Green Energy policies failed to lower global carbon emissions in 2024 yet again

And we have fallen even further behind on achieving Global Netzero by 2050.

Feb 12, 2025

Make someone’s day: Gift a subscription to your friends and family!

2024 was supposed to be the big turning point when carbon dioxide emissions would decline in both China and the rest of the world. According to LiveScience, however, Green energy policies came up short yet again:

Global carbon emissions reach new record high in 2024, with no end in sight, scientists say

The linked article goes on to say:

Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels have hit a record high in 2024, and there's still no sign that they've peaked, scientists reported…
by the end of this year, emissions from oil and gas are projected to have increased by 0.9% and 2.4%, respectively, compared with last year, while emissions from coal, once thought to have peaked in 2014, will climb by 0.2%. Emissions are predicted to increase in India by 4.6% and in China by 0.2% while decreasing in the European Union by 3.8% and the U.S. by 0.6%. The rest of the world's emissions are estimated to climb by 1.1%.

And, yet, I am mad at myself.

Earlier in the year, a commenter in a different Substack challenged me to a $10,000 bet that China’s carbon dioxide emissions would decline in 2024. I knew that this was unlikely, but given how volatile the Chinese economy has been in the last few years, I knew that one recession would create such a decline (if only temporarily). So I chickened out!

Damn, I could have made an easy 10 Gs!

Renewable do not replace fossil fuels

I am sure that some of you are thinking: How is this possible that fossil fuel usage keeps going up when I see all these graphics of solar and wind capacity installations all rising rapidly?

Here is an example of such a graphic:

The answer is simple: In general, increased solar and wind is in addition to fossil fuels, not a replacement for fossil fuels. Global fossil fuel usage keeps going up despite ever-accelerating installations of solar plants. This is conveniently ignored by Greens.

The total amount of fossil fuels usage is growing faster than solar and wind combined. Between 2010 and 2023, fossil fuels burning increased by 18,595 TWh of energy, which was four times the increase of all new Green energy sources combined (4615 TWh).

But can’t we just try harder?

I am sure that some Greens will insist that this is due to not trying hard enough, but earlier this year, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) released its Energy Transition Investment Trends report. In this report, BNEF celebrates the massive increase in Green energy spending over the last two decades.

BNEF estimates that global Green energy spending has reached $1.769 trillion in 2023 and $2 trillion in 2024. This is more than three times the total global Green spending in 2019. As a point of reference, the total expenditures of the US federal government came to $6.1 trillion (or 22.8% of the US GDP).

Green energy spending is roughly double current spending on fossil fuels and its associated infrastructure. So much for renewables being cheaper than fossil fuels.

See also my other posts on Green energy polices:

You might also enjoy reading my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:

The goal of Netzero by 2050 keeps fading

Since this is just one more year of increased global carbon dioxide emissions out of an almost unbroken streak of 200 years, this may not seem such a big deal. But remember that Greens insist that we must get to Global Netzero by 2020 to avoid a climate catastrophe.

So every year with increased global carbon dioxide emissions means that we need even deeper cuts in subsequent years to reach that Netzero by 2050. So the goal is even more difficult to achieve than it was in 2023 or 2019 or 2010 or 2000 or 1990.

So one might ask, what would success for Green energy policies look like?

I modified a “Our World in Data” graphic (see below) to show trend line starting at each decade and ending at Netzero in 2050. Obviously, real-world energy consumption would not be in a smooth-straight line, but it gives an idea what success would look like.

Basically, if global fossil fuel consumption is above the red line, then Green energy policies are failing. If the consumption is at or below the red line, we can call that a Green energy “success.”

If we start in 1990, which is when climate activists started to gain significant amount of influence on the world stage and nations started to make promises, you can see the lower red line. In 1990 global fossil fuel consumption was 83 TWh. Despite significant global action on climate change, global consumption failed to head anywhere near the “success” trend line headed towards Netzero in 2050. Instead, global fossil fuel consumption went up and since 1990 has fallen further and further behind the trend line.

The 2000 trend line is even worse. Global fossil fuel consumption increased far more in the following decade as in the first decade (largely due to coal-fired power plants in China. Same for the 2010 trend line, though perhaps not quite as dramatic.

The sudden dip in 2020 during the global Covid pandemic gave some Greens hope, but then the recovery saw the upwards trend continue. At this point, the idea that global fossil fuel consumption will go down anywhere near the steepness of the top red line is farcical.

Peak fossil fuels is the easy part

This is what Greens refuse to accept. Every year, they stare at the data hoping that global fossil fuel consumption peaks out, only to be disappointed.

What they fail to realize is that fossil fuel usage “peaking out” is the easy part. The hard part is the steeper and steeper trend line that results every year because the peak has not yet happened. The longer the peak is delayed, the steeper the necessary trend line down. Now in 2024, Greens hope to finally see the fabled peak, but because global fossil fuel consumption has gone up in the previous 34 years, it does not matter.

It is already too late to reach Netzero by 2050. Nothing short of a global (and permanent) economic collapse will lead to Netzero by 2050.

Green failure is guaranteed! It is just a question of how bad the failure will be and the consequences of that failure.

Its is time to admit Green energy policies do not work

I believe this government-sponsored Green Energy Transition is the wrong strategy as it will:

Fail to achieve its goal of Netzero by 2050
Make virtually no difference in future global temperatures.
Cost tens of trillions of dollars (an estimated $1.77 in 2023 alone)
Is far less applicable to some regions, particularly Asia where half the world’s population, than other regions.
Greatly increase energy prices
Undermine long-term economic growth
Undermine the material standard of living for the working class and poor
Makes the electrification of transportation more difficult.
Make it far more difficult for developing nations to industrialize.
Is completely unnecessary.

There is an alternative

More importantly, there are better energy policies that embraces the concept of human material progress:

Create an energy system that is abundant, affordable, and secure. This will keep human material progress going. This should include both wealthy and developing nations.
Mitigate the negative side-effects of that progress on the natural environment. This includes carbon emissions, air pollution, water pollution, wild habitat destruction, extinctions, and human health concerns.

Fossil fuels must remain part of the energy system. Fossil fuels power innovation. Fossil fuels power economic growth. Fossil fuels power our education system, our transportation system, our communication system, our food production system, our health care system, and our military. Fossil fuels are key to generating all the wealth that pays for every government program we have. Before we try to eliminate fossil fuels, we need to make sure that we do not also eliminate all the benefits that have come from their use.

To be clear, I not claim that we will never invent another energy source that has all the advantages of fossil fuels and none of their disadvantages. I believe that as long as progress is maintained for the next century, it is very likely, perhaps inevitable, that we will do so. In fact, I suggest policies that can help make it happen sooner.

Nor do I believe that solar, wind and other non-hydro renewable energy sources cannot play a role in Industrial societies. Their use is rapidly increasing and their cost is rapidly declining. That is a good thing, and it is a result of the vast, decentralizing problem-solving network that is a modern society.

My claim is that solar and wind have never fully substituted for fossil fuels, nor can they do so within the next one to three decades. Climate activists are naïve in believing that we can make such a transition quickly using current technology without major consequences for economic growth and progress.

See also my other posts on Green energy polices:

You might also enjoy reading my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:

Here are some more great energy-related Substack columns that you might be interested in:

SmithFS

Feb 12

Add to that it is likely that China is substantially underreporting its CO2 emissions and coal consumption.

And in primary energy production they multiply wind & solar by 2.6X while dividing nuclear by 1.2 to make the former look much better and the latter worse.

Expand full comment

Stephen Verchinski

And quit financing places like the Rocky Mountain Institute. Use it instead to open up the NREL and have our taxpayer dollar funded passive and active solar design computer systems updated and distributed to all residential design firms.

From Poverty to Progress