Thanks for the insightful overview, Hannah. I believe that the data supports voices within the EU to slacken the aggressive emission cuts that were all the rage before the pandemic. The EU nowadays contributes only 6.3% of fossil fuel emissions, with the ratio being lower every year. Even if we cut aggressively, we would have a comparably small overall impact - but this aggressive cut would mean economic devastation, since the EU economies are very export-oriented and therefore have to be competitive on world markets, which is very difficult when energy costs are much higher than in other parts of the world. I believe that a poorer EU would probably be dirtier, not cleaner, since we would lack the funds to drive the buildout of renewables forward. Please note that I'm not saying that the EU already does everything it could - I believe that, for example, we could do much more to build onshore wind and put PV on every last roof and battries in every house and that it would probably be a good idea to offer this to citizens for zero down payment and with subsidized loans, which people can pay to a large degree with the money they save on energy costs.
How can you interpret these findings to support a less aggressive emission cuts, Simon? With a climate warmed over 2⁰c, the economy is devastated with far less control than if it was reorientated towards lower carbon, so surely we should all increase the effort.
Every country can make the same argument that moving from business as usual will damage their economy, but where there is trade, pressure can come on to do the right thing. For example, New Zealand has back tracked severely on methane emissions and the EU should be putting sanctions in place to stop importing dairy products from NZ until a realistic plan is under way.
Simon makes an important point, which is that the EU's national policies can only address the EU's emissions. Similarly, Australia's policies can only address its own emissions. Etc. etc. This reflects an international situation that is similar to the "Prisoners' Dilemma."
There is little incentive to make deep cuts in emissions when it has a relatively small benefit in a global context. In addition, Simon points out that there is a rising marginal cost of strong decarbonisation. In response, I argue that the Carbon Reward policy can resolve both problems, because it would provide debt-free finance, as an economic stimulus, and it would be a globally coordinated policy that addresses the global carbon budget. It would complement — not replace — other policies and carbon markets.
Does the CBAM (carbon border adjustment mechanism) ‘solve’ this though? (I got in over my skis w Hansen on this). EU has already started analysis in specific industries such as cement/steel but no tarrifs yet.
It's not a good source of mitigation/CDR funding (vs carbon rewards) because it self-terminates, but for emissions reduction?
Does the CBAM (carbon border adjustment mechanism) ‘solve’ this though? (I got in over my skis w Hansen on this). EU has already started analysis in specific industries such as cement/steel but no tarrifs yet.
It's not a good source of mitigation/CDR funding (vs carbon rewards) because it self-terminates, but for emissions reduction?
Hannah, thank you for this well written article. You and the Global Carbon project conduct detailed analysis of the CO2-warming problem, but not the clear solution -- Sustainability by Nuclear. Two, related problems must and can be solved. 1) Nuclear power plants are too costly and take too long to build. 2) Public 'common knowledge' that nuclear power radiation causes deadly cancer creates deep fear of radiation; vote-seeking politicians and their regulators create thickets of rules, increase costs, delay construction, or prohibit nuclear anything. It is perfectly feasible for nuclear power plants to generate firm, reliable electricity that is cheaper than from coal, cheaper than from LNG, and competitive with pipeline-supplied natural gas. We've done this before, before regulators declared all radiation is potentially deadly. Can you and your colleagues please turn your attention to analysis of the fraud and disinformation about radiation effects? Simply by exporting truth and removing barriers, we can solve this CO2-warming problem without subsidies, without taxes, using private enterprise to build on the economics intrinsic to the high energy density of uranium. Please read
Nuclear absolutely has a role to play, but it’s important to keep expectations grounded in what can realistically be built. Even optimistic energy-system models (IEA, IPCC, Princeton, BNEF) show nuclear providing roughly 10–20% of global electricity in 2050, and perhaps 20–30% by 2100 under very favorable assumptions.
That’s meaningful, but it’s not a silver bullet. The biggest constraint isn’t physics — it’s deployment speed, cost, supply chains, and workforce. Renewables now add 400–500 GW a year globally; nuclear adds 3–5 GW. Even if nuclear triples its build rate, it can’t scale at the pace needed to dominate the transition.
A balanced approach is the one that avoids blind spots: renewables where they scale fastest, nuclear where it works best, storage and transmission everywhere, and efficiency across the board.
I think that is the point about what Robert postulates. Nuclear power plants (NPPs) were build on time, on budget and that budget was cheaper than coal. Do "people=power users", who want cheap, green, reliable power even know about it?
And the build rate used to be pretty impressive(France per capita decarbnized electricity use in just about 15 years for good- unlike Germany in say comparable 15years). Apples to apples comparison.
Modern plants are not much more complex, do not require much more concrete, steel etc- increase of time and budget comes from different factors that must be addressed. Current 3-5GW/year is the pathological state that must be reversed.
Exactly — France’s nuclear build-out is impressive, but it came from a very specific moment: “no oil, no gas, no coal… no option.” After the 1970s shocks, France had no domestic resources and renewables weren’t viable at scale yet. Nuclear wasn’t just preferred — it was essentially the only path to energy security.
Fast-forward to today and the world is in a completely different position. We do have options: wind, solar, storage, interconnection, efficiency — all scaling at massive global rates. Nuclear can absolutely play a role, but it’s no longer operating in a vacuum.
You can see this in the country best positioned to repeat the French model: China. They have centralized control, aligned politics, big-state engineering capacity — everything France had, and more. And yet their official plans top out with nuclear at ~20% of electricity by 2060, because even for them, renewables scale faster and cheaper.
France shows what’s possible when nuclear is the only choice.
China shows what’s chosen when there are many choices.
Nuclear matters — but it’s one pillar among several, not the single path it was in 1975.
Not sure about where China will end up- I learned not to trust predictions and promises of CCP (or RF for that matter). Thus far "decarbonisation" of China is at best slow, really far from impressive.
"Cheapness" of solar and wind is more complex because we don't compare apples to apples. There is a huge difference between dispatch-able, reliable power with capacity factor larger than 90%, which is independent on weather(even fairly extreme), needs no backup, no batteries (although cheap batteries would match reliable sources fantastically to decarbonise). There is lots of deception in comparing different sources of power and LCOE is one of the most abused ones. Deceptions don't help climate, cheap power and seem to serve fossil fuel interests pretty well.
It is too bad we do not have leadership that will tell it like it is and demand a WWII style Rosie the Riveter level of sacrifice and commitment and in so doing mobilize us all around a cause.
If so, we could do the far more, more quickly, and would be more assured of meeting our goals.
It seems that invisible gasses are not "Snidely Whiplash" enough to inspire a "Dudley Do Right" to come to rescue our lovely planet "Nell" who is tied to the train tracks (for those old enough to remember that cartoon).
Maybe since politicians are so good at creating a common foe, China's success, will inspire the space race level of commitment we need out of our competitive spirit and our need to be number one, which we are on the verge of losing, if we have not already.
But in order for that to happen people need to be made aware of how far we are falling behind and how we are being made to "eat their dust" when it comes to the speed that low cost and clean energy generation in China is being ramped up.
We are now looking rather silly with our ACME fossil fuels in trying to catch that Roadrunner.
If we can find the will, I know we will find a way.
Thanks for the great commentary, Hannah. One additional anchor-point worth noting: in H1 2025, China’s clean-generation growth exceeded its electricity-demand growth — meaning renewables and other non-fossil sources didn’t just meet new demand, they displaced existing fossil output. See Ember’s China Energy Transition Review 2025 for details.
I saw today (2025) that France's power is 75% clean power. I think that China's zero slope GHG emissions for the past 18 months will stick. And as you say, Hannah all of the world-wide CO2 emissions have slowed their ppm/year increases in the last 10 years. With this data, I think that we will continue the solar, wind and batteries installations where, in the next 4 years, we will keep the 2025 GHG levels and meet the 1.5C target.
Fascinating. I've long believed that 1.5 C is dead. India. Holi is in early March next year and Diwali is in December. These festivals are seasonal markers. So I expect a longer summer next year - longer than this year's by a month. Additionally, the government has allowed about 100,000 trees to be cut in central India for Adani to create another coal mine. India's emissions due to coal may have grown slowly this year but don't be surprised if there is an uptick in the next 5 years
Thank you for an excellent and data-driven perspective on this! I’m curious how these global trends translate into what individual countries, regions, or businesses, should actually do. If coal, oil and gas use are still rising in many parts of the world, even if they may now be close to (or already past) their peak, then where are investments most effective? For example, in Sweden the government recently announced it will scrap all national climate targets for agriculture that go beyond the EU minimum. With the rationale that the broader EU transition focuses heavily on phasing out coal as the single biggest lever.
So the question is: does it make sense for countries to pull back on domestic ambition and instead prioritise targeted efforts elsewhere, for example, helping accelerate the coal phase-out in other regions? Is this actually an efficient strategy from a climate perspective?
The emissions story always tracks back to power systems. Countries that expand firm, low cost generation cut emissions without sacrificing growth. Countries that rely on volatility end up trading progress for stability.
If we want real global reductions, the focus has to shift from targets to infrastructure. Build the right power mix and the numbers follow.
Hannah, just want to say thanks for the detailed essay and analytical breakdown. Genuinely helpful. Even though the results are grim, I feel grateful for analysts who make public data useful, as you’ve done here.
I'm optimistic about the exponential cost reductions and share increases of renewable energy, but we're starting from a small base. In the US, we also clearly need to reform permitting for renewable energy since many of these projects are getting stuck in permitting indefinitely.
Bigger picture, we need to continue to get better at carbon removal and perhaps geoengineering.
Thanks for the insightful overview, Hannah. I believe that the data supports voices within the EU to slacken the aggressive emission cuts that were all the rage before the pandemic. The EU nowadays contributes only 6.3% of fossil fuel emissions, with the ratio being lower every year. Even if we cut aggressively, we would have a comparably small overall impact - but this aggressive cut would mean economic devastation, since the EU economies are very export-oriented and therefore have to be competitive on world markets, which is very difficult when energy costs are much higher than in other parts of the world. I believe that a poorer EU would probably be dirtier, not cleaner, since we would lack the funds to drive the buildout of renewables forward. Please note that I'm not saying that the EU already does everything it could - I believe that, for example, we could do much more to build onshore wind and put PV on every last roof and battries in every house and that it would probably be a good idea to offer this to citizens for zero down payment and with subsidized loans, which people can pay to a large degree with the money they save on energy costs.
How can you interpret these findings to support a less aggressive emission cuts, Simon? With a climate warmed over 2⁰c, the economy is devastated with far less control than if it was reorientated towards lower carbon, so surely we should all increase the effort.
Every country can make the same argument that moving from business as usual will damage their economy, but where there is trade, pressure can come on to do the right thing. For example, New Zealand has back tracked severely on methane emissions and the EU should be putting sanctions in place to stop importing dairy products from NZ until a realistic plan is under way.
Simon makes an important point, which is that the EU's national policies can only address the EU's emissions. Similarly, Australia's policies can only address its own emissions. Etc. etc. This reflects an international situation that is similar to the "Prisoners' Dilemma."
There is little incentive to make deep cuts in emissions when it has a relatively small benefit in a global context. In addition, Simon points out that there is a rising marginal cost of strong decarbonisation. In response, I argue that the Carbon Reward policy can resolve both problems, because it would provide debt-free finance, as an economic stimulus, and it would be a globally coordinated policy that addresses the global carbon budget. It would complement — not replace — other policies and carbon markets.
https://globalcarbonreward.org/
Does the CBAM (carbon border adjustment mechanism) ‘solve’ this though? (I got in over my skis w Hansen on this). EU has already started analysis in specific industries such as cement/steel but no tarrifs yet.
It's not a good source of mitigation/CDR funding (vs carbon rewards) because it self-terminates, but for emissions reduction?
Does the CBAM (carbon border adjustment mechanism) ‘solve’ this though? (I got in over my skis w Hansen on this). EU has already started analysis in specific industries such as cement/steel but no tarrifs yet.
It's not a good source of mitigation/CDR funding (vs carbon rewards) because it self-terminates, but for emissions reduction?
Hannah, thank you for this well written article. You and the Global Carbon project conduct detailed analysis of the CO2-warming problem, but not the clear solution -- Sustainability by Nuclear. Two, related problems must and can be solved. 1) Nuclear power plants are too costly and take too long to build. 2) Public 'common knowledge' that nuclear power radiation causes deadly cancer creates deep fear of radiation; vote-seeking politicians and their regulators create thickets of rules, increase costs, delay construction, or prohibit nuclear anything. It is perfectly feasible for nuclear power plants to generate firm, reliable electricity that is cheaper than from coal, cheaper than from LNG, and competitive with pipeline-supplied natural gas. We've done this before, before regulators declared all radiation is potentially deadly. Can you and your colleagues please turn your attention to analysis of the fraud and disinformation about radiation effects? Simply by exporting truth and removing barriers, we can solve this CO2-warming problem without subsidies, without taxes, using private enterprise to build on the economics intrinsic to the high energy density of uranium. Please read
Hargraves.substack.com
jackdevanney.substack.com
radiationeffects.com
whatisnuclear.com
Please turn your analytical bent to Sustainability by Nuclear.
Nuclear absolutely has a role to play, but it’s important to keep expectations grounded in what can realistically be built. Even optimistic energy-system models (IEA, IPCC, Princeton, BNEF) show nuclear providing roughly 10–20% of global electricity in 2050, and perhaps 20–30% by 2100 under very favorable assumptions.
That’s meaningful, but it’s not a silver bullet. The biggest constraint isn’t physics — it’s deployment speed, cost, supply chains, and workforce. Renewables now add 400–500 GW a year globally; nuclear adds 3–5 GW. Even if nuclear triples its build rate, it can’t scale at the pace needed to dominate the transition.
A balanced approach is the one that avoids blind spots: renewables where they scale fastest, nuclear where it works best, storage and transmission everywhere, and efficiency across the board.
I think that is the point about what Robert postulates. Nuclear power plants (NPPs) were build on time, on budget and that budget was cheaper than coal. Do "people=power users", who want cheap, green, reliable power even know about it?
And the build rate used to be pretty impressive(France per capita decarbnized electricity use in just about 15 years for good- unlike Germany in say comparable 15years). Apples to apples comparison.
Modern plants are not much more complex, do not require much more concrete, steel etc- increase of time and budget comes from different factors that must be addressed. Current 3-5GW/year is the pathological state that must be reversed.
Exactly — France’s nuclear build-out is impressive, but it came from a very specific moment: “no oil, no gas, no coal… no option.” After the 1970s shocks, France had no domestic resources and renewables weren’t viable at scale yet. Nuclear wasn’t just preferred — it was essentially the only path to energy security.
Fast-forward to today and the world is in a completely different position. We do have options: wind, solar, storage, interconnection, efficiency — all scaling at massive global rates. Nuclear can absolutely play a role, but it’s no longer operating in a vacuum.
You can see this in the country best positioned to repeat the French model: China. They have centralized control, aligned politics, big-state engineering capacity — everything France had, and more. And yet their official plans top out with nuclear at ~20% of electricity by 2060, because even for them, renewables scale faster and cheaper.
France shows what’s possible when nuclear is the only choice.
China shows what’s chosen when there are many choices.
Nuclear matters — but it’s one pillar among several, not the single path it was in 1975.
Not sure about where China will end up- I learned not to trust predictions and promises of CCP (or RF for that matter). Thus far "decarbonisation" of China is at best slow, really far from impressive.
"Cheapness" of solar and wind is more complex because we don't compare apples to apples. There is a huge difference between dispatch-able, reliable power with capacity factor larger than 90%, which is independent on weather(even fairly extreme), needs no backup, no batteries (although cheap batteries would match reliable sources fantastically to decarbonise). There is lots of deception in comparing different sources of power and LCOE is one of the most abused ones. Deceptions don't help climate, cheap power and seem to serve fossil fuel interests pretty well.
Thanks for the reality check.
It is too bad we do not have leadership that will tell it like it is and demand a WWII style Rosie the Riveter level of sacrifice and commitment and in so doing mobilize us all around a cause.
If so, we could do the far more, more quickly, and would be more assured of meeting our goals.
It seems that invisible gasses are not "Snidely Whiplash" enough to inspire a "Dudley Do Right" to come to rescue our lovely planet "Nell" who is tied to the train tracks (for those old enough to remember that cartoon).
Maybe since politicians are so good at creating a common foe, China's success, will inspire the space race level of commitment we need out of our competitive spirit and our need to be number one, which we are on the verge of losing, if we have not already.
But in order for that to happen people need to be made aware of how far we are falling behind and how we are being made to "eat their dust" when it comes to the speed that low cost and clean energy generation in China is being ramped up.
We are now looking rather silly with our ACME fossil fuels in trying to catch that Roadrunner.
If we can find the will, I know we will find a way.
Thanks for the great commentary, Hannah. One additional anchor-point worth noting: in H1 2025, China’s clean-generation growth exceeded its electricity-demand growth — meaning renewables and other non-fossil sources didn’t just meet new demand, they displaced existing fossil output. See Ember’s China Energy Transition Review 2025 for details.
This marks a structural inflection: China may be shifting so that demand-driven fossil build-out no longer dominates its power sector. [Link: https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/china-energy-transition-review-2025/]
I saw today (2025) that France's power is 75% clean power. I think that China's zero slope GHG emissions for the past 18 months will stick. And as you say, Hannah all of the world-wide CO2 emissions have slowed their ppm/year increases in the last 10 years. With this data, I think that we will continue the solar, wind and batteries installations where, in the next 4 years, we will keep the 2025 GHG levels and meet the 1.5C target.
Thanks so much for writing this clear and accessible piece! It is crucially important to share these results in the right way.
Fascinating. I've long believed that 1.5 C is dead. India. Holi is in early March next year and Diwali is in December. These festivals are seasonal markers. So I expect a longer summer next year - longer than this year's by a month. Additionally, the government has allowed about 100,000 trees to be cut in central India for Adani to create another coal mine. India's emissions due to coal may have grown slowly this year but don't be surprised if there is an uptick in the next 5 years
Good to read you remain "a fairly optimistic person"
Great insights, Hannah! Thank you for sharing.
It's been quite difficult to accept that 1.5 is dead, but alas, the fight is not over for 2 degrees.
While the 1.5C goal is almost certainly done for, it is encouraging to see land use emissions dropping.
Curious what percent of that is intentional from less deforestation, vs. how much is just luck from few wildfires this year.
Thanks for sharing!
Thank you for an excellent and data-driven perspective on this! I’m curious how these global trends translate into what individual countries, regions, or businesses, should actually do. If coal, oil and gas use are still rising in many parts of the world, even if they may now be close to (or already past) their peak, then where are investments most effective? For example, in Sweden the government recently announced it will scrap all national climate targets for agriculture that go beyond the EU minimum. With the rationale that the broader EU transition focuses heavily on phasing out coal as the single biggest lever.
So the question is: does it make sense for countries to pull back on domestic ambition and instead prioritise targeted efforts elsewhere, for example, helping accelerate the coal phase-out in other regions? Is this actually an efficient strategy from a climate perspective?
The emissions story always tracks back to power systems. Countries that expand firm, low cost generation cut emissions without sacrificing growth. Countries that rely on volatility end up trading progress for stability.
If we want real global reductions, the focus has to shift from targets to infrastructure. Build the right power mix and the numbers follow.
Hannah, just want to say thanks for the detailed essay and analytical breakdown. Genuinely helpful. Even though the results are grim, I feel grateful for analysts who make public data useful, as you’ve done here.
Great article, Hannah. Very clear and straight to the point. Thank you!
So many bots in these replies.
I'm optimistic about the exponential cost reductions and share increases of renewable energy, but we're starting from a small base. In the US, we also clearly need to reform permitting for renewable energy since many of these projects are getting stuck in permitting indefinitely.
Bigger picture, we need to continue to get better at carbon removal and perhaps geoengineering.