| ▲ | YZF 3 hours ago |
| Solar energy is the fastest growing source of energy in the US. That's because it's also the cheapest source of energy. So markets are working. https://abcnews.com/US/solar-generates-energy-coal-us-1st-ti... "Solar and storage provided 90% of all new power added in the U.S." is mind blowing. How about we give the US credit for this? Fossil fuel extraction is not the problem. The problem is fossil fuel usage. Given the world consumes fossil fuel I prefer they use American fossil fuel vs. Russian or Saudi fossil fuels. I don't understand why we are dwelling on the wrong metric here. Also consider the US has just removed a sh~tload of fossil fuels from the world economy. How about some extra credits there? Similarly data centers are going to get built somewhere. If they're already built I'd rather they are built in places like the US. Instead of politics and blame we need to focus on markets and let them take care of the problem. This is already happening with solar. Where I would be critical about US policy is that I think they are introducing more tariffs on imported solar panels. This might fit into governments make things worse and hopefully everyone regardless of their political affiliation can push back on this specific item. The world all going to act together stronger than the markets is not going to happen. You can argue that is unfortunate but it's also where we are. |
|
| ▲ | HumblyTossed an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| I'm in the US and _I_ don't want us to get credit. Even the worst of people do something good every now and then. But if you reward that, they won't change. |
| |
| ▲ | api an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Even the worst of people do something good every now and then. But if you reward that, they won't change. Scratching my head on that one. I mean... is something not better than nothing? Or do you only get rewarded if it's 100% perfect? If so then by that metric nobody should be rewarded here. There's nobody in the world who has done enough, certainly none of the major economic powers. | | |
| ▲ | whatisthiseven 20 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yes, none of the major economies get rewarded because fossil fuel usage needs to be zero now, already, to avoid catastrophic warming by the end of the century. Do you reward a bull after wrecking a China shop because it decided to at least leave the employees in alive with near fatal wounds? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | lovich 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I would have agreed with you on giving credit but we did an about face in the last 2 years and now are spending billions of dollars to pay off companies that were already building renewables because we failed when trying to just illegally cancel them[1] We’re not letting the market handle it and we’re going in a backwards direction. Can’t really crow about our accomplishments given that. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/06/rwe-deal-win... |
|
| ▲ | Devasta 20 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > How about we give the US credit for this? If it weren't for the huge efforts put into it by china to make solar and batteries so cheap and capable we wouldn't be nearly as far along in the solar transition as we are. Solar is growing in spite of US policy, not because of it. |
|
| ▲ | well_ackshually 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Markets are fundamentally unable to take into account externalities, but yes, let's "focus on markets and let them take care of the problem". Conveniently ignore the fact that the only reason solar is the cheapest power is because a country put in their political will and power into making it so. Your sacred market has been killing us all and will continue to keep killing us all if it makes a few pennies. |
|
| ▲ | Gander5739 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/3226/ |
|
| ▲ | thrance an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > So markets are working. > Instead of politics and blame we need to focus on markets and let them take care of the problem. Blind faith in the markets is what got us in this mess. > Fossil fuel extraction is not the problem. The problem is fossil fuel usage. Yes, and usage is not decreasing. As solar is growing, it's only adding capacity, not replacing fossil fuels. 2025 was the record year for global emissions and fossil fuel consumption. But sure, let's let "the markets" dictate our ecological policy. Maybe they'll mercifully let us stop burning oil sometimes in the 2150s. > Also consider the US has just removed a sh~tload of fossil fuels from the world economy. How about some extra credits there? Huh? Americans very consistently show the most emissions per Capita. I'll just put this here: as long as burning fossil fuel is profitable, "the markets" won't help at all, quite the contrary. And oil being unprofitable isn't happening anytime soon. Our societies are already suffering from Climate Change immensely, and it will only get worse as the years go by. We should have stopped emissions yesterday, we can't let "the markets" take away our agency on the matter and decide our fate. |
| |
|
| ▲ | pennomi 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What a weird, rose-tinted view of the US you have. Just because the markets are working and the US bungled its way into another war over oil doesn’t mean we should ignore the absolutely braindead political opposition to energy modernization. |
| |
| ▲ | YZF 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm weird. Just to be fair I'll acknowledge that certain political actors in the US deny there's any man made climate change and fight renewable energy because it conflicts with some narrow business or political interests. I'm not denying that. But... The political criticism in the US (and in Canada where I'm from) against fossil fuel extraction makes no sense. We should want that fossil fuels are extracted here. Not overseas. It's true some element of the "right" are ideologically driven here in the wrong direction but many in the "right" are also pragmatic. Instead of fighting we need to get to common ground and the way to get there is by market forces. Most would prefer the get solar energy if it's cheaper vs. more expensive fossil fuels. And certainly if all else was equal (panels made in the US, American jobs, whatnot). So you can take the adversarial route or you can take the pragmatic route and make real progress. The other stupid political battle here is boycotting Tesla. How does that make sense? We "punish" Elon by using more fossil fuels. | | |
| ▲ | kalenx 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't understand. Are you making the argument that extracting fossil fuel here is better than extracting it elsewhere? Or, perhaps more to the point, you do see that the issue is the use of fossil fuels and that extracting _more_ is just contributing to it? About the (unrelated) boycott question, I would invite you to consider the reasons motivating people to boycott Tesla. If think everyone do that to "hurt" or "punish" Musk, perhaps that's why it doesn't make sense to you. | | |
| ▲ | YZF an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yes. I am making the argument that if we extract a barrel of oil in Canada that is all in all better than in Russia or Saudi. We have more environmental standards and we put that money towards better things. Canada was able to give me a rebate on my EV purchase. Where do you think that money comes from? I drive a Tesla because at the time it was (and maybe still is) the best EV. I benefit from the network of superchargers. It is one, if not the, of the most efficient EVs in terms of energy/km. Batteries last a very long time due to battery management. It has been very reliable for me. My decision (way back) was really strictly on what is the best EV with no political considerations (and that was before a lot of the more recent political issues). |
| |
| ▲ | derriz an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why does it matter where on the planet the fossil fuels are extracted in terms of dealing with global climate change? The US and Canada combined are responsible for 28% and 31% of the global oil and natural gas extraction respectively. If this share were eliminated, then it would force global demand down via the supply/demand price curve especially as there are competitive clean alternatives to burning fossil fuels for energy these days. We're approaching a global crisis point - and every country needs to reign in fossil fuel extraction and consumption. It's morally indefensible to continue profiting from the sale of products that are f*cking up the planet. Just because there are others that are immoral, doesn't give you an excuse to act without morals. Or claim it's better that you act immorally than someone else. | | |
| ▲ | YZF an hour ago | parent [-] | | It doesn't work like that. If the US and Canada stopped extraction of oil and gas for the most part that shortage would be made up in other places. As we remove our supply from the markets prices would rocket up and countries like Russia and Saudi would make immense profits while making up for most of the losses and not moving the demand needle as far as you think it will move for the environment. There will also be a move back to coal where that's an option (some power stations). And that's ignoring the consequences of that on e.g. people in cold climates that rely on gas for heating or people that rely on gasoline for getting to work. The correct approach is to reduce the usage of fossil fuels which will lead to reduced extraction naturally. You're not 100% wrong but the impact is marginal. Partly because some energy markets are a cartel. The prices aren't strictly governed by supply and demand but rather supplies are throttled to drive prices. This is why that's the wrong thing to focus on. If we (e.g. Canada and the US) have strong economies that allows us to do more. Both internally and by influencing others. For example I can afford to drive an EV and use a heat pump because the Canadian economy does well, despite those not being economical options. Many early adopters of solar and EVs and other environmental approaches were only possible because we have strong economies, and those drive down prices for everyone. |
| |
| ▲ | blargey an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | By your own market argument, increasing oil supply depresses prices and boosts usage. And NA oil isn't particularly clean or environmentally-friendly - the benefits of local production are primarily political, with a side of cheaper gas, which again, is not fighting climate change with market forces. And Tesla is not the only game in town for electrification, and it's been like that for years already. Tesla's EU sales plummeted while overall EV share rose quickly during the peak of the 2025 "boycott". Someone who was going to buy a Tesla but got turned off by the Musk-Trump coalition just bought an electric/hybrid from someone else - there is no movement to buy gas cars just to spite Musk (unlike, say, the "roll coal" crowd). Pragmatism is better than adversarialism, sure, but when it comes to the environment the locus of adversarialism is more lopsided than you're trying to make out. | |
| ▲ | lovich an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The other stupid political battle here is boycotting Tesla. How does that make sense? We "punish" Elon by using more fossil fuels. There are other EV manufacturers. Boycotting Tesla != buying ICE vehicles. That’s a bad faith framing. |
| |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 4 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That guy is an extreme zionist. | |
| ▲ | strictnein 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > What a weird, rose-tinted view of the US you have Someone pointing out that the US is adding large amounts of solar with minimal government effort isn't "rose-tinted", it's just factual. > absolutely braindead political opposition to energy modernization The good thing is that in the US some people having strong political feelings about something doesn't really stop us from doing things. So not only have we added lots of new solar, we did so with a "braindead" government. That means there's a lot of people in the US who understand the changing needs we face and that having a moron in the White House doesn't really affect that. |
|
|
| ▲ | asdfman123 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | derriz an hour ago | parent [-] | | Foreign state actors? We have government agents frequenting this website to sew anti-US sentiment? Really? Could you identify some of them? Or at least one or two of the obvious ones? | | |
| ▲ | asdfman123 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yes, I could. But to be serious, there's endless evidence that it's going on, and if you don't believe it I'm not the one with my head in the sand. (That's a common English idiom meaning "not paying attention," for the foreign state actors out there.) | | |
|
|
