Via Rolf Oldejans
The bed of the Danube on August 21, 2026, near the city of Ruse (Bulgaria). Not quite completely dry — see the trickle in the distance. Extraordinary. A result of the Europe-wide drought. I wonder how many thousands of years it's been since it last looked like this.
From Zack Labe
The average global temperature so far this year (for the January-August period) is now up to the 2nd warmest on record since the start of this dataset...This data is using NOAAGlobalTempv6.1.0: www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/lan...
[Relative to 1900–2000 averages]
From Visual Capitalist
Over the last 35 years, some countries have seen extraordinary increases in economic output per person, ranging from export-driven Asian economies to resource-rich nations experiencing major commodity booms.
This graphic ranks countries by real GDP per capita growth from 1990 to 2025, based on World Bank data. Figures account for inflation and differences in purchasing power across countries.
Guyana’s extraordinary growth is closely tied to its offshore oil boom. Oil production began in 2019 and reached roughly 225 million barrels in 2024, transforming the economy of a country with fewer than one million people.
That helps explain why Guyana’s real GDP per capita has risen 1,549% since 1990, putting it ahead of every other country in the ranking.
China’s rise stands out because of the scale involved. Nearly 800 million people have been lifted out of extreme poverty over the past four decades, accounting for nearly three-quarters of the global reduction.
The broader ranking shows that China is part of a much larger Asian growth story. Vietnam, India, Bangladesh, and South Korea all rank among the world’s fastest-growing economies by real GDP per capita since 1990.
Unlike Guyana’s recent oil-driven surge, much of this growth unfolded over decades of industrialization and trade expansion. Asian countries make up nearly half of the global top 25.
The U.S. ranks 88th globally, with real GDP per capita rising 73% between 1990 and 2025. Among G7 economies, it recorded the largest increase over the period.
By comparison, GDP per capita grew 61% in the UK, 48% in Germany, 43% in Canada and France, and 34% in Japan.
One factor behind the U.S. advantage has been stronger productivity growth, helping it pull ahead of many advanced-economy peers. The largest gains, however, have occurred elsewhere, highlighting how much the global growth landscape has shifted since 1990.
This graphic shows the growth in average per person GDP, i.e., GDP divided by the population. But in the US, for example, most of the growth over the last 40 years has accrued to the top 10% and top 1%. What would be very interesting is to see median per person GDP growth. The point where half is above and half below is the median. An example. In a village of 100 people, 99 earn £100 per year, and 1 earns a £10,000. The average (mean) income for the village is £199, which is clearly meaningless. The median, however, is £100, which is much more meaningful. And it is the median income/per person GDP which matters for ordinary people. I suspect median GDP per person in the US has grown more slowly than in other G7 countries.
From Carbon Brief
A surge in clean energy has kept carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in check across India’s power sector, with no growth from the first half of 2024 to the same period in 2026.
This is the first time in more than 50 years that there has been no growth in India’s coal power over a two-year period, even as electricity demand grew overall.
At the same time, both oil and gas consumption have fallen across the nation for two years in a row, helping alleviate the shock of the Hormuz crisis.
Nevertheless, the new six-monthly analysis for Carbon Brief shows that India’s [total] emissions grew by 3.7% year-on-year in the first half of 2026, due to increases from steel, cement and other sectors.
Other key findings for the first half of 2026 include:
- India’s power-sector emissions flatlined at 2024 levels, after a 2.2% decline in the first half of 2025 and a 2.3% rise in the same period this year.
- Clean energy met all of the 7% rise in India’s electricity demand over the two years, adding 63 terawatt hours (TWh), equivalent to the total demand of Switzerland.
- India has added 77 gigawatts (GW) of solar in this two-year period, helping meet 60% of the rise in electricity demand overall.
- While fossil-fuel generation stagnated, generators added 8.5GW of new coal capacity, leading to fewer running hours and increased costs to electricity consumers.
- CO2 emissions from oil and gas fell by 7% year-on-year, extending a reduction that began in 2025, despite higher demand for road transport fuels.
- Steel and cement emissions grew by 8% year-on-year, reaching a 23% share of India’s total CO2 in the first half of 2026.
If the pace of India’s clean-energy expansion is to continue, it will need to upgrade its electricity grid, rapidly build out energy storage and boost the flexibility of coal power.
While clean-energy expansion is covering most or all of India’s power-demand growth, the fossil-fuel industry continues to pursue major capital investments.
This includes large amounts of new coal-power capacity, ambitious plans for the conversion of coal-to-chemicals and efforts to boost domestic coking coal production for the steel sector.
While CO2 output from the power sector is flat, with oil and gas in decline, India’s emissions still went up due to the contribution from industry.
India lags behind its competitors – including most large emerging economies – when it comes to electrifying its industrial sector.
Faster progress would enable clean electricity to substitute for fossil fuels in industry, as well as for power, offering the potential for India to cut its emissions overall.
[Read more here]
As you can see from the top chart, India's power-sector emissions have risen steadily for over 50 years, as you would expect from a rapidly growing economy. The last time India's emissions from the power sector fell was during Covid. This time, they've fallen at a time when India's economic growth rate has been high. A peak in these emissions makes a peak in India's total emissions much easier to achieve.
It is striking that the two of the high growth middle-income developing economies, India and China, are on the brink of peak emissions. Both countries have much lower per capita emissions than the US, with China emitting 9.9 tonnes per person per year, and India just 2.9, compared with the US's 17.5 and Germany's 7.8. But they are the most populous countries on Earth, and what they do to cut emissions really matters. So this is good news.
From Carbon Brief
Global fossil-fuel emissions are set to fall by around 0.5% in 2026 amid the fallout from the Hormuz crisis, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
The US-Iran war has severely disrupted trade through the strait of Hormuz, causing a spike in oil and gas prices that continues to ripple around the global economy.
Each month of disruption – and each new flashpoint, such as in Yemen – is increasing the incentive to switch to alternatives.
Those alternatives include coal, with the latest forecasts pointing to a 1.2% rise in coal demand this year – apparently supporting media claims of a “return to coal” in the wake of the crisis.
Yet Carbon Brief’s analysis shows the rise in emissions associated with this increased coal use, much of which is unrelated to Hormuz, is set to be more than offset by declines for oil and gas.
The estimated overall impact on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels in 2026 is shown in the figure below and amounts to a reduction of around 0.5% from 2025 levels.
(Fossil fuels account for two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions.)
The emissions estimates for each fossil fuel are based on the latest forecasts from the International Energy Agency (IEA) for coal, oil and gas, in light of the ongoing global energy crisis.
For example, the agency initially estimated that global coal demand would decline this year. In its 2025 coal report, published in mid-December, it said that declining coal demand in China would outweigh the impact of pro-coal policies under US president Donald Trump.
In contrast, the latest update, published in September 2026, said that global coal demand would rise by 1.2% in 2026, instead of the small decline that had been expected.
The report highlighted the boost to coal demand from higher gas prices in the wake of Hormuz. However, there are limits to this, because few countries can switch from gas to coal at large scale.
The IEA’s latest report also noted the role of a strong El Niño, which is pushing up the need for cooling and depressing hydropower output in key markets. Other short-term factors are also affecting coal demand this year, including a rising amount of “wasted” wind and solar in China.
For gas, the IEA did not initially update its previous forecast that global gas demand would rise by 2.0% in 2026, which had been published in January of this year.
Its most recent forecast – published in July – already pointed to a 0.6% drop in demand in 2026. Since then, pressure on gas demand from high prices has only grown stronger.
For oil, there has been an even more dramatic shift in forecasts since the start of the year.
In its January 2026 oil market report, the IEA forecast a rise in demand in 2026 of 930,000 barrels per day (bpd). As shown in the figure below, this has been steadily revised downwards over the course of the year, as the Hormuz crisis was first ignited – and then extended.
By September, the IEA was forecasting a 2,500,000bpd drop in oil demand in 2026, equivalent to a reduction of 2.4% from 2025 levels.
(A 15 September research note from Morgan Stanley, not available online, found a “consensus” forecast of a 2,415,000bpd drop in demand in 2026.)
While there are many short-term factors at play in the shifting forecasts for 2026, it is clear that the latest energy crisis will also affect fossil-fuel demand in the next year and beyond.
For example, whereas the IEA initially forecast that oil demand would rebound in 2027 to well above 2025 levels, it is now expecting use of the fuel to be effectively flat for two years.
This puts a question mark over its previous expectation – published in October last year – that global oil demand would not peak until as late as 2030.
“For every month the conflict lasts, the probability of permanent [oil] demand destruction increases,” wrote Sverre Alvik, vice president at consultancy DNV in a late August analysis.
As fuel prices have surged, electric vehicles (EVs) have captured record shares of major car markets, from Australia and China through to Europe, Indonesia and Thailand.
In July, EV sales nearly doubled year-on-year in “new markets”, noted Alvik, pointing to countries outside China, Europe and North America.
The IEA says the 2027 outlooks for coal and gas are interdependent, with coal demand potentially increasing again if gas prices remain elevated – or dropping back if gas prices ease.
At the same time, governments in countries that had planned to rely on imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) have been signalling shifts towards favouring domestic clean energy instead – or continuing to use coal for longer.
The current crisis, therefore, has the potential to not only lower fossil-fuel use and emissions in the short term, but also on a more lasting basis.
[Read more from Carbon Brief here]
Am I being too optimistic by believing that emissions have peaked? China's emissions have flattened, and if they sort out their curtailment problem ("wasted" wind and solar) then their emissions will start falling. The Iran war has created a massive incentive for individuals, companies and governments to switch to renewables. The US has shown that it is unable to maintain open seas for oil transportation, which means that this disruption is likely to continue, even if there are temporary fluctuations in oil and gas prices, as rumours of peace talk rise and vanish. At the same time, battery, solar and EV costs will continue to fall, increasing their appeal. You have to buy oil every day, but cars last 15 years, batteries now last 20+, and solar panels 30+. A once-off cost gives you free travel and electricity for decades. And, outside the US and China, EVs now have the same "sticker price" as petrol/diesel cars.
The switch will continue even after the Trump administration is history.
 |
| BYD ATTO 1 |
From The Driven
BYD has cut the price of its cheapest electric car to just $19,990 driveaway [US$14,190, but the Australian price includes a 10% GST (sales tax), taking the price down to an effective US$12,775], pushing the cost of a new EV in Australia below the $20,000 mark for the first time.
The special offer applies to the entry-level BYD Atto 1 Essential and is available nationwide, according to BYD Australia.
The Atto 1 was already comfortably Australia’s cheapest new electric car, launching at $23,990 before on-road costs late last year. The new offer cuts $4,000 from that headline price while also including on-road costs.
It puts the compact electric hatchback into a price bracket occupied by some of Australia’s cheapest new petrol cars, and represents another significant step down in the cost of entry to a new battery-electric vehicle.
Electric cars have already taken a huge chunk out of the Australian car market this year, posting a record 24.9 per cent share in August, and outselling petrol cars, and diesel, for the first time.
The Atto 1 Essential uses a 30 kWh BYD Blade Battery and offers up to 220 km of WLTP range. Its front-mounted electric motor produces 65 kW and the car can accelerate from 0-100 km/h in 11.1 seconds.
It also comes standard with 11 kW AC charging and DC fast charging at up to 65 kW, along with a 10.1-inch infotainment screen, wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, vehicle-to-load (V2L) capability and six airbags.
BYD Australia chief operating officer Stephen Collins said the price cut was aimed at making electric vehicles accessible to more Australian households as cost-of-living pressures continue.
“At a time when Australian families are carefully considering every household expense, we’re committed to making vehicle ownership more attainable,” Collins said.
“The BYD ATTO 1 at $19,990 driveaway demonstrates our commitment to delivering outstanding value without compromising on technology, safety or quality.”
The deal further intensifies competition at the affordable end of Australia’s rapidly expanding EV market. When the Atto 1 arrived, its $23,990 starting price opened a sizeable gap to other new EVs and made it cheaper than many popular entry-level petrol cars.
Competition has since increased, including the arrival of the Geely EX2, which starts from $26,490 before on-road costs and offers 252 km of WLTP range in entry-level Complete form.
The Atto 1 is also offered in a more powerful Premium variant, which uses a larger 43 kWh battery for up to 310 km of WLTP range and a 115 kW motor.
BYD has been rapidly expanding both its model range and physical presence in Australia. The company says it has introduced eight new models or major variants since October last year, with that number expected to reach 10 by this October.
Upcoming additions include a plug-in hybrid version of the Atto 2 small SUV and the M9, BYD’s first premium people mover for the Australian market.
BYD says it has also been opening an average of one new sales and service centre a week over the past 12 months, and expects to have more than 150 dealerships across Australia by the end of 2026.
BYD has not indicated in its announcement how long the $19,990 driveaway Atto 1 Essential offer will remain available.
This is extraordinary. To date, the cheapest new car in Australia has been the petrol-driven MG MG3, at $19,990. And that isn't the drive-away price — you still have to add $1000 to $2000 to that. The electricity to fill the battery would cost you $9 (30 cents/kWh) on a typical daytime home charge rate, or, at midday, thanks to a new government program, or if you have solar panels, it would be free. Fast chargers typically cost 65 cents/kWh, so to recharge from empty to full using a fast charger, would cost you $19.50. However, most people charge at home, and many use off-peak charging at 20 cents/kWh, if they're not using their own solar panels or the low or zero rate over midday.
The equivalent range in the MG3 would cost roughly $30 of petrol. (That is with current prices; without the Iran war it would be cheaper.)
Problem: the range is short. If you wanted to drive from, say, Melbourne to Sydney, you would have to stop 3 times to recharge. With the petrol MG, you might not have to refuel at all, since the MG3's range is 750 km. In practice, though, one only makes long journeys occasionally. The average daily commute is 16 km, and 73% commute 20 km or less.
To sum up: you can now buy an EV which is cheaper up front than the cheapest equivalent petrol car, and will cost you much less to run.
Outside the US and Europe, Chinese-made EVs are going to grab market share from ICEVs, not because people care about climate change, or because of pollution, but because EVs are cheaper. And the switch to EVs, here in Australia, and globally, has accelerated because of Trump's Iran war. What a glorious irony.
