The Arctic refuge story is the one that stays with me — not because of the policy outcome, but because of what it reveals. Native Alaskans made it toxic. Campaigners made it impossible. That's not data winning. That's people with a relationship to a place refusing to let it go. I wrote my novel Empty Earth about a wilderness guide named Harry who understood that the only thing that ever actually stopped extraction was love for a specific piece of land. Looks like he was right.
Since Trump started the war with Iran, oil companies are making some nice profits from the higher oil prices. So long as it continues, and it shows no prospect of ending soon, they don't need to do any more expensive drilling.
The price per barrel before the war which is based largely on global supply and demand made more money spent on new drilling fairly unprofitable and although a higher price normally would inspire more drilling, I do not think they know the longer term projections from the war since the outcome and timing of the war are unpredictable. I am glad that the oil issue is making many countries form plans to move away from fossil fuel use, however. This is a silver lining, for sure.
However, if a lot of oil infrastructure is damaged in the middle east from the war causing lengthy rebuilding, higher prices 'might' inspire more drilling here at home. I hope not.
My thinking is that they are all vying to be the last man or last oil producers standing over time meaning staying lean and consolidating - just my assumption based on my reading on the topic. I am not an expert.
It seems to me that Venezuela was more about knocking out some competition to reduce global supply and boost price more than it was about increasing supply, just my view. Its connection to Iran kind of made me think Iran would be next. Russia's and US oil companies seem to be some of the biggest winners as prices soar.
That's a revealing inversion — the ideological push outpacing the economic incentive. Harry would have called it the first honest signal in years. When the profit motive and the planet briefly align, even accidentally, something shifts. The question is whether it's fast enough.
Russell, that's a fascinating point — that the economics may be doing what the campaigning couldn't. Harry would have had complicated feelings about that. He spent his life believing people needed to choose differently. Finding out the market might choose for them would have felt like winning the wrong way.
Technology may be moving faster than politics. The real challenge is whether our institutions can evolve quickly enough to match the possibilities created by the energy transition.
Thanks once again for your highly informative survey of the ongoing movement toward a planet powered by renewable energy. It is highly encouraging to see all the progress that is being made despite the retrograde policies of our Federal government! The world is not standing still while the current inhabitant of the White House fusses and fumes.
I thought SUVs were really gross gas guzzlers. Then 25 years ago, I watched my elderly parents get in and out of one--being butt level made it a snap. Fast forward--we went into a Chevy dealer to get an idea what we should pay for an EV, Chevy Equinox, which turns out to be about $26,500 cash, so we bought it. It has most everything we could want (no sunroof but in Iowa, that's not a big loss). We just got a report that we spent $30 to go a little over 1,000 miles--about 3 cents per mile. The car is super quiet and smooth--it weighs about 4700 pounds. It's plenty snappy, too.
We have a fast charger--we got a $500 rebate and some of it will be for business expense, but the total price was a little less than $2,000. Kind of shocking, but we probably didn't need it--our hybrids were fine with the 120 volt charger. We can delay charging to midnight, although the savings really aren't there--yes we get a break on car charging, but we pay a higher rate for peak power.
Kyla Scanlon recently drew attention to a chart from the Phenomenal World website which shows that for the first time since the age of steam and rail the US is not leading the latest major energy transition i.e. from fossil fuels to renewables - and that's mostly down to Donald Trump.
There’s a thesis - does anyone know the book that proposed it? - that each time there’s an energy transition, there’s a corresponding change in the identity of the world hegemon. Several countries managed wind power (shipping), and Dutch managed water. Coal and the Industrial Revolution put England on top; the U.S. rose with oil; and now? China and electrotech? (China as the world leader is not a comforting idea.)
I like China better than Donald Trump. At least China is smart. They recognize in solar and EVs a great business opportunity. Hopefully, the US will soon recognize that fossil fuels are has beens. Hopefully the government will give up trying to bully the economy. Even China does not try to centrally plan like Trump does. It's been a thousand years since China was a great nation. Trump is helping make China great again.
Both China ands the US recognize that we can't make the all-electric transition without using vehicles that run on fossil carbon. That obviously means more oil, not less. Wake up!
I love your indefatigable optimism, Bill McKibben. Yes, we can pave deserts with solar panels and maintain a semi-Jetson lifestyle. It already seems to be happening. What worries me is that that kind of transition won't be available to the tropics and who knows where else (Paradise, CA for example). No amount of sun-powered air conditioning will keep Central America habitable in coming decades, if I understand the trends. The Gulf States, now so heavily contested, look to be cooked. Global South in general, cooked. Here's my question. How secure will the Global North feel when the rest of the planet isn't sipping lemonade by the swimming pool?
I live in steamy Houston, Texas. High today 92F. Most here have not yet been asked to do anything small and specific for our climate. For example, join Third Act, Bill's grassroots organization. Here are upcoming events. https://thirdact.org/events/ What would you ask people to do?
The main thing is to try to get ready. Emphasis on try. Plan what's plan-able. The big point is that we're not recognizing the scale & speed of the climate slide and we therefore are not preparing. I don't mean this in the old-style prepper sense. I mean more like conversion experience to a different outlook that starts with simple survival. I have no pointers on this. I wish I did.
"In other energy and climate news...", what our dear Bill ignores is "The Heat Will Kill Us First", Jeff Goodell. I write about it in "Greeley's Newsletter".substack.com. There's ONLY one long term solution to our overheating planet: CONTRACEPTION. Have a blessed day.
The UN told US that in 1977, Dr. Miklashek. I haven’t forgotten (92, this year) because the figure was 2.2 children allowed to each couple the UN had counted and the .2 child was unimaginable! Watching the world ever since (children of WWII grade school were encouraged to watch the world—everyone had a someone somewhere) including 10 years on a small boat on the French canals—a front seat to climate change), daughter of a master gardener, married to a devoted Sierra Club member, my gratitude for what I’ve read here will inspire me to write more daily GOTV postcards to Democrats, some of whom “get it.”
Thank you, Bill McKibben. My husband was a fan. I was part of your Chicago audience the night after DT was elected in 2016.
Thank you. Concur. Many (most) don't understand the history of the green revolution and how it postponed the inevitable severe population contraction. One need only read one paper by Dr. William Rees to understand the math behind your statement.
Second reply: I heard Paul Ehrlich at Tulane University in (?)1972, read his major publication at the time and joined his organization (now “Population Connection”) of which I am still a member. Because at 92, having been brought up with history and politics, a southerner with an extensive liberal arts education, 10 years on a small boat in the French canals where I got a good look at US (“bad teenagers on the block”), then losing my husband immediately upon my return, a good look at myself in the context of all I had learned, from ‘16 onward have been glued to American politics first through MSNBC and Paul Krugman’s early December warning after his lecture in the New York Public Library (“We may be doomed. Resist “ for which he left the podium and I have forgotten the topic of the lecture), then charter member of neighborhood Indivisible. No longer a marcher,
I write 10 postcards to voters every day for whatever organization sends addresses for democrats (Democrats), shilling for stamps. 100 stamps for 92nd birthday present, with postcard stamps at $.61 apiece has been terrific!
With not much time to follow, I shall read with interest what you write.
I am honored to receive your reply and you may find the PDF of my 2018 e-book, “Stress R US”, by just Googling the title. I lived in Savannah for 7 yrs. and have great respect for Southern intellectuals. My substack “Greeley’s Newsletter” contains two dozen essays, several exploring the deep mental illnesses of Our Mad King Donald the 1st and the grave danger that presents to our nation and the world. Have a blessed day!
Thank you for the reference and for the “respect for Southern intellectuals.” Before 1860 the South was considered the home of American libraries and intellectuals, so Savannah must remain true to its history. (That’s for a chuckle. Georgia is a laboratory for the North-South split. Think of the leaders of the Democratic Party there versus the Republicans.)
Project Drawdown agrees that stabilizing population is a climate issue. We've made such huge progress on it. Next steps are reducing infant mortality by providing clean water and sanitation. Will you lend $25 for 3 years to this loan for clean water in Kenya? https://www.kiva.org/lend/3186571
If I may ask, which Slavic country is yours? If I guess, am sure to be wrong. I know well a Serb, two Ukrainians, and lots of Poles (have had fun learning Polish before Covid). So please enlighten me (as we need all the Enlightenment we can get these days.
It's interesting that while the Trump administration is promoting the development of Artificial Intelligence and the US stock market is being driven upwards almost entirely by the competing needs of the tech giants to acquire ever more copious amounts of data for their large language models, it is also busy destroying important data it finds inconvenient and stopping the collection of such data.
Yes. And I like that the article says "Trump isn't the first official to do this." Don't we all deny this or that? One biggie is the existence of hunger. So I am pleased with Bill McKibben for bringing up the topic of global inequality this week. He said "no sustainability without sufficiency."
In the early 1960s at the dinner table, my Mother said "Clean your plate. There are starving people in China." Not any more.
The first step to ending a problem is admitting it. I so love the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
The unfortunate flaw in Greeley Miklashek’s honorable long term contraception solution is “The Heat Will Kill Us First.”
On our current trajectory, within a handful of decades, we will fly past deadly milestones of extreme heat and cold, economic ravages of extreme weather, starvation from extreme drought and conflict by extreme global migration.
We simply don’t have time to cool the planet waiting for a global contraception program to save our assets and our immediate progeny. Whatever happened to the idea of reducing the atmospheric blanket, i.e., <350ppm CO2, even better Holocene 280ppm? Simply aiming for Net Zero CO2 emissions will not do the job— let us not forget about CH4 and other GHGs.
Energy waste is also a something we can tackle now. Massive amounts are used that need not be. We need to hunker down until a lot of these plans can be put into motion. This is at homes as well as businesses and requires a cultural shift.
Jigar Shah's interview with Matthew Ratteree the other day for businesses:
For homes and individuals, when you think of how much can be saved if people simply stop going places when not needed, or the fact that keeping water hot 24/7 can often be 18% or more of an electric bill and on and on.... well one can still live comfortably and likely easily cut all forms of energy use by 20% or more.
I now drive no more than 6 miles a week and fill up my economy car only 2-3 times a year and do not fly. My usage when the sun does not shine is only 4-5 kWh a day, and when it does shine, it is about 1 kWh. Obviously, most of this is simple conservation.
I have not been able to afford rooftop solar or an EV or even a hybrid. I do have some backyard solar panels and batteries that account for 3 kWh, but those were fairly cheap. I live comfortably - this is not pioneer living - it is simply mostly all about conserving. We can all do this TODAY and conserving often includes businesses. I realize that some have to drive for work, but the rest of the time can still amount to a huge change in usage.
I think people are unaware that we seem to be at some of the tipping points already, or so it seems. If they knew, I think many more would change their behavior and although that is not all we need to do, it would still help.
I love what Bill said In his bestseller, Here Comes the Sun. That net zero means it stops getting warmer. He said it stays hot but doesn't get hotter. The good news is we are an inch from falling emissions. In today's newsletter, Bill quoted an expert who said China and India's emissions have peaked. China is so big that their peaking means the world is peaking. Millions or billions of people are working on this says Katharine Hayhoe, a renowned Texas climate scientist. (I'm in Texas.) Here's an easy way you can help. Will you lend $25 for a couple of years to one of these solar loans? https://www.kiva.org/lend/3187965
I quoted Bill right. Bill wrote on page 53 of Here Comes the Sun. That's the end of Chapter 2
"Still, I’m going to end this dour chapter with a piece of good scientific news. Doomsayers have fixated on the idea that we’re committed to a future of ever-escalating temperatures no matter what—that we’re locked in to a pipeline of inevitable warming. But the latest science indicates that isn’t true—that if we actually cut emissions of carbon dioxide and methane to zero, then warming would stop. As Imperial College London’s Joeri Rogelj explained three years ago, “It is our best understanding that, if we bring down CO2 to net zero, the warming will level off. The climate will stabilize within a decade or two. There will be very little to no additional warming. Our best estimate is zero.” As Texas A&M climate scientist Andrew Dessler put it, “Some models show a few tenths of a degree of warming, and others a few tenths of a degree of cooling. However, our central estimate is that the global average temperature does not change once emissions stop.” That’s not euphoric news—we’d still inhabit an overheated earth. But no one goes to the ER expecting euphoria.
What we hope for is a chance. And that we’ve got, as we shall now see."
Nan, Google search and AI synthesis are the tools I use to test my layman’s understanding of many topics. I did both this evening and offer Claude AI’s response to Bill McKibben’s statement as follows:
My understanding is that the following statement by bill McKibben is not true, rather earths energy imbalance will remain high with gradual slowing of the rate of warming for centuries. Can you find evidence of this?
Bill stated <<if we actually cut emissions of carbon dioxide and methane to zero, then warming would stop. As Imperial College London’s Joeri Rogelj explained three years ago, “It is our best understanding that, if we bring down CO2 to net zero, the warming will level off. The climate will stabilize within a decade or two. There will be very little to no additional warming. Our best estimate is zero.” As Texas A&M climate scientist Andrew Dessler put it, “Some models show a few tenths of a degree of warming, and others a few tenths of a degree of cooling. However, our central estimate is that the global average temperature does not change once emissions stop.”>>
<<In summary, McKibben’s framing reflects the central ZEC estimate, but misses that: (a) the EEI will remain positive for centuries even at net zero; (b) ocean thermal inertia continues releasing committed warming on centennial timescales; (c) deep ocean feedbacks could trigger renewed surface warming after an initial plateau; and (d) eliminating aerosol pollution alongside fossil fuels removes a substantial (if temporary) cooling mask, potentially accelerating near-term warming. The “stabilizes within a decade or two” claim is a best-case central estimate that the physical evidence — especially recent EEI measurements — casts serious doubt on.>>
Nan, coincidentally, there is a current email thread in a Google Group that I and many international climate experts (scientists and engineers) use to deliberate. Reading the back and forth of the dialogue that was initiated by a German climate scientist, a recent AGU paper being discussed inspired me to use Claude AI in a follow-up query. I highly recommend that you and Bill, in particular have a read: https://claude.ai/share/534d12ad-5239-401a-ab66-ef5c74295fd4
My follow up clarification to yesterday’s Claude query:
In my query yesterday Claude concluded:
<<In summary, McKibben’s framing reflects the central ZEC estimate, but misses that: (a) the EEI will remain positive for centuries even at net zero; (b) ocean thermal inertia continues releasing committed warming on centennial timescales; (c) deep ocean feedbacks could trigger renewed surface warming after an initial plateau; and (d) eliminating aerosol pollution alongside fossil fuels removes a substantial (if temporary) cooling mask, potentially accelerating near-term warming. The “stabilizes within a decade or two” claim is a best-case central estimate that the physical evidence — especially recent EEI measurements — casts serious doubt on.>
Basically, as I interpret, Earth warming will continue at a gradually lessening upward rate even after Zero or Net Zero global CO2 (and CH4?) emissions have been achieved, for several decades, and bending the temperature downward to a cooling planet will not happen on a human relevant time scale as we pass deadly 2.7°C milestone mid century.
Does the following AGU paper validate or contradict yesterday conclusion?
Constraints on Climate Change Stabilization Based on Observations of Earth’s Energy Imbalance
I was able to retrieve the plain language summary of the Douville & Allan (2026) paper directly from ResearchGate citations. This is enough to give you a well-grounded answer.
The paper strongly validates yesterday’s conclusion — and in at least one key respect, makes it more alarming.
Here is what the Douville & Allan paper says in its own plain language summary, and how each point maps to yesterday’s discussion:
1. The EEI remains persistently positive after net zero
The paper’s plain language summary states: “Our findings suggest that the Earth will keep gaining heat for at least the next couple of decades. Even in a scenario where greenhouse gas emissions are kept low, it’s very unlikely that this warming trend will start to reverse before the early 2040s.”
This directly validates point (a) from yesterday — the EEI stays positive for decades post-net-zero, meaning the planet keeps accumulating heat well after emissions cease.
2. The timeline is pushed back further than the ZEC literature assumed
This is where the paper goes beyond confirming yesterday’s conclusion and actually tightens the screws. The authors note this is “more than 10 years later than earlier estimates suggested, which matters for planning how to reduce emissions and adapt to climate impacts.” The standard ZEC framing — that warming stabilizes within “a decade or two” — is explicitly contradicted. The paper says stabilization (let alone reversal) is unlikely before the early 2040s even under low-emission scenarios, and that’s from today, not from some future net-zero date.
3. The EEI is accelerating faster than models predict, and nobody fully understands why
The paper “also notes that more research is needed to better understand why the Earth’s heat imbalance is increasing faster than expected.” This directly echoes yesterday’s concern: the EEI is not just large, it is trending upward faster than CMIP6 models simulate. The WMO’s 2026 State of the Global Climate report included EEI as a new indicator, with 2025 showing the highest EEI on record since satellite observations began in the 1960s.
4. Model underestimation of EEI trend is a growing problem
A companion paper in the same GRL issue found that high-resolution coupled models only capture between 25% and 55% of the observed EEI trend, with the main discrepancy being that models simulate too much sunlight reflected back to space, particularly from the tropics and Southern Hemisphere. This means climate projections are systematically underestimating committed warming — which undermines any optimistic ZEC estimate.
Bottom line on your interpretation:
Your summary is essentially correct. The Douville & Allan paper uses observational EEI data (the most direct thermometer of planetary energy accumulation) and a statistical method to show that the planet is locked into continued warming for at least two more decades under even the most optimistic emissions scenarios. It does not address your 2.7°C mid-century milestone directly, but it corroborates the physical mechanism — a large, accelerating, poorly-understood EEI — that makes that trajectory plausible and that makes cooling on a human-relevant timescale essentially out of reach without active intervention (carbon removal or solar geoengineering) beyond simply reaching net zero.
The one area yesterday’s conclusion was slightly hedged — “best-case central estimate” — the Douville & Allan paper removes that hedge and replaces it with observationally-constrained evidence that even the best case is worse than we thought.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My follow-up clarification
One clarification please. You mention 2040 as though Zero or Net Zero will have been achieved by then, but the internationally agreed target is Net Zero by 2050. Have you intentionally or unintentionally shifted the Net Zero date assumptions? And what if global efforts extend beyond 2050 by say 10 or 20 years? At about what level °C would the peak global average temperature stabilize before cooling begins?
Claude’s response
This is an important clarification — and you’ve caught a genuine ambiguity worth unpacking carefully.
On the 2040 date: I did not intend to imply net zero is achieved by 2040. What the Douville & Allan paper says is that even under a low-emission scenario, temperature reversal is unlikely before the early 2040s. That language refers to an idealized modeling scenario, not the real-world 2050 net-zero target. I should have flagged that distinction explicitly. Apologies for the confusion.
The real-world timeline is considerably worse. The 2050 net-zero target is itself an aspiration that current national policies fall well short of — most credible analyses put actual trajectory emissions on track for net zero closer to 2070–2080 if at all. So the Douville & Allan “early 2040s” figure is actually a best-case lower bound on when stabilization could begin, under a scenario more optimistic than what we’re currently delivering.
On peak temperature under delayed net zero:
This is where the physics becomes genuinely grim. There is no single agreed number, but the logic is straightforward:
• Every decade of delay in reaching net zero adds roughly 0.2–0.3°C of additional committed warming from continued emissions alone, before the EEI lag effects even apply.
• Net zero by 2050 → peak warming likely in the range of 2.5–3.0°C above pre-industrial, with the EEI then holding temperatures elevated for decades before any cooling.
• Net zero by 2060 → probably 2.8–3.3°C peak range.
• Net zero by 2070 → likely 3.2–3.8°C or higher, depending on methane and feedback dynamics.
These are rough central estimates. The aerosol unmasking effect and potential tipping-point feedbacks (permafrost methane, Amazon dieback, ice-albedo) could push each of those ranges 0.3–0.5°C higher.
When does cooling begin after peak? Even after reaching net zero at whatever date, the EEI will remain positive for roughly 20–40 years (per Douville & Allan, possibly longer given the accelerating EEI trend). So peak temperature would not be reached until 2–4 decades after net zero, and meaningful cooling would not begin until decades after that. On a 2070 net-zero scenario, you are realistically looking at peak temperatures not until around 2100–2110, with no return to today’s temperatures on any timescale relevant to civilization.
The honest answer to “at what °C does it stabilize” is: we don’t know precisely, but under realistic (non-aspirational) trajectories, the number is well above 3°C, and the word “stabilize” is itself misleading — it implies a plateau followed by cooling, when the physics suggests a very prolonged thermal maximum before any downward trend.
When was Bill McKibben’s “Here comes the sun” published? Was the information you’ve validated available then? I suspect Bill relied on then-current knowledge. What do you suppose influenced the statement of Chapter 2 that Earth temperature would stabilize and begin cooling soon after Net Zero is achieved?
Claude replied:
This is a really important question, and the answer is clarifying — and somewhat exculpatory for McKibben.
Publication date: Here Comes the Sun was published August 19, 2025 by W. W. Norton. The book was therefore written — and its manuscript locked — probably in late 2024 or very early 2025.
Was the contradicting science available then?
Partially, but not fully. Here is the honest timeline:
The IPCC AR6 (2021–2022), which was the authoritative scientific consensus McKibben would have relied on, carried a central ZEC estimate that was essentially reassuring. The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report’s best estimate of the Zero Emissions Commitment was zero change — meaning no substantial further warming after net zero — though it came with substantial uncertainty. That is precisely the framing that supports McKibben’s Chapter 2 claim.
The more cautionary science was emerging but not yet authoritative when McKibben was writing. The landmark Frontiers in Science ZEC review paper — which challenged the IPCC’s reassuring central estimate and laid out the full complexity of ocean heat, permafrost, and aerosol-unmasking effects — was only published in November 2023. That would have been available to McKibben in principle, but it was a single review paper challenging consensus, not yet the dominant view.
Critically, the Douville & Allan paper showing temperature reversal is unlikely before the early 2040s even under low-emission scenarios was published in May 2026 — after McKibben’s book went to press.
What influenced McKibben’s statement?
Almost certainly the IPCC AR6 ZEC consensus — the most authoritative and widely cited source available, which said zero net further warming after net zero. That IPCC conclusion directly underpins the many net-zero targets that countries and companies have announced, and it was the scientific foundation of mainstream climate communication through 2024. McKibben, as a communicator rather than a physical climate scientist, would naturally lean on IPCC consensus rather than emerging challenges to it.
There is also a motivational dimension worth naming honestly: McKibben’s book is explicitly a call to action around solar and wind acceleration. The publisher’s framing is that “if we can keep accelerating the pace, we have a chance” — it is an optimistic, mobilizing argument. A message that net zero stabilizes temperatures supports that call to action. A message that even net zero leaves us warming for decades is harder to build a movement around, even if it is more physically accurate.
So the short answer: McKibben relied on then-current IPCC consensus that was already being questioned by specialists, and the decisive observational evidence (particularly from EEI measurements) that refutes the “stabilizes soon” claim has crystallized largely in 2025–2026 — after his manuscript was complete. He was not wrong to use the IPCC figure; the science has simply moved under him faster than the publication cycle allowed.
Figure out a way to get a presidential primary contender (there are at least a dozen plausible ones) to make this case and overcome the inevitable swiftboating as anti-American. It could change the whole geography of this, like maybe Steyer in California with Becerra and Hilton. Somebody needs to come out of the closet and make it clear that love for the green old world dare speak its name. There are goods and services, and there are goods and services. I've always felt like the local parks have been far better to me than any luxury car ever could have been. That's $200K to me which I never had to earn. Let's do some more GDP like that. Ditto good talks about literature. Ditto a rock and roll concert for an audience of 15.
I was just recently thinking about what you wrote above, as well:
"The physical, safe way to do it — I see paths to having, imagine in every panel on a commercial building you have a stack of these batteries like a server rack, and they are all plug-in based. You are not just doing one giant system on the roof, which has totally different safety and weight considerations and needs permits, etc. When you think about these metropolitan areas, you could imagine solar on every balcony, solar on the roof, storage on every panel, and they are all plugged in."
In my imaginary scenario, there are small scale batteries at every home and apartment and larger ones at businesses and buildings to store energy during high solar generation hours and then this stored energy is released during peak use time. So very similar except you have batteries located centrally in larger buildings which may be more efficient.
Even those homes and businesses without solar panels could still have batteries to help store and adjust for optimal grid energy use time.
This is similar to the impact of having free energy use hours, like in Australia, when there is a lot of solar power. Many would choose to charge up batteries at this free time for use later during higher priced high demand hours with a special rate plan, even those without solar or a balcony.
It can either be done by homeowners given these incentives like in Australia, and maybe a credit of voucher to buy a battery, or utilities could be required to place smaller batteries as a part of the metering system for which the storage and release would be controlled on a timer, a timer which could be remotely adjusted if there is suddenly higher demand.
I was just wondering if this was "doable." At-home batteries or power banks now seem to go on sale for about 350 a KWh and I bet utilities could do it cheaper on a large scale.
What inspired this thought is that I generate energy with my backyard solar setup, and store it in batteries to use during high peak use hours 4-9 pm as well as to run dehumidifiers overnight (I found low watt dehumidifiers at under 115 watts). The batteries can also be used during the day while charging and I run my fridge and re-freeze gallon water bottles during this time as well, and then the ice is used at night to keep food cold when the batteries switch to other uses. Someday I might be able to afford a larger battery for 24/7 fridge operation, but this does well for now, because the ice is still slushy when put back to be refrozen during the day so it only takes a few hours.
Anyway, I was thinking of getting another battery and I wondered what if everyone had at least one battery either provided by the utility as part or our metering equipment (or if we had the free charging hour to charge our own battery and a voucher to help buy one).
2-3 kWh batteries are now under 1 thousand each and even 1 kWh batteries (power stations) can go on sale for about 350 dollars. A battery at every household in CA would be something like 5% of energy use shifted from one part of the day to another....so solar goes farther....less need for gas?
One final thought...
It seems to me in reading a Yale study that we are already lapping at the heels of the tipping points and crossing them and that we are actually out of time.
Why are people unaware? Am I wrong?
I think a majority know climate change is real and man made so in order for them to not be changing their behavior means they are unaware that the danger is now - not something we only need to address with our % reduction goals for 2035 or 2050.
I think people would act now if they knew and change their behavior.
With all my talk about solar and batteries, the truth is that the larger share of my energy savings has come from conservation and reducing use.
Given the knowledge of urgency, it would be well within the capacity of most to reduce their footprint 5-10-20% with no actual investment.
And based on Jigar Shah's interview with Matthew Ratteree the other day. Many businesses could do the same.
Take the time to really listen to what is being said in the interview - 5 million BPD - no small potatoes.
That said, why not also have the state (CA) or states pay or subsidize an uber type ride to work so long as it is in an EV for low income folks to get to work or even better the state could buy a fleet of EVs to lease to low income folks with payments based on income or provide EV carpool routes run by the city.
My city just started a low cost electric van service to take residents where they want to go. This is good for folks without an electric bike or who are older.
Also, why are all buses not yet electric? When I lived in AZ they started making the electric bus transitions more than a decade ago....
It certainly shows Trump can't do math and seems to not understand these concepts.
If he really thinks it is stolen, then he does not get math.
In 2020, I was watching the polling trends, and Trump was polling behind Biden all but one month in the summer of 2020 in AZ. Biden was expected to win, and with how Trump treated McCain before and after his death and the fact that Cindy McCain, John's wife, endorsed Biden and considered him a close family friend, Trump was not expected to win the state, and yet after Trump lost, we had do endure watching the circus of our ballots being spun on color coded wheels at the fairgrounds, bizarre claims of bamboo in the paper, and use of blacklights with little to no protections or secure chain of custody. In the end, Cyber Ninjas refused to turn over data and had to be fined and forced to do so, and they did not find squat.
But why would anyone think they would? Trump was not expected to win in AZ and he even did just a bit better, not worse, than polling would have suggested even if he was supposed to lose.
This scenario can be repeated in state after state where there either was nothing that suggested he should have won, or it suggested it would be very close even in some traditionally redder states like Georgia.
Nothing was even strange enough to justify conspiracies in the first place which suggests the conspiracies were intentionally manufactured, nothing more, nothing less.
One giant contagious tantrum.
So, yes here in CA, there will be nothing to find.
I did the math before Pratt slid from second place to third for mayor and that was very predictable based on outstanding ballots and the math.
If Steyer catches up, it will be very close, so that is not predictable. I wish he had spent more time and energy going after Hilton instead of Becerra since candidates can't legally control who contributes to a PAC. Hilton is, and was, clearly the real threat to climate efforts.
All fascinating. Prescriptions for how the entire world should change to fend off disaster are useful, but very unlikely of implementation. What's much more likely, though harder to model, is a patchwork of small steps, bold steps, backward steps and frozen inaction. Early movers will seek to capitalize by taking advantage of desperate late adopters. Those without resources will develop plans they have no way to implement, while those who can help will insist they need to conserve their own resources. The world will look, in short, much like the mess it is now, exacerbated by the worst crisis in human history. Plans for addressing that would be interesting to read.
Asia's bill for fossil fuels is $1.1 trillion. They could cut it by 30% once they get to 100% Evs says (page 50 of the below slide deck.) Ember is doing the math for policy wonks in Asia in this report that Bill gave us this week. Page 50 of https://ember-energy.org/app/uploads/2026/06/Electric-Asia_Slidedeck.pdf
RMI's report the CleanTech revolution says the next step in the public debate is shifting from "Renewables are nice to have" to "Renewables are a key tool of power". That's the next step for society as we move from a fossil fuel plateau to a decline.
We in Texas have held Asia down for generations. Buying fossil fuels from us have been a heavy burden, a crushing burden. Unlike China and Japan, India is able to leap over fossil fuels and go straight to renewable energy. They are able to skip much of the fossil fuel stage in their development said some report.
There's some truth in that. Asia, especially China, are moving much more quickly than the US. India is still the world's second largest importer of oil and gas, and uses vast amounts of coal as well. Being somewhat late to industrialize, they have an opportunity to replace a lot of that with solar and likely will.
I hold much hope in China and india buying less and less of our fossil fuels. Here in Texas that would get the attention of the oil producers. The Exxon types likely know it's going to happen. it's the less professional oil industry planners that need to be hit in the head with a two by four. These "independents" are investing 50% more than the "majors" reports Nat Bullard in his 2026 slidedeck slide #169. In 2023, oil demand by China peaked. Since it's only gone down a bit. (Bullard #170) All told investment in new production is way down reports Rocky Mountain Institute in the CleanTech Revolution. This dying industry is dying with some grace. Yet, it will be messy. RMI reports there will be trillions in stranded assets. Please warn everyone to divest now while they can.
Part of racism is just ignoring the Other that we abuse. Like we just ignore China and India. Instead our people get stuck thinking about US actions and grieving about how bad the US is towards our climate. But China's emissions are 3 times ours. And India's just a bit fewer emissions than ours.
In India, per capita electricity is just 7% of what we enjoy in Texas. Many of them are still cooking with biomass, firewood. They can't afford a/c. In my lifetime, their consumption has grown 20 times more than it was. Fossil fuels meant we could make a huge leap in consumption. It made an end to poverty possible.
Anyone who buys anything in the global marketplace is a long way from net zero, because most of the goods and services we purchase every day are made with energy from fossil carbon. And how many are ready to go wholly off the grid?
I figure have been net zero, way beyond that, net positive for years. I am donating my life savings and my parents' savings to sustainability. And what carbon price my activism? Maybe Bill would put a number on that, but probably not.
The Houston Chronicle ran an op-ed today from a lawyer/citizen that said our Senate race might break the Republican stranglehold on Texas. He made a coherent case for it. Here we have Talarico, a devout Christian and Democrat, versus a Trump sycophant Republican, Paxton, competing for Senate. Talarico's sure to sway some good Republicans (there are good ones) to CONSIDER voting Democratic. It won't take many of them for Talarico to win. Polls say they are neck and neck.
It will be a cold day in Hell when a ban on oil drilling is a plank in a political party with elected candidates. In Texas they say "Don't California Texas."
The Arctic refuge story is the one that stays with me — not because of the policy outcome, but because of what it reveals. Native Alaskans made it toxic. Campaigners made it impossible. That's not data winning. That's people with a relationship to a place refusing to let it go. I wrote my novel Empty Earth about a wilderness guide named Harry who understood that the only thing that ever actually stopped extraction was love for a specific piece of land. Looks like he was right.
It may be more than just the very effective campaigning. US oil companies seem disinclined to take forward Trump's 'drill, baby, drill' clarion call.
https://theconversation.com/us-oil-industry-doesnt-see-profit-in-trumps-pro-petroleum-moves-270518
https://www.offshore-technology.com/features/a-year-on-from-drill-baby-drill-why-are-there-fewer-oil-rigs-in-the-us/
Since Trump started the war with Iran, oil companies are making some nice profits from the higher oil prices. So long as it continues, and it shows no prospect of ending soon, they don't need to do any more expensive drilling.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8pyyz5e0ro
The price per barrel before the war which is based largely on global supply and demand made more money spent on new drilling fairly unprofitable and although a higher price normally would inspire more drilling, I do not think they know the longer term projections from the war since the outcome and timing of the war are unpredictable. I am glad that the oil issue is making many countries form plans to move away from fossil fuel use, however. This is a silver lining, for sure.
However, if a lot of oil infrastructure is damaged in the middle east from the war causing lengthy rebuilding, higher prices 'might' inspire more drilling here at home. I hope not.
My thinking is that they are all vying to be the last man or last oil producers standing over time meaning staying lean and consolidating - just my assumption based on my reading on the topic. I am not an expert.
It seems to me that Venezuela was more about knocking out some competition to reduce global supply and boost price more than it was about increasing supply, just my view. Its connection to Iran kind of made me think Iran would be next. Russia's and US oil companies seem to be some of the biggest winners as prices soar.
That's a revealing inversion — the ideological push outpacing the economic incentive. Harry would have called it the first honest signal in years. When the profit motive and the planet briefly align, even accidentally, something shifts. The question is whether it's fast enough.
Russell, that's a fascinating point — that the economics may be doing what the campaigning couldn't. Harry would have had complicated feelings about that. He spent his life believing people needed to choose differently. Finding out the market might choose for them would have felt like winning the wrong way.
Technology may be moving faster than politics. The real challenge is whether our institutions can evolve quickly enough to match the possibilities created by the energy transition.
Well, they can -- the real question is whether they will.
History suggests that ability is rarely the problem. Motivation usually is.
Thanks once again for your highly informative survey of the ongoing movement toward a planet powered by renewable energy. It is highly encouraging to see all the progress that is being made despite the retrograde policies of our Federal government! The world is not standing still while the current inhabitant of the White House fusses and fumes.
I thought SUVs were really gross gas guzzlers. Then 25 years ago, I watched my elderly parents get in and out of one--being butt level made it a snap. Fast forward--we went into a Chevy dealer to get an idea what we should pay for an EV, Chevy Equinox, which turns out to be about $26,500 cash, so we bought it. It has most everything we could want (no sunroof but in Iowa, that's not a big loss). We just got a report that we spent $30 to go a little over 1,000 miles--about 3 cents per mile. The car is super quiet and smooth--it weighs about 4700 pounds. It's plenty snappy, too.
We have a fast charger--we got a $500 rebate and some of it will be for business expense, but the total price was a little less than $2,000. Kind of shocking, but we probably didn't need it--our hybrids were fine with the 120 volt charger. We can delay charging to midnight, although the savings really aren't there--yes we get a break on car charging, but we pay a higher rate for peak power.
Kyla Scanlon recently drew attention to a chart from the Phenomenal World website which shows that for the first time since the age of steam and rail the US is not leading the latest major energy transition i.e. from fossil fuels to renewables - and that's mostly down to Donald Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ak6k1UQ2Drw
While China has assumed the mantle of leaders in this transition, Trump is investing in coal
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/04/trump-coal-defense-production-act
and spending more than a billion dollars of public funds to stop wind power projects that would provide American households with cheap energy.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/28/trump-administration-wind-projects
The long-term economic effects of these decisions taken today by Trump will be disastrous for the American economy.
There’s a thesis - does anyone know the book that proposed it? - that each time there’s an energy transition, there’s a corresponding change in the identity of the world hegemon. Several countries managed wind power (shipping), and Dutch managed water. Coal and the Industrial Revolution put England on top; the U.S. rose with oil; and now? China and electrotech? (China as the world leader is not a comforting idea.)
I like China better than Donald Trump. At least China is smart. They recognize in solar and EVs a great business opportunity. Hopefully, the US will soon recognize that fossil fuels are has beens. Hopefully the government will give up trying to bully the economy. Even China does not try to centrally plan like Trump does. It's been a thousand years since China was a great nation. Trump is helping make China great again.
Both China ands the US recognize that we can't make the all-electric transition without using vehicles that run on fossil carbon. That obviously means more oil, not less. Wake up!
I love your indefatigable optimism, Bill McKibben. Yes, we can pave deserts with solar panels and maintain a semi-Jetson lifestyle. It already seems to be happening. What worries me is that that kind of transition won't be available to the tropics and who knows where else (Paradise, CA for example). No amount of sun-powered air conditioning will keep Central America habitable in coming decades, if I understand the trends. The Gulf States, now so heavily contested, look to be cooked. Global South in general, cooked. Here's my question. How secure will the Global North feel when the rest of the planet isn't sipping lemonade by the swimming pool?
I live in steamy Houston, Texas. High today 92F. Most here have not yet been asked to do anything small and specific for our climate. For example, join Third Act, Bill's grassroots organization. Here are upcoming events. https://thirdact.org/events/ What would you ask people to do?
The main thing is to try to get ready. Emphasis on try. Plan what's plan-able. The big point is that we're not recognizing the scale & speed of the climate slide and we therefore are not preparing. I don't mean this in the old-style prepper sense. I mean more like conversion experience to a different outlook that starts with simple survival. I have no pointers on this. I wish I did.
Hey Bill, Thomas Piketty was born in France (Clichy, greater Paris region).
"In other energy and climate news...", what our dear Bill ignores is "The Heat Will Kill Us First", Jeff Goodell. I write about it in "Greeley's Newsletter".substack.com. There's ONLY one long term solution to our overheating planet: CONTRACEPTION. Have a blessed day.
The UN told US that in 1977, Dr. Miklashek. I haven’t forgotten (92, this year) because the figure was 2.2 children allowed to each couple the UN had counted and the .2 child was unimaginable! Watching the world ever since (children of WWII grade school were encouraged to watch the world—everyone had a someone somewhere) including 10 years on a small boat on the French canals—a front seat to climate change), daughter of a master gardener, married to a devoted Sierra Club member, my gratitude for what I’ve read here will inspire me to write more daily GOTV postcards to Democrats, some of whom “get it.”
Thank you, Bill McKibben. My husband was a fan. I was part of your Chicago audience the night after DT was elected in 2016.
Thank you. Concur. Many (most) don't understand the history of the green revolution and how it postponed the inevitable severe population contraction. One need only read one paper by Dr. William Rees to understand the math behind your statement.
Second reply: I heard Paul Ehrlich at Tulane University in (?)1972, read his major publication at the time and joined his organization (now “Population Connection”) of which I am still a member. Because at 92, having been brought up with history and politics, a southerner with an extensive liberal arts education, 10 years on a small boat in the French canals where I got a good look at US (“bad teenagers on the block”), then losing my husband immediately upon my return, a good look at myself in the context of all I had learned, from ‘16 onward have been glued to American politics first through MSNBC and Paul Krugman’s early December warning after his lecture in the New York Public Library (“We may be doomed. Resist “ for which he left the podium and I have forgotten the topic of the lecture), then charter member of neighborhood Indivisible. No longer a marcher,
I write 10 postcards to voters every day for whatever organization sends addresses for democrats (Democrats), shilling for stamps. 100 stamps for 92nd birthday present, with postcard stamps at $.61 apiece has been terrific!
With not much time to follow, I shall read with interest what you write.
I am honored to receive your reply and you may find the PDF of my 2018 e-book, “Stress R US”, by just Googling the title. I lived in Savannah for 7 yrs. and have great respect for Southern intellectuals. My substack “Greeley’s Newsletter” contains two dozen essays, several exploring the deep mental illnesses of Our Mad King Donald the 1st and the grave danger that presents to our nation and the world. Have a blessed day!
Thank you for the reference and for the “respect for Southern intellectuals.” Before 1860 the South was considered the home of American libraries and intellectuals, so Savannah must remain true to its history. (That’s for a chuckle. Georgia is a laboratory for the North-South split. Think of the leaders of the Democratic Party there versus the Republicans.)
Project Drawdown agrees that stabilizing population is a climate issue. We've made such huge progress on it. Next steps are reducing infant mortality by providing clean water and sanitation. Will you lend $25 for 3 years to this loan for clean water in Kenya? https://www.kiva.org/lend/3186571
If I may ask, which Slavic country is yours? If I guess, am sure to be wrong. I know well a Serb, two Ukrainians, and lots of Poles (have had fun learning Polish before Covid). So please enlighten me (as we need all the Enlightenment we can get these days.
It's interesting that while the Trump administration is promoting the development of Artificial Intelligence and the US stock market is being driven upwards almost entirely by the competing needs of the tech giants to acquire ever more copious amounts of data for their large language models, it is also busy destroying important data it finds inconvenient and stopping the collection of such data.
https://thebulletin.org/2026/06/the-trump-administration-wont-face-the-facts/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=AGI%20s%20ETA%3A%20Delayed%20%28again%29&utm_campaign=20260608%20Monday%20Newsletter
Yes. And I like that the article says "Trump isn't the first official to do this." Don't we all deny this or that? One biggie is the existence of hunger. So I am pleased with Bill McKibben for bringing up the topic of global inequality this week. He said "no sustainability without sufficiency."
In the early 1960s at the dinner table, my Mother said "Clean your plate. There are starving people in China." Not any more.
The first step to ending a problem is admitting it. I so love the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
The unfortunate flaw in Greeley Miklashek’s honorable long term contraception solution is “The Heat Will Kill Us First.”
On our current trajectory, within a handful of decades, we will fly past deadly milestones of extreme heat and cold, economic ravages of extreme weather, starvation from extreme drought and conflict by extreme global migration.
We simply don’t have time to cool the planet waiting for a global contraception program to save our assets and our immediate progeny. Whatever happened to the idea of reducing the atmospheric blanket, i.e., <350ppm CO2, even better Holocene 280ppm? Simply aiming for Net Zero CO2 emissions will not do the job— let us not forget about CH4 and other GHGs.
We need to think outside the box near term.
Energy waste is also a something we can tackle now. Massive amounts are used that need not be. We need to hunker down until a lot of these plans can be put into motion. This is at homes as well as businesses and requires a cultural shift.
Jigar Shah's interview with Matthew Ratteree the other day for businesses:
https://energyempirepodcast.substack.com/p/matthew-ratteree-efficiency-at-oil?r=52j3gb&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer
For homes and individuals, when you think of how much can be saved if people simply stop going places when not needed, or the fact that keeping water hot 24/7 can often be 18% or more of an electric bill and on and on.... well one can still live comfortably and likely easily cut all forms of energy use by 20% or more.
I now drive no more than 6 miles a week and fill up my economy car only 2-3 times a year and do not fly. My usage when the sun does not shine is only 4-5 kWh a day, and when it does shine, it is about 1 kWh. Obviously, most of this is simple conservation.
I have not been able to afford rooftop solar or an EV or even a hybrid. I do have some backyard solar panels and batteries that account for 3 kWh, but those were fairly cheap. I live comfortably - this is not pioneer living - it is simply mostly all about conserving. We can all do this TODAY and conserving often includes businesses. I realize that some have to drive for work, but the rest of the time can still amount to a huge change in usage.
I think people are unaware that we seem to be at some of the tipping points already, or so it seems. If they knew, I think many more would change their behavior and although that is not all we need to do, it would still help.
I love what Bill said In his bestseller, Here Comes the Sun. That net zero means it stops getting warmer. He said it stays hot but doesn't get hotter. The good news is we are an inch from falling emissions. In today's newsletter, Bill quoted an expert who said China and India's emissions have peaked. China is so big that their peaking means the world is peaking. Millions or billions of people are working on this says Katharine Hayhoe, a renowned Texas climate scientist. (I'm in Texas.) Here's an easy way you can help. Will you lend $25 for a couple of years to one of these solar loans? https://www.kiva.org/lend/3187965
https://www.kiva.org/lend/3185655
https://www.kiva.org/lend/3185692
Also, please join Bill's group, Third Act. https://thirdact.org/events/
Nan, this statement is not precisely true: “net zero means it stops getting warmer. … it stays hot but doesn't get hotter.”
Correctly stated: “net zero means it stops getting warmer *quite as fast* … it *continues to get hotter but the rate slows down*.”
I quoted Bill right. Bill wrote on page 53 of Here Comes the Sun. That's the end of Chapter 2
"Still, I’m going to end this dour chapter with a piece of good scientific news. Doomsayers have fixated on the idea that we’re committed to a future of ever-escalating temperatures no matter what—that we’re locked in to a pipeline of inevitable warming. But the latest science indicates that isn’t true—that if we actually cut emissions of carbon dioxide and methane to zero, then warming would stop. As Imperial College London’s Joeri Rogelj explained three years ago, “It is our best understanding that, if we bring down CO2 to net zero, the warming will level off. The climate will stabilize within a decade or two. There will be very little to no additional warming. Our best estimate is zero.” As Texas A&M climate scientist Andrew Dessler put it, “Some models show a few tenths of a degree of warming, and others a few tenths of a degree of cooling. However, our central estimate is that the global average temperature does not change once emissions stop.” That’s not euphoric news—we’d still inhabit an overheated earth. But no one goes to the ER expecting euphoria.
What we hope for is a chance. And that we’ve got, as we shall now see."
Nan, Google search and AI synthesis are the tools I use to test my layman’s understanding of many topics. I did both this evening and offer Claude AI’s response to Bill McKibben’s statement as follows:
My understanding is that the following statement by bill McKibben is not true, rather earths energy imbalance will remain high with gradual slowing of the rate of warming for centuries. Can you find evidence of this?
Bill stated <<if we actually cut emissions of carbon dioxide and methane to zero, then warming would stop. As Imperial College London’s Joeri Rogelj explained three years ago, “It is our best understanding that, if we bring down CO2 to net zero, the warming will level off. The climate will stabilize within a decade or two. There will be very little to no additional warming. Our best estimate is zero.” As Texas A&M climate scientist Andrew Dessler put it, “Some models show a few tenths of a degree of warming, and others a few tenths of a degree of cooling. However, our central estimate is that the global average temperature does not change once emissions stop.”>>
You can read Claude’s full response here
https://claude.ai/share/cc3975b5-8021-48e8-b50b-06ee7bbe1461
For your convenience, Claude concluded with this:
<<In summary, McKibben’s framing reflects the central ZEC estimate, but misses that: (a) the EEI will remain positive for centuries even at net zero; (b) ocean thermal inertia continues releasing committed warming on centennial timescales; (c) deep ocean feedbacks could trigger renewed surface warming after an initial plateau; and (d) eliminating aerosol pollution alongside fossil fuels removes a substantial (if temporary) cooling mask, potentially accelerating near-term warming. The “stabilizes within a decade or two” claim is a best-case central estimate that the physical evidence — especially recent EEI measurements — casts serious doubt on.>>
Nan, coincidentally, there is a current email thread in a Google Group that I and many international climate experts (scientists and engineers) use to deliberate. Reading the back and forth of the dialogue that was initiated by a German climate scientist, a recent AGU paper being discussed inspired me to use Claude AI in a follow-up query. I highly recommend that you and Bill, in particular have a read: https://claude.ai/share/534d12ad-5239-401a-ab66-ef5c74295fd4
My follow up clarification to yesterday’s Claude query:
In my query yesterday Claude concluded:
<<In summary, McKibben’s framing reflects the central ZEC estimate, but misses that: (a) the EEI will remain positive for centuries even at net zero; (b) ocean thermal inertia continues releasing committed warming on centennial timescales; (c) deep ocean feedbacks could trigger renewed surface warming after an initial plateau; and (d) eliminating aerosol pollution alongside fossil fuels removes a substantial (if temporary) cooling mask, potentially accelerating near-term warming. The “stabilizes within a decade or two” claim is a best-case central estimate that the physical evidence — especially recent EEI measurements — casts serious doubt on.>
Basically, as I interpret, Earth warming will continue at a gradually lessening upward rate even after Zero or Net Zero global CO2 (and CH4?) emissions have been achieved, for several decades, and bending the temperature downward to a cooling planet will not happen on a human relevant time scale as we pass deadly 2.7°C milestone mid century.
Does the following AGU paper validate or contradict yesterday conclusion?
Constraints on Climate Change Stabilization Based on Observations of Earth’s Energy Imbalance
Hervé Douville, Richard P. Allan
First published: 26 May 2026
https://doi.org/10.1029/2025GL121056
Claude’s response
I was able to retrieve the plain language summary of the Douville & Allan (2026) paper directly from ResearchGate citations. This is enough to give you a well-grounded answer.
The paper strongly validates yesterday’s conclusion — and in at least one key respect, makes it more alarming.
Here is what the Douville & Allan paper says in its own plain language summary, and how each point maps to yesterday’s discussion:
1. The EEI remains persistently positive after net zero
The paper’s plain language summary states: “Our findings suggest that the Earth will keep gaining heat for at least the next couple of decades. Even in a scenario where greenhouse gas emissions are kept low, it’s very unlikely that this warming trend will start to reverse before the early 2040s.”
This directly validates point (a) from yesterday — the EEI stays positive for decades post-net-zero, meaning the planet keeps accumulating heat well after emissions cease.
2. The timeline is pushed back further than the ZEC literature assumed
This is where the paper goes beyond confirming yesterday’s conclusion and actually tightens the screws. The authors note this is “more than 10 years later than earlier estimates suggested, which matters for planning how to reduce emissions and adapt to climate impacts.” The standard ZEC framing — that warming stabilizes within “a decade or two” — is explicitly contradicted. The paper says stabilization (let alone reversal) is unlikely before the early 2040s even under low-emission scenarios, and that’s from today, not from some future net-zero date.
3. The EEI is accelerating faster than models predict, and nobody fully understands why
The paper “also notes that more research is needed to better understand why the Earth’s heat imbalance is increasing faster than expected.” This directly echoes yesterday’s concern: the EEI is not just large, it is trending upward faster than CMIP6 models simulate. The WMO’s 2026 State of the Global Climate report included EEI as a new indicator, with 2025 showing the highest EEI on record since satellite observations began in the 1960s.
4. Model underestimation of EEI trend is a growing problem
A companion paper in the same GRL issue found that high-resolution coupled models only capture between 25% and 55% of the observed EEI trend, with the main discrepancy being that models simulate too much sunlight reflected back to space, particularly from the tropics and Southern Hemisphere. This means climate projections are systematically underestimating committed warming — which undermines any optimistic ZEC estimate.
Bottom line on your interpretation:
Your summary is essentially correct. The Douville & Allan paper uses observational EEI data (the most direct thermometer of planetary energy accumulation) and a statistical method to show that the planet is locked into continued warming for at least two more decades under even the most optimistic emissions scenarios. It does not address your 2.7°C mid-century milestone directly, but it corroborates the physical mechanism — a large, accelerating, poorly-understood EEI — that makes that trajectory plausible and that makes cooling on a human-relevant timescale essentially out of reach without active intervention (carbon removal or solar geoengineering) beyond simply reaching net zero.
The one area yesterday’s conclusion was slightly hedged — “best-case central estimate” — the Douville & Allan paper removes that hedge and replaces it with observationally-constrained evidence that even the best case is worse than we thought.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My follow-up clarification
One clarification please. You mention 2040 as though Zero or Net Zero will have been achieved by then, but the internationally agreed target is Net Zero by 2050. Have you intentionally or unintentionally shifted the Net Zero date assumptions? And what if global efforts extend beyond 2050 by say 10 or 20 years? At about what level °C would the peak global average temperature stabilize before cooling begins?
Claude’s response
This is an important clarification — and you’ve caught a genuine ambiguity worth unpacking carefully.
On the 2040 date: I did not intend to imply net zero is achieved by 2040. What the Douville & Allan paper says is that even under a low-emission scenario, temperature reversal is unlikely before the early 2040s. That language refers to an idealized modeling scenario, not the real-world 2050 net-zero target. I should have flagged that distinction explicitly. Apologies for the confusion.
The real-world timeline is considerably worse. The 2050 net-zero target is itself an aspiration that current national policies fall well short of — most credible analyses put actual trajectory emissions on track for net zero closer to 2070–2080 if at all. So the Douville & Allan “early 2040s” figure is actually a best-case lower bound on when stabilization could begin, under a scenario more optimistic than what we’re currently delivering.
On peak temperature under delayed net zero:
This is where the physics becomes genuinely grim. There is no single agreed number, but the logic is straightforward:
• Every decade of delay in reaching net zero adds roughly 0.2–0.3°C of additional committed warming from continued emissions alone, before the EEI lag effects even apply.
• Net zero by 2050 → peak warming likely in the range of 2.5–3.0°C above pre-industrial, with the EEI then holding temperatures elevated for decades before any cooling.
• Net zero by 2060 → probably 2.8–3.3°C peak range.
• Net zero by 2070 → likely 3.2–3.8°C or higher, depending on methane and feedback dynamics.
These are rough central estimates. The aerosol unmasking effect and potential tipping-point feedbacks (permafrost methane, Amazon dieback, ice-albedo) could push each of those ranges 0.3–0.5°C higher.
When does cooling begin after peak? Even after reaching net zero at whatever date, the EEI will remain positive for roughly 20–40 years (per Douville & Allan, possibly longer given the accelerating EEI trend). So peak temperature would not be reached until 2–4 decades after net zero, and meaningful cooling would not begin until decades after that. On a 2070 net-zero scenario, you are realistically looking at peak temperatures not until around 2100–2110, with no return to today’s temperatures on any timescale relevant to civilization.
The honest answer to “at what °C does it stabilize” is: we don’t know precisely, but under realistic (non-aspirational) trajectories, the number is well above 3°C, and the word “stabilize” is itself misleading — it implies a plateau followed by cooling, when the physics suggests a very prolonged thermal maximum before any downward trend.
Nan, this final query is worth noting:
https://claude.ai/share/534d12ad-5239-401a-ab66-ef5c74295fd4
I asked:
When was Bill McKibben’s “Here comes the sun” published? Was the information you’ve validated available then? I suspect Bill relied on then-current knowledge. What do you suppose influenced the statement of Chapter 2 that Earth temperature would stabilize and begin cooling soon after Net Zero is achieved?
Claude replied:
This is a really important question, and the answer is clarifying — and somewhat exculpatory for McKibben.
Publication date: Here Comes the Sun was published August 19, 2025 by W. W. Norton. The book was therefore written — and its manuscript locked — probably in late 2024 or very early 2025.
Was the contradicting science available then?
Partially, but not fully. Here is the honest timeline:
The IPCC AR6 (2021–2022), which was the authoritative scientific consensus McKibben would have relied on, carried a central ZEC estimate that was essentially reassuring. The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report’s best estimate of the Zero Emissions Commitment was zero change — meaning no substantial further warming after net zero — though it came with substantial uncertainty. That is precisely the framing that supports McKibben’s Chapter 2 claim.
The more cautionary science was emerging but not yet authoritative when McKibben was writing. The landmark Frontiers in Science ZEC review paper — which challenged the IPCC’s reassuring central estimate and laid out the full complexity of ocean heat, permafrost, and aerosol-unmasking effects — was only published in November 2023. That would have been available to McKibben in principle, but it was a single review paper challenging consensus, not yet the dominant view.
Critically, the Douville & Allan paper showing temperature reversal is unlikely before the early 2040s even under low-emission scenarios was published in May 2026 — after McKibben’s book went to press.
What influenced McKibben’s statement?
Almost certainly the IPCC AR6 ZEC consensus — the most authoritative and widely cited source available, which said zero net further warming after net zero. That IPCC conclusion directly underpins the many net-zero targets that countries and companies have announced, and it was the scientific foundation of mainstream climate communication through 2024. McKibben, as a communicator rather than a physical climate scientist, would naturally lean on IPCC consensus rather than emerging challenges to it.
There is also a motivational dimension worth naming honestly: McKibben’s book is explicitly a call to action around solar and wind acceleration. The publisher’s framing is that “if we can keep accelerating the pace, we have a chance” — it is an optimistic, mobilizing argument. A message that net zero stabilizes temperatures supports that call to action. A message that even net zero leaves us warming for decades is harder to build a movement around, even if it is more physically accurate.
So the short answer: McKibben relied on then-current IPCC consensus that was already being questioned by specialists, and the decisive observational evidence (particularly from EEI measurements) that refutes the “stabilizes soon” claim has crystallized largely in 2025–2026 — after his manuscript was complete. He was not wrong to use the IPCC figure; the science has simply moved under him faster than the publication cycle allowed.
Figure out a way to get a presidential primary contender (there are at least a dozen plausible ones) to make this case and overcome the inevitable swiftboating as anti-American. It could change the whole geography of this, like maybe Steyer in California with Becerra and Hilton. Somebody needs to come out of the closet and make it clear that love for the green old world dare speak its name. There are goods and services, and there are goods and services. I've always felt like the local parks have been far better to me than any luxury car ever could have been. That's $200K to me which I never had to earn. Let's do some more GDP like that. Ditto good talks about literature. Ditto a rock and roll concert for an audience of 15.
Talarico for President!
I was just recently thinking about what you wrote above, as well:
"The physical, safe way to do it — I see paths to having, imagine in every panel on a commercial building you have a stack of these batteries like a server rack, and they are all plug-in based. You are not just doing one giant system on the roof, which has totally different safety and weight considerations and needs permits, etc. When you think about these metropolitan areas, you could imagine solar on every balcony, solar on the roof, storage on every panel, and they are all plugged in."
In my imaginary scenario, there are small scale batteries at every home and apartment and larger ones at businesses and buildings to store energy during high solar generation hours and then this stored energy is released during peak use time. So very similar except you have batteries located centrally in larger buildings which may be more efficient.
Even those homes and businesses without solar panels could still have batteries to help store and adjust for optimal grid energy use time.
This is similar to the impact of having free energy use hours, like in Australia, when there is a lot of solar power. Many would choose to charge up batteries at this free time for use later during higher priced high demand hours with a special rate plan, even those without solar or a balcony.
It can either be done by homeowners given these incentives like in Australia, and maybe a credit of voucher to buy a battery, or utilities could be required to place smaller batteries as a part of the metering system for which the storage and release would be controlled on a timer, a timer which could be remotely adjusted if there is suddenly higher demand.
I was just wondering if this was "doable." At-home batteries or power banks now seem to go on sale for about 350 a KWh and I bet utilities could do it cheaper on a large scale.
What inspired this thought is that I generate energy with my backyard solar setup, and store it in batteries to use during high peak use hours 4-9 pm as well as to run dehumidifiers overnight (I found low watt dehumidifiers at under 115 watts). The batteries can also be used during the day while charging and I run my fridge and re-freeze gallon water bottles during this time as well, and then the ice is used at night to keep food cold when the batteries switch to other uses. Someday I might be able to afford a larger battery for 24/7 fridge operation, but this does well for now, because the ice is still slushy when put back to be refrozen during the day so it only takes a few hours.
Anyway, I was thinking of getting another battery and I wondered what if everyone had at least one battery either provided by the utility as part or our metering equipment (or if we had the free charging hour to charge our own battery and a voucher to help buy one).
2-3 kWh batteries are now under 1 thousand each and even 1 kWh batteries (power stations) can go on sale for about 350 dollars. A battery at every household in CA would be something like 5% of energy use shifted from one part of the day to another....so solar goes farther....less need for gas?
One final thought...
It seems to me in reading a Yale study that we are already lapping at the heels of the tipping points and crossing them and that we are actually out of time.
Why are people unaware? Am I wrong?
I think a majority know climate change is real and man made so in order for them to not be changing their behavior means they are unaware that the danger is now - not something we only need to address with our % reduction goals for 2035 or 2050.
I think people would act now if they knew and change their behavior.
With all my talk about solar and batteries, the truth is that the larger share of my energy savings has come from conservation and reducing use.
Given the knowledge of urgency, it would be well within the capacity of most to reduce their footprint 5-10-20% with no actual investment.
And based on Jigar Shah's interview with Matthew Ratteree the other day. Many businesses could do the same.
Take the time to really listen to what is being said in the interview - 5 million BPD - no small potatoes.
https://energyempirepodcast.substack.com/p/matthew-ratteree-efficiency-at-oil?r=52j3gb&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer
That said, why not also have the state (CA) or states pay or subsidize an uber type ride to work so long as it is in an EV for low income folks to get to work or even better the state could buy a fleet of EVs to lease to low income folks with payments based on income or provide EV carpool routes run by the city.
My city just started a low cost electric van service to take residents where they want to go. This is good for folks without an electric bike or who are older.
Also, why are all buses not yet electric? When I lived in AZ they started making the electric bus transitions more than a decade ago....
Excellent piece, fascinating comments. I'm curious about attribution and location of the photo at the top?
Let them monitor our elections. They will find no significant fraud. It’s all a scam.
It certainly shows Trump can't do math and seems to not understand these concepts.
If he really thinks it is stolen, then he does not get math.
In 2020, I was watching the polling trends, and Trump was polling behind Biden all but one month in the summer of 2020 in AZ. Biden was expected to win, and with how Trump treated McCain before and after his death and the fact that Cindy McCain, John's wife, endorsed Biden and considered him a close family friend, Trump was not expected to win the state, and yet after Trump lost, we had do endure watching the circus of our ballots being spun on color coded wheels at the fairgrounds, bizarre claims of bamboo in the paper, and use of blacklights with little to no protections or secure chain of custody. In the end, Cyber Ninjas refused to turn over data and had to be fined and forced to do so, and they did not find squat.
But why would anyone think they would? Trump was not expected to win in AZ and he even did just a bit better, not worse, than polling would have suggested even if he was supposed to lose.
This scenario can be repeated in state after state where there either was nothing that suggested he should have won, or it suggested it would be very close even in some traditionally redder states like Georgia.
Nothing was even strange enough to justify conspiracies in the first place which suggests the conspiracies were intentionally manufactured, nothing more, nothing less.
One giant contagious tantrum.
So, yes here in CA, there will be nothing to find.
I did the math before Pratt slid from second place to third for mayor and that was very predictable based on outstanding ballots and the math.
If Steyer catches up, it will be very close, so that is not predictable. I wish he had spent more time and energy going after Hilton instead of Becerra since candidates can't legally control who contributes to a PAC. Hilton is, and was, clearly the real threat to climate efforts.
All fascinating. Prescriptions for how the entire world should change to fend off disaster are useful, but very unlikely of implementation. What's much more likely, though harder to model, is a patchwork of small steps, bold steps, backward steps and frozen inaction. Early movers will seek to capitalize by taking advantage of desperate late adopters. Those without resources will develop plans they have no way to implement, while those who can help will insist they need to conserve their own resources. The world will look, in short, much like the mess it is now, exacerbated by the worst crisis in human history. Plans for addressing that would be interesting to read.
Asia's bill for fossil fuels is $1.1 trillion. They could cut it by 30% once they get to 100% Evs says (page 50 of the below slide deck.) Ember is doing the math for policy wonks in Asia in this report that Bill gave us this week. Page 50 of https://ember-energy.org/app/uploads/2026/06/Electric-Asia_Slidedeck.pdf
RMI's report the CleanTech revolution says the next step in the public debate is shifting from "Renewables are nice to have" to "Renewables are a key tool of power". That's the next step for society as we move from a fossil fuel plateau to a decline.
We in Texas have held Asia down for generations. Buying fossil fuels from us have been a heavy burden, a crushing burden. Unlike China and Japan, India is able to leap over fossil fuels and go straight to renewable energy. They are able to skip much of the fossil fuel stage in their development said some report.
There's some truth in that. Asia, especially China, are moving much more quickly than the US. India is still the world's second largest importer of oil and gas, and uses vast amounts of coal as well. Being somewhat late to industrialize, they have an opportunity to replace a lot of that with solar and likely will.
I hold much hope in China and india buying less and less of our fossil fuels. Here in Texas that would get the attention of the oil producers. The Exxon types likely know it's going to happen. it's the less professional oil industry planners that need to be hit in the head with a two by four. These "independents" are investing 50% more than the "majors" reports Nat Bullard in his 2026 slidedeck slide #169. In 2023, oil demand by China peaked. Since it's only gone down a bit. (Bullard #170) All told investment in new production is way down reports Rocky Mountain Institute in the CleanTech Revolution. This dying industry is dying with some grace. Yet, it will be messy. RMI reports there will be trillions in stranded assets. Please warn everyone to divest now while they can.
Part of racism is just ignoring the Other that we abuse. Like we just ignore China and India. Instead our people get stuck thinking about US actions and grieving about how bad the US is towards our climate. But China's emissions are 3 times ours. And India's just a bit fewer emissions than ours.
In India, per capita electricity is just 7% of what we enjoy in Texas. Many of them are still cooking with biomass, firewood. They can't afford a/c. In my lifetime, their consumption has grown 20 times more than it was. Fossil fuels meant we could make a huge leap in consumption. It made an end to poverty possible.
We seem to be muddling through. They say global emissions maybe just peaked. It's all downhill from here, I hope. https://www.science.org/content/article/global-carbon-emissions-will-soon-flatten-or-decline Are you personally net zero yet?
Anyone who buys anything in the global marketplace is a long way from net zero, because most of the goods and services we purchase every day are made with energy from fossil carbon. And how many are ready to go wholly off the grid?
Here in Texas half our grid electricity is clean. https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards/fuelmix
I figure have been net zero, way beyond that, net positive for years. I am donating my life savings and my parents' savings to sustainability. And what carbon price my activism? Maybe Bill would put a number on that, but probably not.
The Houston Chronicle ran an op-ed today from a lawyer/citizen that said our Senate race might break the Republican stranglehold on Texas. He made a coherent case for it. Here we have Talarico, a devout Christian and Democrat, versus a Trump sycophant Republican, Paxton, competing for Senate. Talarico's sure to sway some good Republicans (there are good ones) to CONSIDER voting Democratic. It won't take many of them for Talarico to win. Polls say they are neck and neck.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/1978-governor-primary-paxton-hill-briscoe-hittner-22299741.php
Free Access Link https://archive.is/TdEg6
I'll be impressed when Texas bans oil and gas production. Or California, for that matter.
It will be a cold day in Hell when a ban on oil drilling is a plank in a political party with elected candidates. In Texas they say "Don't California Texas."
Right now, I'm sure you're right. But I'm also sure it will happen faster than most people expect.
Thanks, Bill. So many good ideas that "blue" and independent politicians can use to sell environmental sanity as part of an economic message.
We can all be salesmen for climate action. We can ask, inform, involve and thank with every conversation we have with fellow citizens.