I sincerely hope that this excellent analysis is read, and importantly understood, by those purblind headline writers cited (to which should be added, to their chagrin, the usually reliable Reuters).
To be fair to the Financial Times, its' story did include a very pointed reference to an interview they had published earlier with Trump's henchman, Chris "King of Fracking" Wright, now moonlighting as US energy secretary .
In it, Wright had overtly reminded the IEA that the USA paid 14% of its budget, and should be publishing scenarios that reflected the present administration's (eccentric) world view on energy . The IEA obviously took the hint...
Scenario planning had its heyday in the 1990s, and has largely disappeared from the playbook of the major companies for the flaws aptly described in this article. It can be a helpful tool in stimulating thinking about alternative futures but often degenerates into 3 options, high, business as usual, and low. As this article shows, the output is easily distorted in the reporting.
The price of a barrel of oil, a global commodity, has not been able to get much traction for a couple of months and has fallen to low levels not seen since covid. It is not even close to the price it would need to be to inspire the cost of more drilling.
The price has remained very low, even with sanction threats against Russia and ships off the coast of Venezuela.
Demand expectations are simply not keeping up with excess supply.
It seems like those who purchase oil do not seem to see any near term future for much increase in demand.
I find this a hopeful sign, unless this is simply only because they see a global recession looming, but I rather doubt that is the only reason.
Trump may be saying "drill baby drill" but that old saying about how "you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink" comes to mind.
With Australia utilities poised to allow for 3 free hours of electricity during midday, due to excess energy from solar, there is another nation with added incentive for even more EVs.
There is excess oil production already, and OPEC also has idle capacity of millions of barrels per day, if they ever wanted to ramp up, so who would want to spend big bucks to pull more out of the ground under such conditions when profits are already declining?
Then when you consider that many living in 3rd world areas are now turning to low cost solar to run things and light homes, etc, it makes one consider if they may then choose to rely more on EV bikes and electric mopeds, etc. and then maybe EV cars as this progresses.
I am hopeful that we have simply turned a corner as more and more may simply choose solar due to the large cost savings, even without policy changes from governments. It is simply becoming, by far, the more affordable option.
Really rhetorically effective to let to charts speak for themselves.
I would like to see a follow up that tracks a middle scenario between this (probably pessimistic and flat-wrong) 2025 scenario and the previous (probably) over-optimistic one.
Also, not having read the new IEA report, hasn't the effect of scale and cost on the global mobility market from all those Chinese or European EVs been taken into effect? At a certain point, even if the policy isn't there and even if the charging infrastructure isn't perfect, you're just going to have to start buying EVs that are cheaper while fossil fuels are scarcer and more expensive? Even if you REALLY don't want to!
And we're also assuming that the current model of (somewhat) limited EV range and slow-charging will be the one that persists for decade? Already, China has rolled out exponentially faster charging technology, so that charging an EV is like filling up at the pump. Perhaps the physics of batteries hits a limit, but you also have to assume that the range continues to increase meaningfully? And, maybe we get to a battery-swap model, as has long been predicted?
Thanks, Hannah — this really clarified the assumptions behind the IEA scenarios. Zeke recently covered the temperature implications on The Climate Brink, but your piece made me realize just how pessimistic the Current Policies Scenario (CPS) actually is. The IEA’s own emissions chart (updated Nov 2025) shows CPS keeping global CO₂ near today’s levels for decades, which is why it ends up near ~2.9 °C. It’s less a “business-as-usual” pathway and more a “no further policy progress” counterfactual.
For anyone interested, here’s the IEA chart so you can see the CPS trajectory for yourself:
Thanks for the clarification and a useful reminder of the differences between a scenario, a most likely scenario and a forecast. I would ask, do the IEA produce a 'most likely' scenario, and if so what does that say about fossil fuels?
One other point: as demand for fossil fuels falls, then providing supply is maintained, the price will drop and make gas/oil more competitive again. Clearly the high cost production facilities will close, but the cheaper ones will continue and probably prolong the fossil fuel era.
With respect, this article is simplistically reductionist in viewing the world through a relatively narrow keyhole. It assumes, for example, that a world of two billion EVs is necessarily better than a world of two billion ICE vehicles. More generally, it ignores the fact that techno-industrial society is in ecological overshoot, consuming even self-producing and replenishable resources faster than nature can regenerate and dumping wastes in excess of the ecosphere's assimilation capacity. Overshoot is ultimately a terminal disease (of which global heating is only one obvious co-symptom). In this framing, we should be looking at ways to reduce the demand, not only for private vehicles but for all manner of unsustainable consumption including energy of all kinds. There are limits to growth (some exceeded already) and the age of easy abundance is over.
Thanks Hannah, love that infamous solar PV predictions figure of the IEA. I would start any article discussing their latest "forecast" by showing how good their previous ones were...
OK, in their defense, it is not purely incompetence, it is more likely self-perpetuating bureaucratic loops - they were created in response to oil shocks, and their real mission remains, behind the new fluffy words, to ensure there's enough investment in oil extraction. It is expected that (western) oil networks have thoroughly colonised that organism, and the last thing they will allow is a forecast that will send their shares through the floor with all their stranded assets. A better predictor is share buybacks and dividends the majors have to pay to keep their share price afloat - very high.
That such a (wrong) forecast may provoke some stupid dictator (or president) into invading a neighbour, or help those that did with high oil prices, or fuck-up the energy policy of developing countries - absolutely does not register in all the magnificent brains staffing the organism.
As an energy manager contemplating a proposal of investing in a net-zero future, I would build my scenario first e.g. a net-zero investment option- variable speed equipment, heat pumps, solar arrays, geothermal options, green energy suppliers, battery storage plus materials for construction, insulation, thermal profile, etc, etc. based on a thirty year life for calculations of financing and depreciation.
Then I would do a forecast of costs and prices for my current consumption under the current cost scheme e.g. the grid, the gas supply or energy used now.
Then a forecast of costs of operating my net zero investment.
I would also need to predict how the utility system or energy providers would respond to my net zero investment by buy-back or feeding back the surplus.
Subtract one series of costs and forecasts from the other and then I would decide whether an investment in net zero is worth it.
The time cycle for financial returns or payback is the killer because interest rate predictions are uncertain or the return from net zero investing is not forecasted to be as good.
In my experience companies invest in energy management improvements when equipment dies from old age and refurbishing is impractical.
Net zero thinking never makes it to the proposal stage unless you are investing in a wholesale change in structure. Even then, the optimal options are seen as expensive.
It is also not easy to get the money or buy-in for a scenario or forecast or prediction of improved energy performance - so inertia will keep oil and gas consumption rising.
It’s disappointing that the IEA makes the assumption that all growth in solar and EVs is due to government policies. Even if 90% of growth is due to policies (and given cost curves and technological advancement that is way too much credit to give government policy) the growth curves of both would not be flat, but would be rising more slowly. It makes me discount any of the data the publish.
Well as long as oil companies own 87% of auto patents what do you think?
Genius would be put a clean diesel to power and electric generator with for brushless electric motors at the hub like a locomotive, VW did this w a Toureg and was getting 78 mpg in 2012, shortly after they were hit w their chip reprogramming of their diesel emissions lawsuit, so that amazing vehicle…disappeared. And Elon and the rest of the dam geniuses don't think about such. That said, consumption based on profit will always be a supply/demand price point that will increase as population increases. 8 billion & counting as of earlier this year.
Even if oil companies own auto patents, which is not shown by patent databases, they do have patents on formulations on fuels and their production. A patent on fuels or even internal combustion engines is not a barrier in any way from automakers producing electric vehicles that don’t make use of either.
The electric vehicle concept is cost prohibitive. And how exactly do you recharge it? And defense wise, like all things battery or chip, 3 letters make it non-viable as an industry replacement: EMP.
And the shielding is minimal, long term exposure to a high voltage/high current source aka,riding atop a battery = cancer. And Lithium? Exposed to air it burns, exposed to water it explodes, and exposed to illegal aliens getting blue states cdl's another weapon of mass destruction.
A clean diesel connected to a generator connected to 4 motors at the hub is optimally efficient and easily configured for hybrid use which would almost double the 78 MPG experienced in a 5 ton SUV.
The oil companies base their profit model off a 300 mi baseline of an auto requiring fuel at that point. Fuel efficiency goes up, tank size goes down, and the military also uses a 300 mile refuel turn for convoys not shipped via rail. The Echarge equivalent would also require a plug in at 300 mi. Once an event is used up or destroyed, its waste if not reclaimed, poisons water. As do lead acid battery's in land fills.
That said, the most economically viable alternative, the clean diesel electric, is profit/environment friendly and sound without old grid burdens and major infrastructure overhaul. That 5 ton beast was a 4 wheel drive version, hince the 4 motors at the hubs. 2012 tech. Today one can put an electric motor to a transmission to a generator and it would run all the time w excess power until material failure, other than the initial startup...would have a l9ng shelf life while running. And could put power back into your home. Or for the Jetsons types, a nuclear battery exists that only requires something to power...for up to 10 years. The tradeoff is containment in an accident/fire, and the overvotage short out that is basically a small nuke explosion wiping out a city block. There are alternatives hidden in the Nikoli Tesla files the FBI took when he died...that are held top secret- strategic. Who gets to see them? Bezos, Gates, Suckleberg, the Nvida guy...oh George Soros also has a top secret security clearance, owns a good portion of Blackrock.
Anyway, I understand your love n fixation with electric cars n such. Nifty they are. But quite vulnerable to weapons and being weaponzed, the Mossad have a device that makes Teslas, remote control bombs. Hopefully the computer sits in a Faraday cage for Trump's granddaughter's Tesla.
Strategically electric vehicles are not a viable option.
China is producing multiple models of EVs that sell for between $11,000 and $20,000. EVs continue to get cheaper and better.
You charge it by plugging it in.
80% currently do that at home where it takes roughly 8 seconds; 4 to plug, 4 to unplug. Where they’re not being actively blocked by insane autocratic governments, public chargers are multiplying quickly, though no country on Earth is changing fast enough.
All modern ICEVS are equally vulnerable to EMPs.
I’m pretty sure no SUV gets anywhere near 78 mpg, let alone any 5 ton ones.
ICEVs burn 20-60 times more often than BEVs per 100,000 Vs, and are more likely to kill people when they burn. IOW, EVs are already many times safer and are continually getting even more saferer.
They’d be a lot safer already, but us Republicans are doing everything they can to destroy science and innovation, and endanger people everywhere, while endlessly delaying the transition to a global civilization that won’t destroy itself and most life on Earth in chaos and violence during the next century.
In a letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them".
Polar Opposition of beliefs, the Capitalist vs. the Communists, the Crusader Christian Patriot vs. the Jihadist Muslim, or pro - American vs. anti - American are political perspectives not a psycho Babel.
Furthermore, the 2016 DSM version 5 release created this new release the mentally sick from illness to orientation...thereby "normalizing" radical ideas; for example: pedophilic disorder is now a born with it bullshit vs. Believe a child is/wants to be "sexual". One is a tattooed label the other a curable change with sensory deprivation cognitive restructuring. Weeds out the weak, weeds out the leaders, that.
That said, I would love an adult sized drone I could sit in and fly, I flew attack helicopters long ago, electric would be great as long as the time of flight was around 2 hours and American made. China has some good ideas & 80% of rare earth's to create them, their focus is supply chain and global population, control. So my anger and hatred are towards an enemy, not Joe shit the Chinese citizen, in their case, they don't know any better and are simply trying to survive. So I'm not taking your proclamations personally per se, but those who want to sell the US out to China are enemies.
I never said anything about costs of EVs, only how patents and oil companies are not relevant. There is no link to electromagnetic radiation and cancer, maybe you’ve been watching too much Better Call Saul. Also, batteries supply DC voltage which doesn’t emit an electromagnetic field (although when used by a motor you will get some. If you replace batteries with a diesel generator then you will get EMF from the generator’s AC output and particulate and other emissions from the diesel engine, so it definitely is more polluting than a battery vehicle.
"There is no link to electromagnetic radiation and cancer"
Well, there is, but it is very small.
Read your cell phone End User License Agreement lately?
They recommend holding the phone no closer than 1cm from your head.
That probably has more to do with litigation ("We told him not to press it against his head!"), but without the odd scientific document linking EMF and cancer (a tiny correlation), the lawyers wouldn't have anything to fight about.
Henk B Rogers, Tetris founder at his 32-acre ranch is producing his own energy, generating his own hydrogen fuel, storing excess power in high-capacity batteries, and serves as a model for clean, self-sufficient living.
An excellent reminder to be aware of the underlying assumptions for any study. A recent study in South Africa on the path forward for power generation had exactly the same issues. Their rooftop solar year on year projections were already over 20% off after the first nine months of the 2025 year.
Predictions 25 years out are really bold. 25 years ago was anyone predicting the amount of energy going into data centers and AI or that america would elect a president that cancels wind generation projects nearing completion?
It's not without value, governments should be preparing for possible futures. Business I do not believe does any planning that far out. It is important to look at these predictions carefully.
This is helpful in critically thinking about the IEA’s report.
I sincerely hope that this excellent analysis is read, and importantly understood, by those purblind headline writers cited (to which should be added, to their chagrin, the usually reliable Reuters).
To be fair to the Financial Times, its' story did include a very pointed reference to an interview they had published earlier with Trump's henchman, Chris "King of Fracking" Wright, now moonlighting as US energy secretary .
In it, Wright had overtly reminded the IEA that the USA paid 14% of its budget, and should be publishing scenarios that reflected the present administration's (eccentric) world view on energy . The IEA obviously took the hint...
Scenario planning had its heyday in the 1990s, and has largely disappeared from the playbook of the major companies for the flaws aptly described in this article. It can be a helpful tool in stimulating thinking about alternative futures but often degenerates into 3 options, high, business as usual, and low. As this article shows, the output is easily distorted in the reporting.
The price of a barrel of oil, a global commodity, has not been able to get much traction for a couple of months and has fallen to low levels not seen since covid. It is not even close to the price it would need to be to inspire the cost of more drilling.
The price has remained very low, even with sanction threats against Russia and ships off the coast of Venezuela.
Demand expectations are simply not keeping up with excess supply.
It seems like those who purchase oil do not seem to see any near term future for much increase in demand.
I find this a hopeful sign, unless this is simply only because they see a global recession looming, but I rather doubt that is the only reason.
Trump may be saying "drill baby drill" but that old saying about how "you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink" comes to mind.
With Australia utilities poised to allow for 3 free hours of electricity during midday, due to excess energy from solar, there is another nation with added incentive for even more EVs.
There is excess oil production already, and OPEC also has idle capacity of millions of barrels per day, if they ever wanted to ramp up, so who would want to spend big bucks to pull more out of the ground under such conditions when profits are already declining?
Then when you consider that many living in 3rd world areas are now turning to low cost solar to run things and light homes, etc, it makes one consider if they may then choose to rely more on EV bikes and electric mopeds, etc. and then maybe EV cars as this progresses.
I am hopeful that we have simply turned a corner as more and more may simply choose solar due to the large cost savings, even without policy changes from governments. It is simply becoming, by far, the more affordable option.
Really rhetorically effective to let to charts speak for themselves.
I would like to see a follow up that tracks a middle scenario between this (probably pessimistic and flat-wrong) 2025 scenario and the previous (probably) over-optimistic one.
Also, not having read the new IEA report, hasn't the effect of scale and cost on the global mobility market from all those Chinese or European EVs been taken into effect? At a certain point, even if the policy isn't there and even if the charging infrastructure isn't perfect, you're just going to have to start buying EVs that are cheaper while fossil fuels are scarcer and more expensive? Even if you REALLY don't want to!
And we're also assuming that the current model of (somewhat) limited EV range and slow-charging will be the one that persists for decade? Already, China has rolled out exponentially faster charging technology, so that charging an EV is like filling up at the pump. Perhaps the physics of batteries hits a limit, but you also have to assume that the range continues to increase meaningfully? And, maybe we get to a battery-swap model, as has long been predicted?
Thanks, Hannah — this really clarified the assumptions behind the IEA scenarios. Zeke recently covered the temperature implications on The Climate Brink, but your piece made me realize just how pessimistic the Current Policies Scenario (CPS) actually is. The IEA’s own emissions chart (updated Nov 2025) shows CPS keeping global CO₂ near today’s levels for decades, which is why it ends up near ~2.9 °C. It’s less a “business-as-usual” pathway and more a “no further policy progress” counterfactual.
For anyone interested, here’s the IEA chart so you can see the CPS trajectory for yourself:
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/energy-related-co2-emissions-by-scenario-2010-2050 .
Thanks for the clarification and a useful reminder of the differences between a scenario, a most likely scenario and a forecast. I would ask, do the IEA produce a 'most likely' scenario, and if so what does that say about fossil fuels?
One other point: as demand for fossil fuels falls, then providing supply is maintained, the price will drop and make gas/oil more competitive again. Clearly the high cost production facilities will close, but the cheaper ones will continue and probably prolong the fossil fuel era.
The "Inground Energy Agency" has long been biased toward fossil sunlight, continually predicting a bright future for it.
It follows the US EIA closely. It's almost as if they chose the names to be purposely confusing.
Thank you for allowing comments without paying. I live on SS, and it would be impossible to contribute financially to every publication I follow!
With respect, this article is simplistically reductionist in viewing the world through a relatively narrow keyhole. It assumes, for example, that a world of two billion EVs is necessarily better than a world of two billion ICE vehicles. More generally, it ignores the fact that techno-industrial society is in ecological overshoot, consuming even self-producing and replenishable resources faster than nature can regenerate and dumping wastes in excess of the ecosphere's assimilation capacity. Overshoot is ultimately a terminal disease (of which global heating is only one obvious co-symptom). In this framing, we should be looking at ways to reduce the demand, not only for private vehicles but for all manner of unsustainable consumption including energy of all kinds. There are limits to growth (some exceeded already) and the age of easy abundance is over.
Thanks Hannah, love that infamous solar PV predictions figure of the IEA. I would start any article discussing their latest "forecast" by showing how good their previous ones were...
OK, in their defense, it is not purely incompetence, it is more likely self-perpetuating bureaucratic loops - they were created in response to oil shocks, and their real mission remains, behind the new fluffy words, to ensure there's enough investment in oil extraction. It is expected that (western) oil networks have thoroughly colonised that organism, and the last thing they will allow is a forecast that will send their shares through the floor with all their stranded assets. A better predictor is share buybacks and dividends the majors have to pay to keep their share price afloat - very high.
That such a (wrong) forecast may provoke some stupid dictator (or president) into invading a neighbour, or help those that did with high oil prices, or fuck-up the energy policy of developing countries - absolutely does not register in all the magnificent brains staffing the organism.
As an energy manager contemplating a proposal of investing in a net-zero future, I would build my scenario first e.g. a net-zero investment option- variable speed equipment, heat pumps, solar arrays, geothermal options, green energy suppliers, battery storage plus materials for construction, insulation, thermal profile, etc, etc. based on a thirty year life for calculations of financing and depreciation.
Then I would do a forecast of costs and prices for my current consumption under the current cost scheme e.g. the grid, the gas supply or energy used now.
Then a forecast of costs of operating my net zero investment.
I would also need to predict how the utility system or energy providers would respond to my net zero investment by buy-back or feeding back the surplus.
Subtract one series of costs and forecasts from the other and then I would decide whether an investment in net zero is worth it.
The time cycle for financial returns or payback is the killer because interest rate predictions are uncertain or the return from net zero investing is not forecasted to be as good.
In my experience companies invest in energy management improvements when equipment dies from old age and refurbishing is impractical.
Net zero thinking never makes it to the proposal stage unless you are investing in a wholesale change in structure. Even then, the optimal options are seen as expensive.
It is also not easy to get the money or buy-in for a scenario or forecast or prediction of improved energy performance - so inertia will keep oil and gas consumption rising.
It’s disappointing that the IEA makes the assumption that all growth in solar and EVs is due to government policies. Even if 90% of growth is due to policies (and given cost curves and technological advancement that is way too much credit to give government policy) the growth curves of both would not be flat, but would be rising more slowly. It makes me discount any of the data the publish.
Well as long as oil companies own 87% of auto patents what do you think?
Genius would be put a clean diesel to power and electric generator with for brushless electric motors at the hub like a locomotive, VW did this w a Toureg and was getting 78 mpg in 2012, shortly after they were hit w their chip reprogramming of their diesel emissions lawsuit, so that amazing vehicle…disappeared. And Elon and the rest of the dam geniuses don't think about such. That said, consumption based on profit will always be a supply/demand price point that will increase as population increases. 8 billion & counting as of earlier this year.
Even if oil companies own auto patents, which is not shown by patent databases, they do have patents on formulations on fuels and their production. A patent on fuels or even internal combustion engines is not a barrier in any way from automakers producing electric vehicles that don’t make use of either.
The electric vehicle concept is cost prohibitive. And how exactly do you recharge it? And defense wise, like all things battery or chip, 3 letters make it non-viable as an industry replacement: EMP.
And the shielding is minimal, long term exposure to a high voltage/high current source aka,riding atop a battery = cancer. And Lithium? Exposed to air it burns, exposed to water it explodes, and exposed to illegal aliens getting blue states cdl's another weapon of mass destruction.
A clean diesel connected to a generator connected to 4 motors at the hub is optimally efficient and easily configured for hybrid use which would almost double the 78 MPG experienced in a 5 ton SUV.
The oil companies base their profit model off a 300 mi baseline of an auto requiring fuel at that point. Fuel efficiency goes up, tank size goes down, and the military also uses a 300 mile refuel turn for convoys not shipped via rail. The Echarge equivalent would also require a plug in at 300 mi. Once an event is used up or destroyed, its waste if not reclaimed, poisons water. As do lead acid battery's in land fills.
That said, the most economically viable alternative, the clean diesel electric, is profit/environment friendly and sound without old grid burdens and major infrastructure overhaul. That 5 ton beast was a 4 wheel drive version, hince the 4 motors at the hubs. 2012 tech. Today one can put an electric motor to a transmission to a generator and it would run all the time w excess power until material failure, other than the initial startup...would have a l9ng shelf life while running. And could put power back into your home. Or for the Jetsons types, a nuclear battery exists that only requires something to power...for up to 10 years. The tradeoff is containment in an accident/fire, and the overvotage short out that is basically a small nuke explosion wiping out a city block. There are alternatives hidden in the Nikoli Tesla files the FBI took when he died...that are held top secret- strategic. Who gets to see them? Bezos, Gates, Suckleberg, the Nvida guy...oh George Soros also has a top secret security clearance, owns a good portion of Blackrock.
Anyway, I understand your love n fixation with electric cars n such. Nifty they are. But quite vulnerable to weapons and being weaponzed, the Mossad have a device that makes Teslas, remote control bombs. Hopefully the computer sits in a Faraday cage for Trump's granddaughter's Tesla.
Strategically electric vehicles are not a viable option.
China is producing multiple models of EVs that sell for between $11,000 and $20,000. EVs continue to get cheaper and better.
You charge it by plugging it in.
80% currently do that at home where it takes roughly 8 seconds; 4 to plug, 4 to unplug. Where they’re not being actively blocked by insane autocratic governments, public chargers are multiplying quickly, though no country on Earth is changing fast enough.
All modern ICEVS are equally vulnerable to EMPs.
I’m pretty sure no SUV gets anywhere near 78 mpg, let alone any 5 ton ones.
ICEVs burn 20-60 times more often than BEVs per 100,000 Vs, and are more likely to kill people when they burn. IOW, EVs are already many times safer and are continually getting even more saferer.
They’d be a lot safer already, but us Republicans are doing everything they can to destroy science and innovation, and endanger people everywhere, while endlessly delaying the transition to a global civilization that won’t destroy itself and most life on Earth in chaos and violence during the next century.
The 1st word... China. The hell with China. EMP China. Fentanyl China Water. They have no idea what's coming in 27...
Deny reality and express your hatred however you want. But please do it in psychotherapy, not in politics. The rest of us will be grateful.
https://thinc.blog/2025/11/18/deutshewelle-global-south-leading-clean-transition/
In a letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them".
Polar Opposition of beliefs, the Capitalist vs. the Communists, the Crusader Christian Patriot vs. the Jihadist Muslim, or pro - American vs. anti - American are political perspectives not a psycho Babel.
Furthermore, the 2016 DSM version 5 release created this new release the mentally sick from illness to orientation...thereby "normalizing" radical ideas; for example: pedophilic disorder is now a born with it bullshit vs. Believe a child is/wants to be "sexual". One is a tattooed label the other a curable change with sensory deprivation cognitive restructuring. Weeds out the weak, weeds out the leaders, that.
That said, I would love an adult sized drone I could sit in and fly, I flew attack helicopters long ago, electric would be great as long as the time of flight was around 2 hours and American made. China has some good ideas & 80% of rare earth's to create them, their focus is supply chain and global population, control. So my anger and hatred are towards an enemy, not Joe shit the Chinese citizen, in their case, they don't know any better and are simply trying to survive. So I'm not taking your proclamations personally per se, but those who want to sell the US out to China are enemies.
I never said anything about costs of EVs, only how patents and oil companies are not relevant. There is no link to electromagnetic radiation and cancer, maybe you’ve been watching too much Better Call Saul. Also, batteries supply DC voltage which doesn’t emit an electromagnetic field (although when used by a motor you will get some. If you replace batteries with a diesel generator then you will get EMF from the generator’s AC output and particulate and other emissions from the diesel engine, so it definitely is more polluting than a battery vehicle.
"There is no link to electromagnetic radiation and cancer"
Well, there is, but it is very small.
Read your cell phone End User License Agreement lately?
They recommend holding the phone no closer than 1cm from your head.
That probably has more to do with litigation ("We told him not to press it against his head!"), but without the odd scientific document linking EMF and cancer (a tiny correlation), the lawyers wouldn't have anything to fight about.
Henk B Rogers, Tetris founder at his 32-acre ranch is producing his own energy, generating his own hydrogen fuel, storing excess power in high-capacity batteries, and serves as a model for clean, self-sufficient living.
https://youtu.be/iz0iSxks-Dw?si=zl25kD_Ivgej-kII
Henk B Rogers: building a fully off-grid life.
(May 11 2025 Kirsten Dirksen YouTube)
For Rogers, it’s more than a passion project—it’s a way to use his success to help build a better future for the generations that follow.
Hannah, can you post more research on hydrogen fuel?
Michael Barnard has written extensively about hydrogen at CleanTechnica.
An excellent reminder to be aware of the underlying assumptions for any study. A recent study in South Africa on the path forward for power generation had exactly the same issues. Their rooftop solar year on year projections were already over 20% off after the first nine months of the 2025 year.
Your insight and clarity are always appreciated, Hannah!
Predictions 25 years out are really bold. 25 years ago was anyone predicting the amount of energy going into data centers and AI or that america would elect a president that cancels wind generation projects nearing completion?
It's not without value, governments should be preparing for possible futures. Business I do not believe does any planning that far out. It is important to look at these predictions carefully.
Thanks