Hacker News Reader

Comment by Lonestar1440 | Hacker News Reader

We've already stopped the "Worst case scenarios" by rapidly replacing Carbon-intensive energy with other sources over the past decade:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/26/climate/emissions-worst-c...

Still work to be done, and also plenty of reasons for optimism. Batteries, motors, and carbon free generation only get better.

View on HN

Fossil fuels use continues to increase and shows no signs of slowing down: https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels

Instead of trying to push with a string (coming up with new non fossil energy sources) we need to ramp down fossils production using regulation, international agreements, emissions trading etc. Otherwise we'll just keep using both fossil and new energy sources.

That's a negative framing and while I'm not going to call it /wrong/, but world population is increasing so of course our energy usage is going to increase too.

If you scroll a little further down on your linked page, you will encounter another[1] graph, with renewable fraction of primary energy production and its steadily falling everywhere but the gulf states.

We're probably doing too little, too late, but my read is actually that we're moving in the right direction even if there is significant inertia to overcome before emissions actually start decreasing.

[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuels-share-energy

The US reversed course with the current administration and until things change with regards to that, there will be active resistance to renewable power projects. Because we need all the energy we can get and there's money to be made building out those projects there will still be progress, but it will be done in opposition to federal goals.

> we're moving in the right direction

many countries are, but the US is now moving in the opposite direction and because of its size it has a very large global impact

That "worst case scenario" (RCP85) was projecting a 5°C increase by 2100; the current trajectory still puts us at a 3.5°C increase by 2100, whoop-dee-doo. The "avoid climate change scenario" (< 1.5°C by 2100) is also rapidly becoming unattainable.

> We've already stopped the "Worst case scenarios"

maybe the _very worst_ ones, but there are still plenty of devastating worst case scenarios that are highly plausible and even more so now that Trumpistan dgaf about global warming or reducing fossil fuel emissions

Reply on news.ycombinator.com