If you live in California, please check out Dr. Butch Ware, running for governor this year. www.butchware4gov.com Running on single payer universal health care, social housing, free education for all, anti-militarism, and the rest of the Green Party platform. With our top-two primary in a corporate democrat-controlled state, and likely low voter turnout, there could be an earthquake of a political upset victory!
This breakdown of the energy narrative for 2026 candidates is really sharp. Tying electricity costs directly to GOP policy choices and specifically calling out data center demand makes the abstraction concrete. I'd been seeing headlines about utility rate hikes but hadn't connected them to the specific accelerations you're describing here. The Australia comparision is genius too, three free hours a day is so easy to grasp and immediately makes voters ask why we can't have that when renewables are this cheap everywhere.
According to Paul Krugman, even the big oil companies are not interested in Venezuela oil. Too expensive and too freakin dangerous to go there. Trump is a one-man keystone cops episode.
I wouldn't say McKibben is a shill, because it's misleading. He does only advocate working within the system, which I do think is not really going to help climate change and habitat destruction much on its own, but sometimes you have to do something I guess.
That being said, I do think calling solar/wind "clean energy" is a huge misnomer because such energy is not completely clean in terms of its production and it also is used for highly destructive things as well. After all, an electric bulldozer charged off a solar panel can still destroy a rainforest.
I'd also recommend that you increase the sophistication of your arguments, because I do think there is merit in arguing against mainstream-only approaches, and stronger, more fleshed-out arguments is likely to get more people to listen.
Welp, I guess it comes down to what is your theory of change. Do you assume that there is only One Best Way to get from our present situation to a social-change goal? Or do you allow for the possibility that people may apply a variety of different strategies that may partly reflect where they are situated in the political economy and culture? For example, some may work from inside the mainstream while others pioneer a vanguard.
Your use of the word "shill" would suggest that you don't see any value in someone who operates with a different strategy than yours. While I can understand how the depth of the climate emergency can elicit great passion, I would question the utility of attacking Bill's character just because you happen to disagree with him.
If you think that tribalistic breast beating is going to sell more copies of the book, know that it backfired with me. I'm tired of the left's tendency to engage in circular firing squads.
But since we're being real with each other, can we discuss performative certitude? Google says that it "is the act of projecting absolute confidence in one's beliefs or statements, not necessarily because it's genuinely felt, but to create an impression of authority, win arguments, gain followers, or achieve a specific social/political goal, often masking actual doubt or a lack of deep understanding."
Environmental destruction is the predictable result of a financial and governmental system that misguides investment and consumption. Fractional reserve banking enables banks to lend far more money than truly exists. Central banks intensify this distortion through low interest rates, stimulus programs, bailouts, and quantitative easing, effectively signaling that endless expansion and spending are desirable. Governments reinforce this by treating consumption as the primary driver of economic growth, encouraging constant spending.
Prove him wrong 👎. P. T. Barnum said, " No one 🕐 ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public 🗞️." Also, " There's a sucker born every minute", " You can't fool an honest 🤠 man ♂️." Step 🪜 right up, this way to see the ☠️ death-defying egress 👌👹."
This is in spite of the administration streamlining the approval process for drilling licences in a manner which experts consider to be unlawful. Wired reports:
"Processes that would normally take a year, the Department of the Interior says, must now be completed within just two weeks, while those reviews that might last longer than a year must now be done in under a month."
When it comes to the expropriation of Venezuelan oil, ExxonMobil was only saying out loud what the rest of the industry is thinking about Trump's plans.
Rhetorical question to trigger re-establishing a meaningful goal:
What suite of activities can be done to quickly reduce atmospheric CO2—the warming “blanket”—from the current ~428ppm to <350ppm? Remember, that’s James Hansen’s target concentration suggested nearly two decades ago. We seem to have become remiss or bored.
Let’s re-energize that priority and have a head-to-head horse race to let the winners get to the finish line before Mother Eaarth finishes us. Powering an overheated, unlivable planet with the cheapest wind and solar ever is a bit preposterous.
> But what I know is that Republicans have won too many elections in recent years reciting simple lies:
Absolutely right, Bill. However, I think there's a bit more nuance to this. Republicans have not won because of their lies exactly, but the rhetoric is based in appealing to a lot of pent-up feelings that people have. The republican reasoning is false but the wrap it in a thin veil of semi-honesty that the Democrats have even less of. So even if the Democrats care more about the environment, their technical-only approach to solving problems makes them rather weak.
The true problem is that the anti-environmental approach of the Republicans is rooted in the disrespect that the wealthy and the technophiles have for the planet. Unless you attack that directly and amplify the distaste for the consumerist core of modern America, you can't really win easily with technical solutions alone, like solar power.
Well, it would be nice if it was true that people would vote to protect the planet. I've watched for twenty years to see if any environmental issue would show up in the top ten on a list of voter concerns in a national election. So far, none have. Support for the environment is like a river one mile wide but only six inches deep. If you're reading this you are one in a very small segment of the human population who would take the time. This explains exactly why we are living in the world we are. Solar is winning because it's makes the best economic sense.
Quote of the week, Bill: “no one is going to need to invade Venezuela to grab their share of sunlight”.
And let’s push more good people into positions of power! Enough is enough of these idiots who currently run the show.
If you live in California, please check out Dr. Butch Ware, running for governor this year. www.butchware4gov.com Running on single payer universal health care, social housing, free education for all, anti-militarism, and the rest of the Green Party platform. With our top-two primary in a corporate democrat-controlled state, and likely low voter turnout, there could be an earthquake of a political upset victory!
I live in NZ but Californians definitely should.
President Harry Truman : " People complain that I give people hell 👌👹. Not true, I just tell the truth and they think 🤔 it's hell 👋🤣."
Andrew, I was just thinking today how much I wish HST had a substack today....and that his user name would be "Give 'em hell."
I was surprised to learn that Australia has 40 million people! (It's really 28 million; it's Canada that has 40 million.)
But the real number probably makes your point even stronger.
In any event, keep it up. Your writings give me hope.
This breakdown of the energy narrative for 2026 candidates is really sharp. Tying electricity costs directly to GOP policy choices and specifically calling out data center demand makes the abstraction concrete. I'd been seeing headlines about utility rate hikes but hadn't connected them to the specific accelerations you're describing here. The Australia comparision is genius too, three free hours a day is so easy to grasp and immediately makes voters ask why we can't have that when renewables are this cheap everywhere.
According to Paul Krugman, even the big oil companies are not interested in Venezuela oil. Too expensive and too freakin dangerous to go there. Trump is a one-man keystone cops episode.
Interesting article but Australia currently has a population of approximately 27.6m.
There is no such thing as “clean energy”. “Clean Energy” is made with fossil fuels.
See “Bright Green Lies” for how this is done and watch “Planet of the Humans” to see Mr. McKibben exposed for the shill that he is.
Shill for what? A habitable planet?
Never call bill McKibben a shill. He believes in a livable planet. You don’t
I wouldn't say McKibben is a shill, because it's misleading. He does only advocate working within the system, which I do think is not really going to help climate change and habitat destruction much on its own, but sometimes you have to do something I guess.
That being said, I do think calling solar/wind "clean energy" is a huge misnomer because such energy is not completely clean in terms of its production and it also is used for highly destructive things as well. After all, an electric bulldozer charged off a solar panel can still destroy a rainforest.
I'd also recommend that you increase the sophistication of your arguments, because I do think there is merit in arguing against mainstream-only approaches, and stronger, more fleshed-out arguments is likely to get more people to listen.
For non existent “clean energy”
Read: “Bright Green Lies” (as suggested) and you might understand.
Welp, I guess it comes down to what is your theory of change. Do you assume that there is only One Best Way to get from our present situation to a social-change goal? Or do you allow for the possibility that people may apply a variety of different strategies that may partly reflect where they are situated in the political economy and culture? For example, some may work from inside the mainstream while others pioneer a vanguard.
Your use of the word "shill" would suggest that you don't see any value in someone who operates with a different strategy than yours. While I can understand how the depth of the climate emergency can elicit great passion, I would question the utility of attacking Bill's character just because you happen to disagree with him.
If you think that tribalistic breast beating is going to sell more copies of the book, know that it backfired with me. I'm tired of the left's tendency to engage in circular firing squads.
Fake solutions prevent finding real ones. There is no "Left".
Wow -- I was completely fooled by Matt Taibbi.
But since we're being real with each other, can we discuss performative certitude? Google says that it "is the act of projecting absolute confidence in one's beliefs or statements, not necessarily because it's genuinely felt, but to create an impression of authority, win arguments, gain followers, or achieve a specific social/political goal, often masking actual doubt or a lack of deep understanding."
Are you talking about McKibben?
I think that in his case it's "hopium"
Although in "Planet of the Humans" he comes off as more self-serving and evasive.
Environmental destruction is the predictable result of a financial and governmental system that misguides investment and consumption. Fractional reserve banking enables banks to lend far more money than truly exists. Central banks intensify this distortion through low interest rates, stimulus programs, bailouts, and quantitative easing, effectively signaling that endless expansion and spending are desirable. Governments reinforce this by treating consumption as the primary driver of economic growth, encouraging constant spending.
Prove him wrong 👎. P. T. Barnum said, " No one 🕐 ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public 🗞️." Also, " There's a sucker born every minute", " You can't fool an honest 🤠 man ♂️." Step 🪜 right up, this way to see the ☠️ death-defying egress 👌👹."
I have a friend (Beth Macy) running for Congress and boy is this timely. Clean energy is cheap, abundant and generates jobs -- not Grok porn!
Great article. Thanks for breaking all of this down.
Trump promotes 'Drill, Baby, Drill' to bring oil prices down but the oil industry is dead set against this because it reduces their profits.
https://x.com/JavierBlas/status/1904953555502403950
This is in spite of the administration streamlining the approval process for drilling licences in a manner which experts consider to be unlawful. Wired reports:
"Processes that would normally take a year, the Department of the Interior says, must now be completed within just two weeks, while those reviews that might last longer than a year must now be done in under a month."
When it comes to the expropriation of Venezuelan oil, ExxonMobil was only saying out loud what the rest of the industry is thinking about Trump's plans.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/12/donald-trump-threatens-block-exxonmobil-venezuela
If you want the cheapest electricity, go for solar - Shine, Baby, Shine!'
Rhetorical question to trigger re-establishing a meaningful goal:
What suite of activities can be done to quickly reduce atmospheric CO2—the warming “blanket”—from the current ~428ppm to <350ppm? Remember, that’s James Hansen’s target concentration suggested nearly two decades ago. We seem to have become remiss or bored.
Let’s re-energize that priority and have a head-to-head horse race to let the winners get to the finish line before Mother Eaarth finishes us. Powering an overheated, unlivable planet with the cheapest wind and solar ever is a bit preposterous.
The entire military budget can be considered a subsidy for oil and cost of oil energy, viz Venezuela, and soon Iran. It is out of control
Thank you for this one, Bill. I'm glad to see Ripton coming out against the horror.
Here in Virginia the Democratic state legislators I hear from say opposition to data centers is by far the cause most energizing people.
> But what I know is that Republicans have won too many elections in recent years reciting simple lies:
Absolutely right, Bill. However, I think there's a bit more nuance to this. Republicans have not won because of their lies exactly, but the rhetoric is based in appealing to a lot of pent-up feelings that people have. The republican reasoning is false but the wrap it in a thin veil of semi-honesty that the Democrats have even less of. So even if the Democrats care more about the environment, their technical-only approach to solving problems makes them rather weak.
The true problem is that the anti-environmental approach of the Republicans is rooted in the disrespect that the wealthy and the technophiles have for the planet. Unless you attack that directly and amplify the distaste for the consumerist core of modern America, you can't really win easily with technical solutions alone, like solar power.
Well, it would be nice if it was true that people would vote to protect the planet. I've watched for twenty years to see if any environmental issue would show up in the top ten on a list of voter concerns in a national election. So far, none have. Support for the environment is like a river one mile wide but only six inches deep. If you're reading this you are one in a very small segment of the human population who would take the time. This explains exactly why we are living in the world we are. Solar is winning because it's makes the best economic sense.
Agree Brian