42
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
42 points (97.7% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
7693 readers
415 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I hate to suggest privatization, but ... are private Solar plants and wind under-attack, or just grid-connected ones?
Cap (at least new)corporate/industrial grid-demand, outlaw new fossil-fuel plants, and watch the corpost fight the feds for wind-and-solar tooth-and-nail. They aren't the ones demanding/defending more coal and gas so much any more, as its not the cost-effective option.
Throw in net-metering across-the-board too.
Both. Theyre using tariffs to limit imports, took away tax credits, and are limiting the ability to build transmission and use public land
I was referring to the EPA-and-other-federal-agencies permit-revocation and refusal-to-permit bullshit.
I'm pretty sure Solar and wind are still the most economical options, even after everything you mentioned. You and I will look at these now more expensive options and go "shit, well I guess I can't afford to reduce my electric bill". Corporations either build where there is supply to meet their intended needs(running out of options), or they build the capacity themselves.
The reason I brought this up, is that those wind-and-solar farms being built by public-entities and challenged by Trump don't have the vested-interests versus a factory that's going to use, and cannot do without, the power-capacity its building itself.
Energy companies are content to keep selling from existing plants and raise prices when available supply is "low"(demand-based-pricing is profit-seeking, not "eco-friendly"). The local-and-state politicians backing the newsworthy projects only really care about fighting for them when the voters are watching or they need more campaign-money from big-Energy, who again, has no reason to care what gets built or doesn't.
From what I can tell, datacenters are choosing the expensive things like small-scale gas turbines, a large chunk of the time. Its utter insanity
Small-scale gas is disgustingly cheap and easy to get a permit for.
That said, it doesn't help that data-centers have been confused for the sort of thing that belongs in/near city-limits - there's limitted room, so solar/wind become difficult, and no city wants to permit a nuclear generator in its domain.
I am all-for banning new natural-gas build-out as well, but I approached this issue here from the state level first, since the article said Illinois, not just Chicago ...
... and again, Pritzker is not to be confused for an ally of the environment or the people, at least not where those conflict with AI and "Quantum Tech". He'll just say his constituents need to use less power at the individual/household level. For goddsakes, pressure the hell out of him, threaten to primary him or whatever, on balcony solar, net metering, and basically every solution that's been brought-up in response to this post.