Should we rely on negative-emissions technologies?

 Short answer: no.

From Dr Aaron Thierry

"The Integrated Assessment Models informing policy-makers assume the large-scale use of negative-emission technologies. If we rely on these and they are not deployed or are unsuccessful at removing CO2 from the atmosphere at the levels assumed, society will be locked into a high-temperature pathway"

(From UNEP)

Look how large negative emissions have to be to achieve net-zero by 2070 (never mind 2050!) on current pathways  — almost as large as positive emissions in 1980.  We should not rely on negative emissions to stop the climate catastrophe, because we almost certainly won't be able to achieve them.  To save ourselves, we must cut actual emissions.   Now.  Forget pie-in-the-sky schemes to offset emissions and start working on replacing fossil fuels in our economy.

Driving electric 4 times cheaper

 From Chris Meder (EVCurve Futurist)

Driving electric is up to 4× cheaper than petrol. 100 km costs: ⛽Petrol: $22–$33 ⚡EV (home, 6pm): $5.90 ☀️EV (midday solar): $1.20 Same distance. Massive difference. Plus no servicing or oil changes. Around $4k saved every year —a family holiday instead of fuel bills.⚡ #Bettrification #EVs #Save

In the US, these calculations would differ, because petrol isn't taxed there as heavily as it is in Australia.  However, electricity is also cheaper there in most states.

Ocean temperatures reach June record high

From The Guardian

Temperatures on the ocean surface have hit a record high, raising fears of another burst of extreme heat this summer.

On 21 June, temperatures outside the polar regions exceeded the extraordinary highs observed at the same time in 2023 and 2024, the Copernicus Climate Change Service said on Wednesday.

It warned the new peak would probably bring “consequences for weather patterns, global climate and marine ecosystems”, not least because it would coincide with the earliest phases of an El Niño event they forecast to be the strongest in decades.

When the previous ocean record for June was set in 2023, scientists described the trends as “worrying”, “terrifying” and “bonkers” because they were so far outside their expectations. That presaged an El Niño and a period of devastating global heatwaves, floods and storms.

That 2023 record has now been surpassed and much of the world is once again seeing an alarming rise in temperatures. Last month, the UK and many other countries in Europe sweltered amid new heat records while Antarctica experienced unprecedentedly balmy winter conditions.

Although the focus is usually on land temperatures, oceans give a fuller picture of how much the climate is being pushed out of balance by human-caused warming.

Surface temperatures are affected by solar radiation, water currents and the buildup of heat in the depths.

Oceans absorb more than 90% of the excess energy in the Earth system, which is primarily caused by burning fossil fuels, such as oil, coal and gas. That imbalance hit a record 23 zettajoules last year, more than double the average of the previous two decades.

As a result, the oceans are warming at an accelerating rate. In 2020, the amount of heat being added to the oceans was equivalent to about five Hiroshima bombs a second. Last year, it was closer to 11 Hiroshima explosions a second. The UN’s secretary general, António Guterres, has warned “Earth is being pushed beyond its limits”.

Scientists said it was too early to say whether the sea surface heating would prove temporary or even worsen because annual peaks are usually registered in July and August.

But Carlo Buontempo, Copernicus director at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, warned it could indicate the beginning of a new phase, leading, once more, to uncharted territory: “With ocean temperatures at these levels and El Niño on the horizon, we are likely to see more temperature records fall in the coming months.”

Copernicus is part of the EU’s space programme.

We are not helpless.  

We can replace coal and gas power stations with wind, solar and batteries to at least 90% of total electricity generation.  We can replace petrol and diesel in land transport, in cars, light trucks, and buses, and we can switch diesel trains to bi-mode trains.  We can replace oil and gas heating with electric heating and/or heat pumps.  And 40% of all shipping emissions are produced just delivering fossil fuels around the world.   

Also, you can personally change things too.  Get balcony plug-in solar.  Get home plug-in batteries.  Nag your government until they make them legal.  Vote, vote, vote.  Stop eating meat, and if that's too hard, stop eating beef and mutton.  If you can afford it, when you replace your car, get an EV.  Outside the US, their up-front cost is now as low as petrol cars, and their running costs are much lower.

And you won't be spitting into the wind, because the world's biggest carbon-emitter, China, has probably peaked its emissions.  Even in Trump's US, though abolishing the incentives to switch to green alternatives has slowed bettrification down, EV sales have started to rise, and most of new generation capacity this year is renewables.  

Fossil fuel companies and the Right want us to give up.  Don't.

Wind and solar generate more than gas

 From Canary Media

It’s the first month [ever] [that] wind and solar [have] combined to produce more electricity than natural gas did, per new global data from energy think tank Ember.

Just five years ago, the gap between what those renewable resources and gas generated was huge. Even in the best month for renewables, gas plants churned out about twice as much power. Now, the picture is very different: Wind and solar generated about 532 terawatt-hours of electricity [+13.4% yoy] worldwide last month, while gas contributed just 477 TWh [-3.9%].  

This won’t be the first time wind and solar outcompete gas on the global stage.

Last year, the world met 75% of its new electricity demand with solar alone, and the remainder with other forms of carbon-free energy. The result? Fossil-fuel power generation declined — very slightly — even though the world consumed more electricity.

Meanwhile, the ongoing war in the Middle East bolsters the case for renewable energy. Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and its retaliatory strikes on Qatar forced one-fifth of the global liquefied natural gas export capacity offline earlier this year, causing supply shortages and price spikes for the many countries that depend on imported, rather than domestic, natural gas.

Already, some nations appear to have increased their adoption of renewables to shore up their national energy security.

The caveats of the April milestone must be mentioned. It’s just one month — and occurred during the shoulder season, the best time of the year for renewables, as breezes pick up and days get sunnier [in the northern hemisphere, it's winter in the southern.  The seasonal cycles obvious in the data are because the northern hemisphere has more land and more people than the southern]

Then there’s King Coal, which still produces far more electricity worldwide than wind and solar. But it’s clear where we’re headed. The share of coal-fired electricity actually fell by half a percentage point from 2024 to 2025, marking the first annual drop since Covid and the first time in history that the dirty fuel produced less than a third of the world’s power. [Just as important: wind plus solar plus other renewables (mostly hydro) provided more electricity in April (925 TWh) than coal (758 TWh).]

In other words, coal should watch its back: It’s only a matter of time before wind and solar come for its crown, too.

Denmark didn't "transition" its grid—it replaced it.

 From Chris Meder, EVCurveFuturist

Denmark didn’t “transition” its grid—it replaced it. ~15% → 92% renewable electricity in 25 years. Wind did the heavy lifting. Solar is scaling. Interconnection balanced. Flexibility solved variability. Wind built it. Solar is scaling. Fossil lost it. This IS system replacement. ⚡#Bettrification

If little Denmark can we do it, we all can. There are no longer any technological hurdles to overcome. Technical hurdles, yes. There are no longer any economic hurdles either. The only factor standing in the way is vested interests.