The issue will be "out of sight, out of mind" (or rather knowingly ignored) until the issue appears at scales as small as the home village, which in terms of the US government means the front and back yard of the white house or similar.

These people are living in parallel societies, where they are completely detached from the reality for many people living in the country. And that is not merely a problem in the US.

Nobody will care until the white house burns down (again)

These damn arsonists are really going for it this year, huh?

The coordination between them is amazing - being able to pull this off in multiple European countries, the US and Canada at the same time.

For anyone who wants to learn more about this claim, I thought this video was cool: https://youtu.be/M9Hoy9Kn1u0?is=1O5AJPEziihH1MSJ

I believe you may be basing your figure on current Data Center power consumption. But - it's estimately to grow significantly:

https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/doe-data-centers-...

also - 1 year is a lot, if we actually act diligently to stave the warming crisis and to prepare for some of the effects through changes to construction & infrastructure.

Still, I would agree that Data Centers are just one particular aspect of the struggle against global warming.

When you say that the Greens provide subsidies to coal, but this can be found on a quick search…

> The next fight is already brewing, over a Green push to accelerate the phase-out of coal-fired power generation in eastern Germany. In a draft resolution, seen by POLITICO, the party wants to bring the coal exit forward from 2038 to 2030, as is already the case for mining regions in the west of the country.

https://www.politico.eu/article/german-government-coalition-...

… Are you sure you are talking about the Greens and not CDU or CSU which they occasionality form government coalitions with?

Crazy the sorts of lies people make up here.

This is blatantly untrue: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/Fig2_Gro...

This mixes several different things into one causal puddle.

Yes, keeping the remaining nuclear plants running would have reduced emissions and electricity prices somewhat. A 2024 Energy Policy study estimates the 2022/23 extension lowered German wholesale prices by about €9/MWh. That's a real effect, but nowhere remotely close to "the nuclear phase-out doubled electricity prices." The huge price spike was primarily the European gas crisis. You know, the one for which LNG terminals had been built.

Nor did Germany replace nuclear with coal. Coal generation subsequently fell to levels not seen in decades, while renewables grew substantially, so German emissions fell as well.

Attributing the nuclear exit simply to "the Greens" is rather selective history. The original exit was SPD/Greens, but after reversing it in 2010, Merkel's CDU/FDP government legislated essentially the final phase-out schedule again in 2011. So basically: every party that was at the levers of power.

You could make a perfectly reasonable argument that shutting existing nuclear before coal was bad climate policy in hindsight, because of the gas crisis. But I don't think you need to resort to the rather dubious claim that it doubled electricity prices as a singular cause.

Seems like you read some misinformation there. Share of coal in the German electricity mix:

2021 30.2%

2022 33.3% (the year that nuclear was shut off)

2023 26.0%

2024 21.2%

2025 22.4%

Complete phase out is scheduled for the 2030s.

The threshold isn't measured in windmills, it's measured in co2.

If we emit more than 0, then we're in trouble.

Needless to say, we're in a lot of trouble.

The goal is not to "gain better control" over the earth's temperature, it's to stop actively throwing the temperature out of control.

Worth scrolling through this if you have been midwit-pilled into thinking humans have no levers of control on this question: https://xkcd.com/1732/

Please explain your alternative hypothesis.

They're not mills

It's kind of lucky for everyone that climate is mostly a perfect sliding scale, the more CO2 you avoid putting into the atmosphere the more heat capacity you'd avoid. So every bit helps. Many negative impacts of heat, like changing intense weather, biodiversity loss, and deaths to high heat also correspondingly change linearly with heat. So every bit is a literal victory, there's no major cutoff that we know of until things get really bad (which they might). What's your point?