I often see people argue that clean energy is not reducing emissions, because it just adds to rather than replaces fossil fuels. This argument is deeply misguided – clean energy built since 2005 has displaced 23 billion tons. I dive in over at The Climate Brink (link below)

Clean energy has been wildly successful. Non-hydro renewables (primarily solar and wind) have increased from near-zero in 2005 to producing 22% of global electricity, and are on track to produce more than natural gas this year:

But despite this rapid growth fossil fuel generation continues to set new records, though it has slowed down substantially compared to the rate of fossil fuel growth in the 1990s and 2000s. This leads some to argue that clean energy isn't actually reducing emissions.

But this line of argument ignores the counterfactual. In a world without solar and wind, electricity demand would still have increased rapidly – driven by increased industrial output, air conditioning/heating, vehicle electrification, and data centers.

If we hold solar and wind at 2005 levels and fill in the gaps with fossil fuels (with the mix determined by country – coal in China and India, mostly gas in the US and EU), global power sector emissions would have been 28% higher.

Clean energy does not create demand, and appeals to Jevon's paradox are mostly off the mark given that electricity prices have not meaningfully declined in most countries and the elasticity of electricity demand is relatively low in most cases.

Indeed, in many cases increased electricity use is a good thing – to effectively meet net zero goals we need to largely electrify transportation, industrial processes, building heating and cooling, and the ~70% of energy coming from non-electricity fossil fuel combustion today.

We also see countries where rapid growth of solar and wind has played a key role in absolutely reducing power sector emissions, not just meeting new demand. The US has seen power sector emissions fall 37%, the EU by 55%, and the UK by 75% since 2005:

Globally around 75% of new demand has been met by clean energy since 2005, with 99% being met by solar and wind in 2025. The globe may be on the brink of absolute emissions reductions in the power sector, with clean energy growing faster than demand.

So the next time someone tells you that clean energy is not reducing emissions, just meeting new demand, ask them what would have happened if we hadn't built it. Solar panels do not create demand, and without them we'd have been burning a lot more fossil fuels.

Check out the full piece over at The Climate Brink:

*23 billion tons of CO2, that is!

It is clear that either renewables are replacing fossil fuels or increasing energy output, both of which are very good outcomes. It is less obvious that increasing energy output is better than replacing fossil fuels, but it is not close and failure of environmentalists to understand this is one reason current CO2 emissions are where they are. There is a serious question whether lower energy output or reduced CO2 emissions provided more benefits than the subsidies on renewables. However with the recent few years reduction in renewables costs and increase in fossil fuels costs subsidies are no longer needed for significant adoption of renewables with near net zero by 2045-2070 nearly inevitable.

Every GW of solar built since 2005 displaces gas and coal for 25 years, it does not sit next to them. The 23 billion tons is the receipt.

The issue is whether global emissions are rising. They are. I am glad renewables have slowed the increase

I am fed up, why scientists like you have to keep defending something that doesn't need defending? Big Oil is a criminal industry that has to fabricate and spread lies to stave off its necessary decline I curse those who aid it in its dirty behavior arguing things like that.

It can displace new, but existing FF infrastructure can be stubborn way past making any economic sense. And the truth is there's no real sign that's happening except transport. So we could end up w a 90% clean grid and still burn more coal than today.

"Misguided", maybe, but not false. It's still true. People will still extract and burn fossil fuel if it's economic

Why are you grouping coal and gas together . Gas has done far more to reduce emissions than solar

That is why CO2 amount in the atmosphere not only continues to increase, but the increase has also accelerated?

The real question zeke Is when fossil fuel generation is going to peak And how to make it faster

Maybe this year, as Chinese emissions will be modestly down (for the third year in a row). But its notoriously hard to predict, and either way will represent more of a plateau near-term than a sharp decline. We need to make it faster by building more clean energy and electrifying existing fossil uses (transportation, heating, etc.).

@DocEckl We need to replace not only to cover new demands. Some nations are still only covered a growing percentage of new demands. We could need another 50 huge factories for solar panels to get a much higher rollout.

0.009 C of warming avoided feels kinda bleak, i expected it to be more

@ByfsBrenda “I often see people argue that clean energy is not reducing emissions…” Indeed. When has clean energy reduced emissions? I sincerely wish it would. But so far it seems to have had no effect…

Don’t forget the oil industry its own biggest customer, so inflates its own numbers - and it’s getting much worse: