instance. Now, five years after the viral spectacle, Mark posted a video to X showing himself collecting the AR-15 rifle from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department as he was finally rewarded with the return of the firearm after the lengthy fight. He wrote: 'It only took 3 lawsuits, 2 trips to the Court of Appeals and 1,847 days, but I got my AR15 back!' 'We defended our home, were persecuted by the left, smeared by the press, and threatened with death, but we never backed down,' he added. The McCloskeys were initially charged with unlawful use of a weapon. They later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges in 2021 - Mark to fourth-degree assault and Patricia to second-degree harassment - and agreed to forfeit the weapons. However, the couple was pardoned by Missouri Governor Mike Parson shortly thereafter. In 2024, a Missouri appeals court approved the expungement of those misdemeanor convictions, and under state law, the ruling meant the offenses were effectively erased from the couple's records - paving the way for them to reclaim the confiscated firearms. 'That gun may have only been worth $1,500 or something, and it cost me a lot of time and a lot of effort to get it back, but you have to do that,' Mark told Fox News Digital. 'You have to let them know that you will never back down.' According to Mark, the AR-15 had been in the possession of St. Louis police, while Patricia's Bryco .380-caliber pistol was held by the St. Louis Sheriff's Department. He said he expects the pistol to be returned sometime next week. The firearms were initially ordered destroyed after the couple entered their guilty pleas. However, court proceedings later revealed that both weapons still existed. Mark sued in 2021 to get the guns back, but his request was denied multiple times. He eventually prevailed following the expungement ruling last month, which came despite opposition from city attorneys, who argued the couple still posed a threat and cited McCloskey's use of the incident in political advertisements during his unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign. He also noted that the protesters' statements addressed only perceived threats on the day of the incident, not any ongoing danger. Judge Joseph P. Whyte rejected those arguments, the Daily Mail previously reported, writing in his decision that the court was bound to rule based on the expungement statute and not on political grounds. He also noted that the protesters' statements addressed only perceived threats on the day of the incident, not any ongoing danger. The case drew national attention and political reaction at the time, with President Donald Trump and several Republican leaders expressing support for the St Louis natives. The couple later appeared in a video message during the 2020 Republican National Convention.