It could have been America leading the way towards a green energy future in Africa, but Trump is going to ensure that China reaps the rewards of the coming solar transition.
Your comments on Africa are right on. I spend 6 weeks in Kenya last June-July. What I saw gave me the opposite feeling of the orange menace (except that their president is likely equally corrupt, sigh). Traffic is horrendous in Nairobi, but increasingly what you dodge in walking the city are electric motorcycles with switchable batteries. The power comes from dams, wind, solar and geothermal power plants in the Rift Valley. Solar is decentralized and increasing. Geothermal is centralized, but relatively easy to access in the geologically active area between Mount Suswa and Lake Baringo. They can tap a great deal more. Eleven (might be more) wind turbines majestically spin on the Ngong Hills, visible from Nairobi. Many more are located just south of Lake Turkana in the NW of Kenya. They could easily combine solar PV with that already grid tied wind farm. Kenya now gets more than 90% of its electricity from non-fossil sources, and will be completely free of them in the near future even as their economy booms. Other countries could easily do the same in Africa, but the temptation to have centrally controlled energy is also very great for those in power. I am, overall, much more hopeful about Africa than I am about our sorry state in the US.
Clean and green makes Trump scream, so there’s little doubt that he will try to squash this sensible and forward-looking project. Sad.
“If all goes according to plan, the Hecate project, which is expected to be completed in 2030, will be by far the largest site the government has cleaned up and converted from land that had been used for nuclear research, weapons and waste storage. It is expected to generate up to 2,000 megawatts of electricity — enough roughly to supply all the homes in Seattle, San Francisco, and Denver — and store 2,000 more in a large battery installation at a total cost of $4 billion. The photovoltaic panels and batteries will provide twice as much energy as a conventional nuclear power plant. The nation’s current biggest solar plant, the Copper Mountain Solar Facility in Nevada, can generate up to 802 megawatts of energy.”
According to climate metrics readily available for anyone interested on the EU's C3S website, especially the "Climate Pulse" page, the GAST (Global Average Surface Temperature) is increasing 0.2 degC annually. No big deal, you say? Do the math. That's 1 degC EVERY FIVE YEARS, so we may hit the unsurvivable 6 degC increase by 2047, 22 yrs. from today. What a surprise that will be for any of the 168,000 children being born today, as they burn-up and rue the day they were born. Our dear Bill has been a leader in the environmental movement, but has totally missed the boat at this juncture. Time's up, Bill. How old will your kid(s?) be in 2047?
I believe it would be more accurate and credible to replace “annually” with “per decade” judging from what I found in a quick browse of C3S.
Jim Hansen’s range is more than 0.2°C per decade over the next 25 years, and a worst case 0.36°C per decade, stating “1.5°C is deader than a door nail” and “2°C is on its death bed,” suggesting that removing legacy carbon and cooling measures are warranted for the sake of our progeny.
Yes, the time to begin well planned testing and cautious trial deployment of effective measures to increase albedo, restore the ice caps including Greenland and the Himalayas, and return the atmosphere and ocean to Holocene norms begins now—no question.
Just now saw notification and read your 12:51 and 7:30 relies. Will study in depth … I tend to rely on Hansen et al as I am novice when it comes to climate minutiae. Dinner time here … later 👋 Doug
I left a lengthy reply to your post somewhere on this dialog, and your info is just way, way off. Look for the C3S June 5, 2024 post “Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action”, containing: “the global average temperature for the last 12 months (June 2023-May 2024) is the highest on record, at 0.75 degC above the 1991-2020 (baseline) average and 1.63 degC above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial average, according to the C3S data.” 0.75/3.5 = 0.214 degC ANNUALLY. 12 mo. = 1 yr.
My daily study of the rising GAST continues to put the number at 0.2 degC ANNUALLY, not per decade, and Hansen’s recent publication supports this number. It only makes sense when we account for the 1.2 T tons of melting global ice annually, 3.3 B tons/day; the 321 M cubic miles of heating oceans; and the 1 T tons of water vapor evaporating from the surface daily; all elements in a massively overheated surface over stressing the hydrological cycle that has maintained our surface temp’s. within livable limits for millennia. Our AC is collapsing under the massive amount of heat energy we are trapping (solar)/creating, which polymath Eliot Jacobson estimates to be the equivalent of 20 Hiroshima nuclear bomb blasts PER SECOND, where each one releases 63 trillion BTUs into the environment. Why so many institutional climate scientists are not telling the truth is anybody’s guess. Don’t believe me? Go to the C3S “Climate Pulse” page, where today’s GAST is 0.74 degC over the 1991-2020 baseline, and sea surface temp is 0.45 degC above same.
Look at the C3S “Global Climate Highlights 2024”, 10 Jan 2025. Fig. 1, “Anomaly (vs 1991-2020) “Globe: +0.72 degC, so 0.72/4 yrs. = 0.18/yr. “Inside Climate News” 2/5/25: “rate of global warming…surging more than 0.7 degF (0.4 degC) in just the past TWO YEARS”. So, 0.2 degC annually on ave., in a summary of the Hansen paper. Better yet, the 5th June 2024 C3S “Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action” states: “the global average temperature for the past 12 months (June 2023-May 2024) is the highest on record, at 0.75 degC above the 1991-2020 average and 1.63 degC above the 1850-1900 preindustrial average, according to the C3S data.” in the 2nd paragraph. 0.75/3.5 = 0.214 degC over 12 mo’s. Thanks for asking and for your interest. Remember, we’re looking at a “hockey stick” curve here and the precipitous upswing didn’t start until 1970, so the 1991-2020 baseline is the most telling.
Thanks for the tip about Brightsaver, and more about the mini grids rising in Africa. A friend in Brazil just installed solar on his house and it was incredibly cheap compared to the US. It seems obvious that the best way to grow solar in this country (and in Vermont for god's sake) is to put both of those options in play. The technology is there, the only problem is cost and a nearly complete state lack of information for consumers. I have little doubt that this is due to the utilitiy owners guarding their turf by convincing political leaders that they are the only option.
I know i-Phones, etc., require rare earth minerals. But, why does Trump want these minerals from both Greenland and Ukraine? I thought he was a drill baby drill guy. What is Elon Musk up to?
The man's children and grandchildren might enjoy the $3.2m he earned from winning cases for big oil, but they won't like the weather they'll experience the rest of their lives. There's no "adapting" to 120° .. drought .. wildfires .. hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes
“As [Robinson Meyer] points out, not even enviros have been able to increase the cost of energy the way that Trump’s Canadian tariffs threaten to, so perhaps he’s a closet green after all.”
If Trump really truly wanted to hurt Canada with a tariff, he would be on the money if he were to levy a 25% tariff on energy exports to US! Think crude oil, refined fuels and yucky sludge of the fossils TARSAND BITUMEN.
It could have been America leading the way towards a green energy future in Africa, but Trump is going to ensure that China reaps the rewards of the coming solar transition.
Your comments on Africa are right on. I spend 6 weeks in Kenya last June-July. What I saw gave me the opposite feeling of the orange menace (except that their president is likely equally corrupt, sigh). Traffic is horrendous in Nairobi, but increasingly what you dodge in walking the city are electric motorcycles with switchable batteries. The power comes from dams, wind, solar and geothermal power plants in the Rift Valley. Solar is decentralized and increasing. Geothermal is centralized, but relatively easy to access in the geologically active area between Mount Suswa and Lake Baringo. They can tap a great deal more. Eleven (might be more) wind turbines majestically spin on the Ngong Hills, visible from Nairobi. Many more are located just south of Lake Turkana in the NW of Kenya. They could easily combine solar PV with that already grid tied wind farm. Kenya now gets more than 90% of its electricity from non-fossil sources, and will be completely free of them in the near future even as their economy booms. Other countries could easily do the same in Africa, but the temptation to have centrally controlled energy is also very great for those in power. I am, overall, much more hopeful about Africa than I am about our sorry state in the US.
Clean and green makes Trump scream, so there’s little doubt that he will try to squash this sensible and forward-looking project. Sad.
“If all goes according to plan, the Hecate project, which is expected to be completed in 2030, will be by far the largest site the government has cleaned up and converted from land that had been used for nuclear research, weapons and waste storage. It is expected to generate up to 2,000 megawatts of electricity — enough roughly to supply all the homes in Seattle, San Francisco, and Denver — and store 2,000 more in a large battery installation at a total cost of $4 billion. The photovoltaic panels and batteries will provide twice as much energy as a conventional nuclear power plant. The nation’s current biggest solar plant, the Copper Mountain Solar Facility in Nevada, can generate up to 802 megawatts of energy.”
According to climate metrics readily available for anyone interested on the EU's C3S website, especially the "Climate Pulse" page, the GAST (Global Average Surface Temperature) is increasing 0.2 degC annually. No big deal, you say? Do the math. That's 1 degC EVERY FIVE YEARS, so we may hit the unsurvivable 6 degC increase by 2047, 22 yrs. from today. What a surprise that will be for any of the 168,000 children being born today, as they burn-up and rue the day they were born. Our dear Bill has been a leader in the environmental movement, but has totally missed the boat at this juncture. Time's up, Bill. How old will your kid(s?) be in 2047?
I believe it would be more accurate and credible to replace “annually” with “per decade” judging from what I found in a quick browse of C3S.
Jim Hansen’s range is more than 0.2°C per decade over the next 25 years, and a worst case 0.36°C per decade, stating “1.5°C is deader than a door nail” and “2°C is on its death bed,” suggesting that removing legacy carbon and cooling measures are warranted for the sake of our progeny.
Yes, the time to begin well planned testing and cautious trial deployment of effective measures to increase albedo, restore the ice caps including Greenland and the Himalayas, and return the atmosphere and ocean to Holocene norms begins now—no question.
It would appear that my posts here are not recorded.
Just now read your 1:57 reply to Mosha Koval
Just now saw notification and read your 12:51 and 7:30 relies. Will study in depth … I tend to rely on Hansen et al as I am novice when it comes to climate minutiae. Dinner time here … later 👋 Doug
I left a lengthy reply to your post somewhere on this dialog, and your info is just way, way off. Look for the C3S June 5, 2024 post “Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action”, containing: “the global average temperature for the last 12 months (June 2023-May 2024) is the highest on record, at 0.75 degC above the 1991-2020 (baseline) average and 1.63 degC above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial average, according to the C3S data.” 0.75/3.5 = 0.214 degC ANNUALLY. 12 mo. = 1 yr.
My daily study of the rising GAST continues to put the number at 0.2 degC ANNUALLY, not per decade, and Hansen’s recent publication supports this number. It only makes sense when we account for the 1.2 T tons of melting global ice annually, 3.3 B tons/day; the 321 M cubic miles of heating oceans; and the 1 T tons of water vapor evaporating from the surface daily; all elements in a massively overheated surface over stressing the hydrological cycle that has maintained our surface temp’s. within livable limits for millennia. Our AC is collapsing under the massive amount of heat energy we are trapping (solar)/creating, which polymath Eliot Jacobson estimates to be the equivalent of 20 Hiroshima nuclear bomb blasts PER SECOND, where each one releases 63 trillion BTUs into the environment. Why so many institutional climate scientists are not telling the truth is anybody’s guess. Don’t believe me? Go to the C3S “Climate Pulse” page, where today’s GAST is 0.74 degC over the 1991-2020 baseline, and sea surface temp is 0.45 degC above same.
I looked at the climate pulse graph and I didn't see anything about per year increase. Where did you see that?
Look at the C3S “Global Climate Highlights 2024”, 10 Jan 2025. Fig. 1, “Anomaly (vs 1991-2020) “Globe: +0.72 degC, so 0.72/4 yrs. = 0.18/yr. “Inside Climate News” 2/5/25: “rate of global warming…surging more than 0.7 degF (0.4 degC) in just the past TWO YEARS”. So, 0.2 degC annually on ave., in a summary of the Hansen paper. Better yet, the 5th June 2024 C3S “Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action” states: “the global average temperature for the past 12 months (June 2023-May 2024) is the highest on record, at 0.75 degC above the 1991-2020 average and 1.63 degC above the 1850-1900 preindustrial average, according to the C3S data.” in the 2nd paragraph. 0.75/3.5 = 0.214 degC over 12 mo’s. Thanks for asking and for your interest. Remember, we’re looking at a “hockey stick” curve here and the precipitous upswing didn’t start until 1970, so the 1991-2020 baseline is the most telling.
What I saw at C3S was 0.2 degC per decade. Still not good, but not your per year.
Bill, when will more information about Sun Day be released?
Also, on Matt Matern’s podcast you said that people just won’t consume less (I’m paraphrasing). Is that a shift in your thinking?
Thanks, always.🌱
Thanks for the tip about Brightsaver, and more about the mini grids rising in Africa. A friend in Brazil just installed solar on his house and it was incredibly cheap compared to the US. It seems obvious that the best way to grow solar in this country (and in Vermont for god's sake) is to put both of those options in play. The technology is there, the only problem is cost and a nearly complete state lack of information for consumers. I have little doubt that this is due to the utilitiy owners guarding their turf by convincing political leaders that they are the only option.
I know i-Phones, etc., require rare earth minerals. But, why does Trump want these minerals from both Greenland and Ukraine? I thought he was a drill baby drill guy. What is Elon Musk up to?
Will workers be safe transitioning the Hanford nuclear to solar?
Remember nero's Rome?
The man's children and grandchildren might enjoy the $3.2m he earned from winning cases for big oil, but they won't like the weather they'll experience the rest of their lives. There's no "adapting" to 120° .. drought .. wildfires .. hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes
In the spirit of Trump Satire, and follow -up to:
“As [Robinson Meyer] points out, not even enviros have been able to increase the cost of energy the way that Trump’s Canadian tariffs threaten to, so perhaps he’s a closet green after all.”
If Trump really truly wanted to hurt Canada with a tariff, he would be on the money if he were to levy a 25% tariff on energy exports to US! Think crude oil, refined fuels and yucky sludge of the fossils TARSAND BITUMEN.
Wouldn’t that be aptly karmical Donald Dunce 😎
Thank you for this update, Bill MicKibben. This is NOT NORMAL!
More great work, Bill. I appreciate your keeping the eye on so many different stories and developments.