Why many scientists are now saying climate change is an all-out ‘emergency’

Escalating rhetoric comes as new study shows there are just six years left to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius at current CO2 emissions rate

By Shannon Osaka, The Washington Post, Oct. 30, 2023

Bill Ripple had never been an activist.

The Oregon State University ecologist had spent his career wandering through the hills and canyons of Yellowstone National Park, tracking the health of wolves and other large carnivores. Nor was he particularly outspoken: As a college student, he was so concerned about taking a debate class that he considered dropping out and returning to his family farm.

But then, in 2018, Ripple saw pictures of a town called Paradise, Calif., completely destroyed by wildfire. Houses had disappeared in the blaze; all that remained were twisted hunks of metal and glass. Ripple started writing a new academic paper. He called it: “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” He sent it to colleagues to see if anyone wanted to sign on. By the time the paper was published in the journal Bioscience in 2019, it had 11,000 signatures from scientists around the world — it now has more than 15,000.

“My life completely changed,” Ripple said. He is the subject of a 30-minute Oregon State documentary; he gets constant media requests and calls to collaborate from scientists around the world. Last week, he published a new paper on the state of the climate system.

It was called “Entering Uncharted Territory.”

“Scientists are more willing to speak out,” Ripple said. “As a group, we’ve been pretty hesitant, historically.” But, he added, “I feel like scientists have a moral obligation to warn humanity.”

After a few years of record-breaking temperatures and extreme weather events, Ripple’s experience is a sign of how climate scientists — who once refrained from entering the public fray — are now using strident language to describe the warming planet. References to “climate emergency” and “climate crisis,” once used primarily by activist groups like the British-based Extinction Rebellion or the U.S.-based Sunrise Movement, are spiking in the academic literature. Meanwhile, scientists’ communication to the media and the public has gotten more exasperated — and more desperate.

On Monday, scientists released a paper showing that the world’s “carbon budget” — the amount of greenhouse gas emissions the world can still emit without boosting global temperatures more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) — has shrunk by a third. The world has only six years left at current emissions levels before racing past that temperature limit.

“There are no technical scenarios globally available in the scientific literature that would support that that is actually possible, or can even describe how that would be possible,” Joeri Rogelj, a climate scientist at Imperial College London, told reporters in a call.

Tim Lenton, one of the co-authors on Ripple’s most recent paper and a professor of earth system science at the University of Exeter, said that 2023 has been filled with temperatures so far beyond the norm that “they’re very hard to rationalize.”

“This isn’t fitting a simple statistical model,” he said.

Lenton said he isn’t afraid to use terms like “emergency” or “climate and ecological crisis.”

It wasn’t always this way. In the 2000s and even early 2010s, most scientists shied away making any statements that could be seen as “political.” Jacquelyn Gill, a professor of climate science and paleoecology at the University of Maine, said that when she was doing her PhD in those years, senior academics warned her against deviating at all from the science when interacting with the media or the public.

“We were actively told if we start to talk about solutions, if we start to talk about the policy implications of our work, we will have abandoned our supposed ‘scientific neutrality,’” Gill said. “And then people will not trust us anymore on the science.”

Susan Joy Hassol, a science communication expert who has worked with climate researchers for years, says that even a decade ago, climate scientists were uncertain what their role was in communicating the dangers of rising temperatures. “I think at least some of them felt that scientists communicate through IPCC reports,” Hassol said, referring to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “‘We do our science, we publish, we put together these reports, and it’s kind of up to other people to listen.’”

Now, she said, that has changed. “We have reached this stage of crisis,” she said.

It isn’t just the fact that emissions aren’t going down — or that policy hasn’t responded quickly enough to the challenge. (Carbon dioxide emissions related to energy use have continued to climb, even after the brief downturn of the coronavirus pandemic.) As the impacts of climate change escalate, scientists say, their language has changed to meet the moment.

When it comes to terms like “climate emergency,” Gill says, “it’s a little bit of strategy and a lot of honesty.” While climate scientists are still discussing whether warming is accelerating, she added, “it’s clear the impacts are becoming more noticeable and in-your-face.”

Hassol said that the shift is simple. In the 2000s, she said, climate change wasn’t yet at the level of an emergency. She recalls a 2009 report called “The Copenhagen Diagnosis,” which analyzed climate science to date and made suggestions for how to reach net-zero carbon emissions. If world governments had acted swiftly, the world would have had to cut emissions only by a bit over 3 percent per year. “We called that the bunny slope,” Hassol recalled.

If, on the other hand, governments waited until 2020 to start the transition, cuts would have to be much steeper — up to 9 percent per year. “We called that the double-black diamond,” she said. Despite the brief respite in CO2 emissions during the pandemic, humanity’s trajectory has veered closer to the double-black diamond.

At the same time, many scientists realize that even the best communication in the world isn’t enough to overcome the inertia of a system based on fossil fuels — and the resistance of various oil and gas companies.

“The problem is not that scientists haven’t been communicating clearly enough,” Hassol said. “We communicated pretty darn clearly. Anyone who wanted to hear the message — it was there.”

Chico Harlan contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/10/30/climate-emergency-scientists-declaration/

How carbon prices are taking over the world

A quarter of global emissions are now covered, and the share is rising fast

The Economist, October 1, 2023

If global warming is to be limited, the world must forget about fossil fuels as fast as possible—that much almost everyone agrees upon. How to do so is the complicated part. Economists have long favoured putting a price on carbon, a mechanism that Europe introduced in 2005. Doing so allows the market to identify the cheapest unit of greenhouse gas to cut, and thus society to fight climate change at the lowest possible cost. Others, including many American politicians, worry that such schemes will provoke a backlash by raising consumer costs. Under President Joe Biden, America is instead doling out hundreds of billions of dollars to nurture green supply chains.

Yet, remarkably, the rest of the world is now beginning to look more European—with carbon prices spreading in countries both rich and poor. Take Indonesia, the world’s ninth-biggest polluter. Although it releases 620m tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent a year, with almost half its soaring energy consumption coming from coal, the country has green ambitions. On September 26th, at the launch of its first carbon market, Joko Widodo, the president, talked up its prospects as a hub for the carbon trade, and local banks duly snapped up credits from a geothermal-energy firm. The country also introduced a local emissions-trading scheme in February, which requires large coal-fired plants to buy permits for emissions above a threshold.

In short, even in countries better known as polluters than as green leaders, things are shifting. By the start of 2023, 23% of the world’s emissions were covered by a carbon price, according to the World Bank, up from just 5% in 2010 (see chart). The spread will only accelerate over the coming years as more countries come around to the advantages of carbon pricing, and existing schemes expand their reach. On October 1st the eu launched a groundbreaking policy under a dreary name. The “carbon border adjustment mechanism” (cbam) will, by 2026, start to levy a carbon price on all the bloc’s imports, meaning that European companies will have a strong incentive to push suppliers around the world to go green.

The spread of carbon prices is happening in three ways. First, governments are creating new markets and levies. Indonesia is one example. If all goes to plan, its market will eventually be combined with a carbon tax. In April Japan launched a voluntary national market for carbon offsets, which will work alongside an existing regional cap-and-trade policy in place in Tokyo. Participants, accounting for 40% or so of the country’s pollution, will be required to disclose and set emissions targets. Over time the scheme will become stricter, with auctions of carbon allowances for the energy industry due to begin in 2033. Meanwhile, Vietnam is working on an emissions-trading scheme to be established in 2028, in which firms with emissions above a threshold will need to offset them by buying credits.

Second, countries with more established markets are beefing up their policies. On September 24th China’s National Climate Strategy Centre announced that its emissions-trading scheme, which is the world’s largest, will move from only focusing on the carbon intensity of coal power plants, to focusing on both their intensity and total emissions. The scheme will be linked with a dormant carbon-credit market, allowing plants to meet their obligations by purchasing credits for renewable power, planting forests or restoring mangroves. Australia, which scrapped its original carbon price in 2014, has reformed a previously toothless scheme known as the “safeguard mechanism”. Since July large industrial facilities that account for 28% of the country’s emissions have had to reduce emissions by 4.9% a year against a baseline. Those that fail must buy carbon offsets, which trade at a price of around $20 a tonne.

The final way in which carbon markets are spreading is through cross-border schemes. The eu’s programme is by far the most advanced. In cbam’s pilot phase importers of aluminium, cement, electricity, fertiliser, hydrogen, iron and steel will need to report “embodied” emissions (those generated through production and transport). Then, from 2026, importers will have to pay a levy equivalent to the difference between the carbon cost of these embodied emissions in the eu’s scheme and any carbon price paid by the exporter in their domestic market. Free permits for sectors will also be phased out, and the housing and transport industries will be brought into the market.

Many of these schemes will take time to have an impact. Lots in Asia are flimsy, with prices set too low to produce meaningful change—well below the eu’s current price of €80-90 ($85-95), which is itself only approaching climate economists’ estimate of the social cost of carbon. For instance, half the coal plants covered by China’s emissions-trading scheme face a negative carbon price, meaning that they are in effect paid to burn the dirty fuel, since their emission intensity is below the national average, says Lauri Myllyvirta of the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, a think-tank. The scheme also fails to create an incentive to shift from coal to other sources of power, he notes.

Across the world, activists criticise the ability of firms to use offsets to indulge in what they term “greenwashing”, where companies falsely present themselves as environmentally friendly. Some schemes also struggle to prove they have led to emissions reductions. In 2022 a team of academics, led by Andrew Macintosh of Australian National University, argued that reforestation used as carbon credits in Australia’s scheme either did not happen or would have happened irrespective of payments for offsets. An independent review has since recommended changes to how the scheme works.

Yet even carbon-pricing programmes that are limited will still help change behaviour, for the simple reason that they encourage the monitoring of emissions. After its launch two years ago, China’s emissions-trading scheme was dogged by fraud, with consultants alleged to have helped firms produce fake coal samples. A crackdown was announced by officials earlier this year, who are now satisfied with the quality of data. Despite the absence of a carbon price, American firms also face incentives to monitor emissions. President Biden has proposed a rule that all businesses selling to the federal government must disclose their emissions and have plans to reduce them. Many large firms have set voluntary net-zero targets as part of their marketing efforts. Apple, the world’s largest, has pledged to make its supply chain entirely carbon neutral by 2030.

And manufacturers around the world now face a still greater incentive to accurately track their carbon footprints: cbam. The eu’s ultimate goal is to tackle “carbon leakage”. Before cbam’s introduction, Europe’s carbon price meant that domestic industries faced an extra cost compared with those in countries with less ambitious decarbonisation plans. This gave importers an incentive to source material from abroad, even if these inputs were dirtier. To compensate for this, the eu handed out permits to industrial producers. These will now be phased out as cbam is phased in.

During the pilot phase, cbam simply presents an extra hurdle (what economists call a “non-tariff barrier”) for exporters to the bloc. To comply, European firms must report the embodied emissions of their imports. If such data do not exist, importers must use reference values provided by the eu. In order to nudge foreign companies to change their behaviour and prove that their emissions are lower, these are based on the emissions of the dirtiest firms in the bloc. From 2026 importers will have to pay the difference between the amount embodied emissions would be charged under the eu’s emissions-trading scheme and whatever carbon price the products pay at home.

Carbon border tariffs may themselves multiply over the coming years. In Australia the government recently announced a review into the country’s “carbon leakage”, which will examine such an option. In 2021 America and the eu paused a trade dispute, begun by President Donald Trump, by starting negotiations over a “Global Arrangement on Sustainable Steel and Aluminium”. America wants the two trading partners to establish a common external tariff on more polluting steel producers. Since America does not have a domestic carbon price, such a policy would flout the rules of the World Trade Organisation. But if the eu and America do not come to an agreement, the Trump-era tariffs and the eu’s retaliatory measures will be reinstated.

There is a domino effect to carbon pricing. Once an industry is subject to a carbon price its businesses will naturally want their competitors to face the same rules. Therefore owners of coal power plants will lobby to ensure that gas power plants operate on a level playing-field. Governments in exporting countries also have an incentive to ensure that their domestic firms pay a carbon price at home rather than a tariff abroad. If Asia’s factories are pressed to reduce their emissions anyway by schemes such as cbam, then its governments are leaving money on the table by not levying a carbon price of their own.

The question is whether the dominoes will fall fast enough. Almost no emissions-trading schemes are aimed at emissions from residential property or cars, for instance, where consumers would really feel the pain. In choosing to introduce carbon-pricing schemes, and then to make them broader and more muscular, policymakers have most economists firmly on their side—and are proceeding much faster than is commonly realised. But future policymakers will need to make such policies even more intrusive if the effects of climate change are to be minimised. For that to happen, they will have to win over voters, too. 

Global use of oil could peak this decade: IEA

By Nick Robertson, The Hill, Sept. 26, 2023

Greenhouse gas emissions and the global demand for fossil fuels could peak this decade, according to an updated analysis from the International Energy Agency (IEA) that emphasized more must be done to prevent devastating climate change.

The agency said that the case for limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is “stronger than ever,” citing a rapidly growing green energy industry and electric vehicle sales.

The new projections are an update to the agency’s 2021 plan to get to net zero global greenhouse emissions by 2050. 

“The speed of the roll-out of key clean energy technologies means that the IEA now projects that demand for coal, oil and natural gas will all peak this decade even without any new climate policies,” according to the report. “This is encouraging, but not nearly enough for the 1.5 degree Celsius goal.”

Much of that expansion was prodded on by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, according to the report, which forced European countries to move rapidly away from natural gas and to alternative energy sources. 

The IEA projects global renewable energy capacity will nearly triple to 11,000 gigawatts by 2030 and methane emissions will fall to a quarter of current levels in the same period — to about 30 megatons per year.

The new plan also relies less on technologies that have not yet been developed. While about half of the reductions in the 2021 report necessitated future tech, the 2023 update reduces that to about 35 percent.

The technologies that have shown the most promise in the last two years have been new battery processes and the hydrogen electrolysis method of removing carbon dioxide from the air, according to the report.

If the world continues and doubles down on investing in green energy sources, as well as ceases new construction of fossil fuel sources, net zero is still possible by 2050, the IEA said, but a lack of international cooperation makes that difficult.

“By 2035, emissions need to decline by 80 percent in advanced economies and 60 percent in emerging market and developing economies compared to the 2022 level,” according to the report. “As part of an equitable pathway to the global goal of net zero emissions by 2050, almost all countries need to bring forward their targeted net zero dates.”

And as time goes on, the need for action becomes more apparent, the agency said.

“The energy sector is changing faster than many people think, but much more needs to be done and time is short. Momentum is coming not just from the push to meet climate targets but also from the increasingly strong economic case for clean energy, energy security imperatives, and the jobs and industrial opportunities that accompany the new energy economy,” the report concludes. “Yet, momentum must be accelerated to be in line with the 1.5°C goal and to ensure that the process of change works for everyone.”

Popular Senate carbon tariff bill gains House champions

By Emma Dumain, Greenwire, Sept. 7, 2023

As interest grows in a Senate proposal to calculate the emissions intensity of industrial materials produced in the U.S., two lawmakers are getting ready to introduce companion legislation in the House.

It will mark an important step for the “Providing Reliable, Objective, Verifiable Emissions Intensity and Transparency (PROVE IT) Act,” which is being viewed as a first step in building support for a policy known as a carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM, that would impose tariffs on carbon-intensive imports.

Reps. John Curtis (R-Utah) and Scott Peters (D-Calif.) will be the lead sponsors of a House version of the “PROVE IT Act,” their offices confirmed to E&E News on Thursday.

“Rep. Curtis has enjoyed working with Rep. Peters on the PROVE IT Act,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “While minor changes are being worked through, he believes this bill is critical given Europe’s implementation of the CBAM and the need for better data showing America’s carbon advantage and top-tier environmental performance.”

A Peters spokesperson said in a separate statement, “Rep. Peters is excited to be working with Rep. Curtis again to advance bipartisan climate policies and show that even in an age of increasing partisanship, we can still work together to advance strong environmental and energy policies.”

“Rep. Peters believes that to address climate change we must raise our standards and lead the world in providing clean and reliable energy,” the statement continued.

“We must also create a race to the top so all nations are incentivized to reduce their contribution to climate change,” the statement said. “The PROVE IT Act will provide transparency into the emissions intensity of key economic sectors across the globe and incentivize countries to continue reducing their climate footprint.”

The two members have worked together on environmental policy in the past. Curtis, chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus, and Peters, a moderate who views changes to the National Environmental Policy Act as critical to boosting renewable projects, have discussed what a bipartisan permitting overhaul bill could look like.

They were also, in the previous Congress, co-sponsors of legislation to establish new carbon removal research and verification efforts.

While the Curtis spokesperson didn’t elaborate on what changes the Republican is seeking to the legislation, the Senate version would require the Department of Energy to study and determine the emissions intensity of nearly two dozen products made in the United States and by G-7 countries, free-trade agreement partners, foreign countries of concern and “countries that hold a substantial global market share for a covered product.”

The list of “covered products” would include aluminum, iron, steel, plastic, crude oil, lithium-ion batteries, solar panels and wind turbines.

DOE would have two years to compile a report on its findings, in consultation with EPA, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Commerce and State departments. An update of the data would have to be published every five years.

Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), the Senate sponsors of the “PROVE IT Act,” have touted this framework as necessary for the data-gathering that would have to take place before any CBAM could go into effect.

They have also praised the bill’s approach as one that will bring a more diverse coalition into the conversation about the advantages of tying trade policy to carbon emissions reductions.

Republicans who have signed onto the bill so far, Cramer and Coons reiterated at an event hosted by the Climate Leadership Council on Thursday morning, are drawn to policies that would put the United States at an advantage on the world stage.

At this moment, the European Union is closing in on implementing its own CBAM. The U.S. would benefit from being able to assert knowledge about the carbon intensity of its own products, rather than have the E.U. make its own determinations — especially when U.S. emissions pale in comparison to some of the world’s largest polluters and biggest trade partners.

“In the Republican Party, we’re living in this ‘America First’ populism explosion, really,” said Cramer, “so this helps that; this speaks to that.”

https://www.eenews.net/articles/popular-senate-carbon-tariff-bill-gains-house-champions/

The biggest fossil fuel subsidies are indirect, and bigger than ever

“Sparklines” column by Nathaniel Bullard, Bloomberg News, August 31, 2023

The world is headed for a record year of investment in the energy transition. Every new clean electron generated by wind turbines and solar arrays, and each new battery-powered car and hydrogen electrolyzer, will reduce some measure of the fossil fuels consumed on the planet’s roads and grids. More than $1 trillion was spent on the transition last year, and almost certainly will be spent again in 2023. 

Big as that figure is, it pales in comparison to another energy-related outlay: subsidies for fossil fuels and electricity. The International Monetary Fund calculated that just over $7 trillion in subsidies went to fossil fuels last year. That is a record for at least the past decade. Since the IMF’s report expresses all figures in 2021 dollars, inflation cannot explain away the increase. In short, the world has never spent this much to subsidize fossil fuels. 

About one-quarter of the total — $1.33 trillion — is made up of what the IMF terms explicit subsidies, or undercharging for the cost of supplying a fossil fuel or electricity. The figure is a record in its own right, and more that the total investment in the energy transition tracked last year by BloombergNEF. 

But that still leaves a balance of $5.7 trillion in implicit subsidies, or undercharging for the environmental costs of a fuel, as well as forgone taxes on consumption. This amount is another record, and up 10% from 2021. Implicit subsidies grew less in percentage terms than explicit ones, but given their scale, they increased nearly as much in absolute terms — by more than $500 billion. 

Oil companies run PR campaigns all the time, but none has taken off quite like the “carbon footprint.” It taps into a question we all have: Can our choices lower emissions? If so, how? And if they don’t…why bother? This week on Zero, Akshat is joined by Kira Bindrim, the editor of Bloomberg Green’s Greener Living, to talk through that question, what she’s observed in a year of editing stories about products and the importance of using “joy” as a metric. Subscribe to Zeroon Apple, Spotify, or Google to get new episodes every Thursday.

These subsidies aren’t just huge. They are also fairly predictable, unlike explicit subsidies, which vary significantly from year to year depending on fuel prices and government policy decisions. For instance, explicit subsidies declined by a quarter in 2016 and rose by 39% a year later. The years 2020 and 2021 are outliers due to Covid-19, but in this sense energy subsidies are hardly unique.

Last year, three fuels received more than a trillion dollars each in implicit supports. Gasoline got just over $1 trillion (for the first time); diesel, more than $1.5 trillion; and coal, $2.1 trillion — the third year since 2015 in which it received at least $2 trillion. 

The difference between implicit and explicit subsidies for a given fuel (or electricity) can be significant. Gasoline receives “only” $80 billion in explicit terms, and diesel $140 billion; they receive, respectively, 11 and 12 times more in implicit terms. Kerosene gets an even greater implicit subsidy compared to its explicit one: $146 billion versus $9 billion. 

There are some exceptions to this general pattern. Natural gas is the only fuel to receive less implicit than explicit subsidy. But with half a billion dollars separating more than $640 billion for both subsidy types for gas, calling them “equal” would be better. Electricity receives more than $300 billion in explicit dollars, according to the IMF, but zero implicit ones. 

And then there is coal. Last year, coal received all of $8.6 billion in explicit subsidies and $2.1 trillion in implicit subsidies — a more than 240 times’ difference. 

The IMF notes in its report that keeping fuel prices below their “fully efficient levels” also keeps greenhouse gas emissions high. Were the world to raise prices to the level that accounts for both their explicit and implicit costs, then carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels could fall more than 40% below their baseline levels (and a third lower than emissions in 2019) by the end of the decade. 

Yet the very persistence of multi-trillion-dollar indirect subsidies suggests how hard such a move would be in practice. We may be inured to the cost of underpricing, even if it’s more than 5% of global gross domestic product. 

The IMF’s data itself, though, also suggests a path toward reducing implicit subsidies without a coordinated global effort of raising prices to efficient levels. As noted above, only one energy source has zero implicit subsidy: electricity. It does have more than $300 billion of explicit subsidy, of course, but as an energy source, it does not carry with it the same implicit costs as kerosene, or coal.

That means that wherever electricity displaces another energy source, it is also reducing implicit subsidy. And at the same time, wherever that electricity is low-cost and renewable, it is reducing reliance on fossil fuels and their own fuel-based subsidies too. Electricity is an outlier in the world’s $7 trillion energy subsidy landscape, and that’s a good thing.

Nat Bullard is a senior contributor to BloombergNEF and writes the Sparklines column for Bloomberg Green. He advises early-stage climate technology companies and climate investors.

The Clean Energy Future Is Arriving Faster Than You Think

The United States is pivoting away from fossil fuels and toward wind, solar and other renewable energy, even in areas dominated by the oil and gas industries.

By David Gelles, Brad Plumer, Jim Tankersley, and Jack Ewing, The New York Times, Aug. 12, 2023

Delivery vans in Pittsburgh. Buses in Milwaukee. Cranes loading freight at the Port of Los Angeles. Every municipal building in Houston. All are powered by electricity derived from the sun, wind or other sources of clean energy.

Across the country, a profound shift is taking place that is nearly invisible to most Americans. The nation that burned coal, oil and gas for more than a century to become the richest economy on the planet, as well as historically the most polluting, is rapidly shifting away from fossil fuels.

A similar energy transition is already well underway in Europe and elsewhere. But the United States is catching up, and globally, change is happening at a pace that is surprising even the experts who track it closely.

Wind and solar power are breaking records, and renewables are now expected to overtake coal by 2025 as the world’s largest source of electricity. Automakers have made electric vehicles central to their business strategies and are openly talking about an expiration date on the internal combustion engine. Heating, cooling, cooking and some manufacturing are going electric.

As the planet registers the highest temperatures on record, rising in some places to levels incompatible with human life, governments around the world are pouring trillions of dollars into clean energy to cut the carbon pollution that is broiling the planet.

The cost of generating electricity from the sun and wind is falling fast and in many areas is now cheaper than gas, oil or coal. Private investment is flooding into companies that are jockeying for advantage in emerging green industries.

“We look at energy data on a daily basis, and it’s astonishing what’s happening,” said Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency. “Clean energy is moving faster than many people think, and it’s become turbocharged lately.”

More than $1.7 trillion worldwide is expected to be invested in technologies such as wind, solar power, electric vehicles and batteries globally this year, according to the I.E.A., compared with just over $1 trillion in fossil fuels. That is by far the most ever spent on clean energy in a year.

Those investments are driving explosive growth. China, which already leads the world in the sheer amount of electricity produced by wind and solar power, is expected to double its capacity by 2025, five years ahead of schedule. In Britain, roughly one-third of electricity is generated by wind, solar and hydropower. And in the United States, 23 percent of electricity is expected to come from renewable sources this year, up 10 percentage points from a decade ago.

“The nature of these exponential curves sometimes causes us to underestimate how quickly changes occur once they reach these inflection points and begin accelerating,” said former Vice President Al Gore, who called attention to what he termed a “planetary crisis” 17 years ago in his film “An Inconvenient Truth.” “The trend is definitely in favor of more and more renewable energy and less fossil energy.”

Even as the pace of change in the United States is surprising everyone from energy experts to automobile executives, fossil fuels still dominate energy production at home and abroad.

Corporations are building new coal mines, oil rigs and gas pipelines. The government continues to award leases for drilling projects on public lands and in federal waters and still subsidizes the industries. After posting record profits last year, leading oil companies are backing away from recent promises to invest more heavily in renewable energy.

The scale of change required to remake the systems that power the United States — all the infrastructure that needs to be removed, re-engineered and replaced — is mind-boggling. There are major challenges involved in adding large amounts of renewable energy to antiquated electric grids and mining enough minerals for clean technologies. Some politicians, including most Republicans, want the country to continue burning fossil fuels, even in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus that their use is endangering life on the planet. Dozens of conservative groups organized by the Heritage Foundation have created a policy playbook, should a Republican win the 2024 presidential election, that would reverse course on lowering emissions. It would shred regulations designed to curb greenhouse gases, dismantle nearly every federal clean energy program and boost the production of fossil fuels.

And while energy systems are changing fast, so is the climate. It is far from certain whether the United States and other polluting countries will do what scientists say is required to avert catastrophe: stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere by 2050. All of the investment so far has slowed the pace at which emissions are growing worldwide, but the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere is at record levels.

And yet, from Beijing to London, Tokyo to Washington, Oslo to Dubai, the energy transition is undeniably racing ahead. Change is here, even in oil country.

‘Energy Is Energy’

As the workday begins in Tulsa, Okla., the assembly line at the electric school bus factory rattles to life. Crews fan out across the city to install solar panels on century-old Tudor homes. Teslas and Ford F-150 Lightnings pull up to charging stations powered in part by the country’s second-largest wind farm. And at the University of Tulsa’s School of Petroleum Engineering, faculty are working on ways to use hydrogen as a clean energy source.

Tulsa, a former boomtown once known as the “Oil Capital of the World” where the minor league baseball team is the Drillers, is immersed in a new energy revolution.

At the port, an Italian company, Enel, is building a $1 billion solar panel factory. The bus factory is operated by Navistar, one of the biggest commercial vehicle makers in the world. And the city’s main electric utility, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, now harvests more than 28 percent of its power from wind.

Clean energy entrepreneurs are flocking to Oklahoma, too. Francis Energy, a fast-growing maker of electric vehicle charging stations, is based in Tulsa. Canoo, an electric vehicle start-up, is building a 100,000-square-foot battery factory at a nearby industrial park and a manufacturing plant for its trucks in Oklahoma City, though there are questions about whether the company will have enough funding to realize its plans. And teams from Solar Power of Oklahoma are busy fastening photovoltaic panels to the roofs of homes and businesses around Tulsa.

The city is embracing its shifting identity.

“We have a tremendous sense of pride in our history,” said Dewey F. Bartlett Jr., the Republican former mayor of Tulsa who was an oil and gas executive but now helps recruit clean energy companies to the region. “But we also understand that energy is energy, whether it is generated by wind, steam or whatever it might be.”

Around the country, clean energy is taking root in unlikely locales.

Houston, home to more than 500 oil and gas companies, also has more than 130 solar- and wind-related companies. Some of the country’s largest wind and solar farms are in the Texas flatlands outside the city, and a huge wind farm has been proposed off the coast of Galveston.

In Arkansas, a planned solar farm — the state’s biggest — is expected to help power a nearby U.S. Steel factory that is undergoing a $3 billion upgrade. When complete, the plant will use electric furnaces to mold scrap steel into new products. That will result in about 80 percent less greenhouse gases, the company says, and set the pace for an industry that has been a major polluter.

About two-thirds of the new investment in clean energy is in Republican-controlled states, where policymakers have historically resisted renewables. But with each passing month, the politics seem to matter less than the economics.

“We’re the reddest state in the country, and we’re an oil and gas state,” said J.W. Peters, president of Solar Power of Oklahoma. “So it took a lot of time to convince people that this wasn’t snake oil.”

Mr. Peters was broke six years ago, with less than $400 in his checking account after his contracting business slowed down. Then he responded to a help-wanted ad looking for workers to install solar panels, which were becoming more popular in Tulsa. He now employs 61 workers and has $18 million in annual sales. “The environmental benefits are nice,” he said, “but most people are doing this for the financial opportunity.”

‘Something Very Dramatic’

Fifteen years ago, solar panels, wind turbines and battery-powered vehicles were widely viewed as niche technologies, too expensive and unreliable for mainstream use.

But clean energy became cheap far faster than anyone expected. Since 2009, the cost of solar power has plunged by 83 percent, while the cost of producing wind power has fallen by more than half. The price of lithium-ion battery cells fell 97 percent over the past three decades.

Today, solar and wind power are the least expensive new sources of electricity in many markets, generating 12 percent of global electricity and rising. This year, for the first time, global investors are expected to pour more money into solar power — some $380 billion — than into drilling for oil.

The rapid drop in costs for solar energy, wind power and batteries can be traced to early government investment and steady improvements over time by hundreds of researchers, engineers and entrepreneurs around the world.

“The world has produced nearly three billion solar panels at this point, and every one of those has been an opportunity for people to try to improve the process,” said Gregory Nemet, a solar power expert at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “And all of those incremental improvements add up to something very dramatic.”

An equally potent force, along with the technological advances, has been an influx of money — in particular, a gusher since 2020 of government subsidies.

In the United States, President Biden signed a trio of laws during his first two years in office that allocated unprecedented funds for clean energy: A $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure law provided money to enhance the power grid, buy electric buses for schools and build a national network of electric vehicle chargers. The bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act set aside billions of dollars for semiconductors vital to car manufacturing. And the Inflation Reduction Act, which marks its first anniversary on Aug. 16, is by far the most ambitious attempt to fight climate change in American history.

That landmark law provided tax breaks related to electric vehicles, heat pumps and energy efficiency upgrades, solar panel and wind turbine manufacturing and clean hydrogen production. The government is also investing in efforts to capture carbon emissions and store them before they can reach the atmosphere, as well as technology that can remove them directly from the air.

Originally estimated to cost roughly $391 billion between 2022 and 2031, the tax breaks are proving so popular with manufacturers and consumers that estimates now put the cost as high as $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

Combined, the three laws have prompted companies to announce at least $230 billion in manufacturing investments so far. In Georgia, a Korean solar manufacturer, Qcells, is building a $2.5 billion plant. In Nevada, Tesla is building a new $3.6 billion electric truck factory. And in Oklahoma, the Enel and Canoo facilities are primed to benefit from the Inflation Reduction Act, as is a new $4.4 billion battery factory being considered by Panasonic, the Japanese conglomerate.

“There’s a lot of appetite to invest in the United States thanks to that law,” said Giovanni Bertolino, an executive at Enel, adding that the plant his company is building in Tulsa would not exist without the Inflation Reduction Act.

Regulations are also hastening the energy transition. Mr. Biden has proposed tough new federal pollution limits on tailpipes and smokestacks, but several states are acting on their own. California, with market muscle that influences the entire auto industry, plans to halt sales of new gas-powered cars by 2035 and new diesel-powered trucks by 2036 — and a handful of states are following suit. In May, New York became the first state to ban gas hookups in most new buildings, requiring all-electric heating and cooking starting in 2026. Several cities, including New York and San Francisco, have similar prohibitions, although some Republican-controlled states have blocked their municipalities from banning gas.

Heavy investment by the United States has spurred a spirited reaction from other wealthy nations. Countries that initially complained that the United States was unfairly subsidizing clean energy manufacturers have since engaged in a sort of friendly subsidy race.

Canada, South Korea and others have pushed for their companies to have better access to the American incentives, while offering similar subsidies to their domestic manufacturers. After Russia invaded Ukraine last year, the European Union moved to lessen its dependence on Russian oil and gas. In May, for the first time ever, wind and solar power in the E.U. generated more electricity than fossil fuels.

And in China, which is currently both the world’s top polluter and the global leader for renewable power, the government continues to invest in every stage of clean energy production, from solar cells to batteries, wind turbines and more. Like the United States, China provides subsidies to buyers of electric vehicles. Last year it spent $546 billion on clean energy, far more than any other country in the world.

With costs falling fast, manufacturing has picked up and installations of solar and wind projects have increased. The U.S. solar industry installed a record 6.1 gigawatts of capacity in the first quarter of 2023, a 47 percent increase over the same period last year.

And those low costs have led many of the United States’ biggest corporations, such as Alphabet, Amazon and General Motors, to purchase large amounts of wind and solar power, because it burnishes their reputations and because it makes good economic sense.

“We’re seeing the nonlinear change happen before us,” said Jon Creyts, chief executive of RMI, a nonprofit organization that promotes the energy transition. “And that’s important, because we’re facing a climate crisis right now.”

‘A National Phenomenon’

Steve Uerling’s Tulsa home is a model of energy efficiency. He replaced all his incandescent light bulbs with LEDs. He installed a heat pump and rooftop solar panels this year. And he drives a plug-in hybrid Ford Fusion and a Tesla Model 3.

Mr. Uerling, a mechanical engineer, said he wanted to see renewable power take off in Oklahoma and was trying to do his part. But he was also driven by his wallet.

“My fuel cost is equivalent to getting 200 miles a gallon on gasoline,” he said. “We charge at night, when we get a much cheaper rate on our electricity.”

Millions of people around the country are making similar calculations. Electric vehicles are by far the fastest-growing segment of the auto industry, with record sales of 300,000 in the second quarter of 2023, a 48 percent increase from a year earlier. Teslas are now among the best-selling cars in the country, and Ford has expanded its production of the F-150 Lightning, the electric version of its popular pickup truck, after a surge of initial demand created a waiting list.

Concerns among consumers about the availability of charging stations as well as the cost of some models have helped to cool sales somewhat, leading some automakers to slash prices. Still, federal tax credits of up to $7,500 have made the least expensive electric vehicles competitive with gas-powered cars. And about two dozen states offer additional tax credits, rebates or reduced fees, further pushing down their cost.

Government action is also helping heavier vehicles go electric. Sales of electric school buses are soaring, largely because of $5 billion in federal grants that can cover 100 percent of the cost for low-income communities. The Postal Service plans to spend nearly $10 billion to purchase 66,000 electric mail trucks — roughly 30 percent of its fleet — over the next five years.

In the private sector, Amazon has ordered 100,000 electric delivery trucks from Rivian. Tesla has an electric semitruck, as do several other manufacturers, including Peterbilt.

Companies that provide charging stations are springing up to meet the demand. Francis Energy has more than 400 chargers across Oklahoma and is expanding nationwide. EVgo, which has one of the largest fast-charging networks in the United States, plans to more than double the 3,000 charging stalls it operates.

“It is not a red-state, blue-state thing,” said Cathy Zoi, EVgo’s chief executive. “It is a national phenomenon.”

In an unusual move, seven carmakers — BMW Group, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz Group and Stellantis — are spending $1 billion in a joint venture to build 30,000 charging ports on major highways and other locations in the United States and Canada.

The shift is happening so quickly that some of America’s most iconic automakers are preparing for a world beyond gasoline-powered cars and trucks.

General Motors, which has the largest market share of any carmaker in the United States, has committed to selling only zero-emissions vehicles by 2035. It’s a “once-in-a-generation inflection point” for the 114-year-old automaker, according to Mary Barra, G.M.’s chief executive.

In an interview, Ms. Barra said her company began to consider an all-electric future in 2020. “We started to see this happening with the consumer research we did,” said Ms. Barra, who has subsequently bet billions on G.M.’s efforts to reorient its engineering, overhaul its manufacturing facilities and processes and build new battery plants.

As the cost of batteries comes down, and the number of charging stations nationwide goes up, Ms. Barra expects exponential growth. “I think it’s going to be definitely an upward trajectory,” she said. “It’ll be a little bumpy, but bumpy growing.”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/12/climate/clean-energy-us-fossil-fuels.html