Techno-optimism alone won’t fix climate change.
Sussex Energy Group 12th May 2025 by Ruby Loughman , https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/sussexenergygroup/2025/05/12/techno-optimism-alone-wont-fix-climate-change/
This blog post was originally published by the Energy Demand Research Centre (EDRC), 2 May 2025, written by Professor Mari Martiskainen.
Ex-prime minister Tony Blair was making headlines this week by saying that current Net Zero policies are ‘doomed to fail’. In a new report by the Tony Blair Institute (TBI), he argues that voters “feel they’re being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know the impact on global emissions is minimal”. It is an unprecedented call from a former prime minister whose party has been leading climate action in the UK. I will pick up on three key points in relation to the importance of climate action.
The science on climate change is clear
First, the science is clear. Unless we take action, climate change is going to have even more devastating impacts on our societies and the global economy. Countries such as China are seeing this as a big financial opportunity in winning the green race. The evidence on the economic prize is sound and clear: the opportunity for the UK economy is enormous relative to the impact we can have on global emissions, where green growth should be seen as this century’s central opportunity for growing more equitable prosperity.
People want climate action and clear government leadership
Second, people want to take climate action, and for that they want clear leadership from government. While the TBI report questions people’s willingness to undertake lifestyle choices, for example, it is clear from a host of academic and policy studies that people want to act and are ready to change, as long as they get clarity on what is expected. For example, the world’s largest standalone survey on climate change by UNDP found that 80% of people globally want their country to do more on climate change, and 72% want their country to move away from fossil fuels to clean energy quickly.
An academic survey of 125 countries by Andre and colleagues found that “69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute 1% of their personal income, 86% endorse pro-climate social norms and 89% demand intensified political action.” Many people have important conditions for this transition, such as it being fair. Crucial issues for policy attention include ensuring that people can have confidence on the value that their own financial commitments will deliver, privately and publicly. This means also the government committing to a genuinely ‘just transition’ in terms of jobs and delivering greener growth.
People must be at the centre of climate solutions
Third, the report calls for ‘actions for positive disruption’, and by this it means accelerating and scaling technologies that capture carbon, harnessing the power of AI, investing in frontier energy solutions, and scaling nature-based solutions. The latter are very welcome, but a major focus on nuclear, carbon capture and AI relates to techno-optimism and the widely debunked approach that technology alone will fix the world’s problems.
This approach leaves out a range of positive socio-technical approaches where people are at the centre of climate solutions. It also misses out on the numerous benefits that could be achieved by engaging citizens in the energy transition. A truly positive disruptive action would be for example to question the high-consuming lifestyles and excess energy consumption that many countries have, including some of those petrostates that TBI has worked for.
It also needs to recognise the opportunity that energy demand action can have in reducing emissions while also enabling a better quality of life for many. The TBI report for example claims that “proposed green policies that suggest limiting meat consumption or reducing air travel have alienated many people rather than bringing them along”. However, our research with people in the UK, for example, has found that there is support for a substantial shift in diets, including reduced meat and dairy consumption.
Addressing climate change needs to be a joined-up, global effort. This needs trusted, robust and impartial evidence applied in a world of vested interests and misinformation. Net zero policies themselves have not become toxic for the majority, yet we should not discount people’s concerns about the changes needed. Technology alone, however, is not the solution.
Solar and wind make up 98 pct of new US generation capacity in Trump’s first three months
Stillwater plant combines 33 MW of the original baseload geothermal, 26 MW of solar PV and 2 MW of solar thermal power generation
Enel Green Power North America
Joshua S Hill, May 13, https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-and-wind-make-up-98-pct-of-new-us-generation-capacity-in-trumps-first-three-months/
A new analysis of government data has revealed that solar and wind accounted for nearly 98 per cent of new electricity generating capacity in the United States through the first quarter of 2025, despite efforts by the new president to unravel clean energy efforts.
The Sun Day Campaign, a non-profit research and educational organisation founded by Ken Bossong, has been fighting the good fight since 1992, and has been an invaluable tool for journalists covering clean energy in the United States.
A review conducted by the Sun Day Campaign of data recently published by the US government’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) demonstrates the momentum driving the clean energy industry, even in the face of extreme political adversity.
According to the government’s own data, solar and wind accounted for nearly 98 per cent of new US electrical generating capacity added in the first quarter of 2025, and solar and wind were the only sources of new capacity in March – a month that was the nineteenth in a row that saw solar stand out as the largest source of new capacity.
A total of 447MW of solar was installed in March along with the 223.9MW Shamrock Wind & Storage Project in Crockett County, Texas.
Over the first three months of 2025, a total of 7,076MW of solar and wind was installed, accounting for 97.8 per cent of new capacity.
The remainder was made up with 147MW of new natural gas capacity and 11MW from oil.
On its own, solar accounted for two-thirds of all new generating capacity placed into service in March, and 72.3 per cent of new capacity through the first quarter of the year. That makes solar the largest source of new generating capacity per month since September 2023.
This also brings the total installed capacity of solar and wind up to 22.5 per cent of the country’s total available installed utility-scale generating capacity, accounting for 10.7 per cent and 11.8 per cent respectively.
On top of that, approximately 30 per cent of US solar capacity is considered small-scale, or rooftop solar, and is not in fact reflected in FERC’s data. If small-scale solar is added to utility-scale solar and wind, that brings the total share to a quarter of America’s total.
Adding other renewable energy sources – including hydropower (7.7%), biomass (1.1%) and geothermal (0.3%) – renewables accounts for 31.5 per cent of total US utility-scale generating capacity.
FERC itself also expects a “high probability” that new solar capacity additions between April 2025 and March 2028 will total 89,461MW – by far and away the largest source of new capacity. For comparison, over that period, FERC expects 129,609MW of new capacity to be installed, meaning that there is a “high probability” that solar will account for 69 per cent. The next highest source of “high probability” generating capacity is wind energy, with 22,279MW, followed by 16,947MW worth of natural gas.
Conversely, FERC expects there to be no new nuclear capacity installed in its three-year forecast, while coal and oil are projected to contract by 24,372-MW and 2,108-MW respectively. And while new natural gas capacity is expected, that 16,947MW is offset by 15,209MW worth of retirements, resulting in an expansion of only 1,738MW.
“Thus, adjusting for the different capacity factors of gas (59.7%), wind (34.3%), and utility-scale solar (23.4%), electricity generated by the projected new solar capacity to be added in the coming three years should be at least 20 times greater than that produced by the new natural gas capacity while the electrical output by new wind capacity would be over seven times more than gas,” said Sun Day.
Finally, the Sun Day Campaign is currently predicting that all utility-scale renewables will account for 37.5 per cent of total available installed utility-scale generating capacity by April 1, 2028, “rapidly approaching” that of natural gas (40.2 per cent).
“If those trendlines continue, utility-scale renewable energy capacity should surpass that of natural gas in 2029 or sooner,” says Sun Day.
“Notwithstanding the Trump Administration’s anti-renewable energy efforts during its first 100+ days, the strong growth of solar and wind continues,” said Ken Bossong, Sun Day Campaign’s executive director.
“And FERC’s latest data and forecasts suggest this will not change in the near-term.”
Joshua S. Hill is a Melbourne-based journalist who has been writing about climate change, clean technology, and electric vehicles for over 15 years. He has been reporting on electric vehicles and clean technologies for Renew Economy and The Driven since 2012. His preferred mode of transport is his feet.
If the Coalition sticks with nuclear, the fallout will be toxic.
Rebecca Huntley May 10, 2025, https://www.smh.com.au/national/if-the-coalition-sticks-with-nuclear-the-fallout-will-be-toxic-20250505-p5lwmu.html
Much of the post-election commentary has rightly focused on how the Coalition’s nuclear energy proposal was bad – very bad. It was one of the reasons Peter Dutton lost his seat and for net swings against the Coalition in areas such as Gippsland and the Hunter. Unpopular among women voters, who the Coalition continue to struggle to appeal to, and unpopular among undecided voters.
More importantly, nuclear undermined Peter Dutton’s credibility. After the Voice, the only real policy most voters associated with the opposition leader was nuclear. Once his ill-fated campaign began with a backflip on public servants working from home, the swath of undecided voters got spooked.
No one wants someone who seems highly disorganised to build a nuclear reactor.
If you scrutinise the research numbers, the lack of public support for nuclear was clear; more importantly, support for renewables didn’t dip in the face of the pro-nuclear push. Pursuing nuclear made the Coalition look like it was out of sync with what people really wanted. If it continues to pursue this as a policy, it will be seen as defying the will of the people.
Over the years of Labor’s first term, despite a cost-of-living crisis and well-funded campaigns against renewables online and in traditional media, research showed steady support for solar, wind and batteries. Even the election of Donald “drill-baby-drill” Trump didn’t undermine support.
The online misinformation and disinformation campaigns against renewables certainly ramped up after Albanese was first elected, supported by attacks from Sky News and the Murdoch-owned press.
The Coalition playbook was simple: cast enough disinformation and misinformation across channels to create doubt and antagonism against renewables. It fully believed it could win seats off the back of voter dislike of offshore wind in particular, especially in areas such as the Illawarra. It was in for a surprise.
The outcome of this election shows us a truth the Coalition must accept: amid a cost-of-living crisis, Australians back renewables. In fact, the overall swing towards Labor in seats where anti-offshore wind campaigns were rife was greater than the overall statewide swing. Except for Monash in Victoria, anti-offshore campaigns backfired on the Coalition.
Dutton and his Coalition colleagues in the Nationals severely underestimated the Australian people, particularly those in the regions. Support in proposed nuclear reactor communities, including Gladstone, Bunbury, Hunter and Gippsland, was weak, ranging from 22 to 32 per cent.
A poll published in this masthead in April showed 31 per cent of voters said their biggest hesitation in voting for the Coalition and Dutton was the plan to use nuclear power, up 5 percentage points from two months earlier.
This campaign was fought and won on the cost of living. In the end, Australians believed the right policies on renewables – including more access to home batteries – would save them money now and into the future.
Can you imagine what would happen if all the confected outrage over renewables disappeared, and all that was left was public opinion? The support for renewables is there once you strip away the headlines that seem to suggest otherwise.
So, what does this mean for our newly elected Labor-landslide majority government? And for a Coalition still wrestling with where to go on energy policy? When the word “mandate” gets used in relation to election victories, I have to resist a reflexive eye-roll. Election results don’t necessarily equate to public endorsement of every promise made in the campaign by the winning party. But this result is definitive, and more remarkable considering so many federal elections in the past two decades have been close. The last time there was such a strong message from the electorate was in 2007. In many respects, the Rudd government underestimated the permission the public gave it to act on climate. When Labor stepped away from that commitment, its credibility sagged.
A triumphant Albanese government, going into a second term with more power and confidence, should feel like it can act on the energy transition with a belief that the community will follow, especially if its policies deliver cost savings to households and significant and lasting benefits to the regional communities hosting renewable infrastructure. It’s a green light for further progress, but understanding community sentiment – and responding to it – will be essential to maintaining the permission.
Early signs from the Labor government indicate it knows it can proceed swiftly. On election night, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen said, “In 2022, the Australian people voted to finally act on climate change. After three years of progress, in 2025, they said keep going.”
“Keep going” should be the official government slogan. Fingers crossed that sanity prevails, but early signs from the Coalition seem to indicate more of the same: support for nuclear, which really means less renewable energy.
If the members of the Coalition don’t want to believe the polling data, perhaps they should think about these figures. In the years they have been pursuing their nuclear policy, global solar power has doubled. According to the Clean Energy Council, more than 300,000 small-scale rooftop solar systems were installed across Australia in 2024, bringing the total number to more than 4 million. Utility battery storage more than tripled. And last year, Australia added more renewable capacity to the energy system than the entirety of the Coalition’s nuclear plan.
The transition to renewables is happening, and nuclear is a policy that is too toxic for the electorate and too late to be helpful for emissions.
Any politician who resists that logic will be warming the benches of opposition for some time to come.
Dr Rebecca Huntley is one of Australia’s foremost researchers on social trends and a Fellow of the Research Society of Australia. She is director of research at 89 Degrees East.
I just returned from Antarctica: climate change isn’t some far-off problem – it’s here and hitting hard.
The continent stands as a powerful symbol of our interconnected climate systems – a compelling case for conservation…………………… the ocean shapes our world – and Antarctica is central to that story. The surrounding waters link the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans through the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. This connectivity means that what happens in Antarctica affects us all.
Jennifer Verduin, Sun 11 May 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/11/antarctica-climate-change-threat
As an oceanographer, I study how the ocean shapes our world. For Australia and other nations, the lesson is urgent.
Antarctica is often viewed as the last truly remote place on Earth – frozen, wild and untouched. But is it really as untouched as it seems?
This vast frozen continent is encircled by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, the only current in the world that connects all the oceans, showing how closely linked our planet really is.
Earlier this year, I joined more than 100 scientists on a journey to Antarctica. What we encountered was extraordinary: towering icebergs, playful penguins, breaching whales and seals resting on the ice. Yet beneath this natural wonder lies a sobering reality – Antarctica is changing, and fast. The experience left me both inspired and deeply saddened.
This unique environment highlights the fragility of our planet. Its pristine landscapes and thriving wildlife represent what we stand to lose if we don’t take urgent action to reduce human impact.
Historically, Antarctica suffered from exploitation – hunters came for whales and seals, leaving scars on its ecosystems. While wildlife is slowly recovering, these species now face a new threat: climate change. Rising ocean temperatures are melting ice, reshaping habitats and disrupting the delicate balance of life.
The continent stands as a powerful symbol of our interconnected climate systems – a compelling case for conservation. During our visit, we toured research stations and Port Lockroy, where gentoo penguins raise their chicks. Here, human activity is carefully managed. Half the island is set aside for the penguins, while the other half welcomes around 18,000 tourists each year who come to learn about this remarkable place. It’s a model of coexistence – one that shows how we can live alongside nature when we choose to act responsibly.
Along our journey, we witnessed diverse wildlife in their natural habitats – from penguins and seals to whales and seabirds. Albatrosses and cape petrels followed our ship, gliding effortlessly over the waves – symbols of resilience, yet also vulnerability.
But reminders of past damage still linger. On Deception Island, rusted remains of the whaling industry serve as stark evidence of the harm unchecked exploitation can cause. They also underscore why continued protection of these fragile ecosystems is vital.
As an oceanographer, I study how the ocean shapes our world – and Antarctica is central to that story. The surrounding waters link the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans through the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. This connectivity means that what happens in Antarctica affects us all. Pollution, warming seas and oil spills know no borders. These changes disrupt ocean currents, harm marine life and influence climate systems around the globe.
The implications are clear: addressing environmental challenges requires international cooperation and decisive action.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 