What is Net Zero and is it Achievable?

The global ruling class frequently utilizes the phrase "net zero" when discussing the concept of global climate change.  While the words seem simple on the surface, understanding the concept and its potential for achieving the goal of reducing global temperatures is so important.  As well, we need to understand how other natural processes that are completely out of our control may impact global climate.

Let's start with a definition:

Net zero refers to a state in which the volume of greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere is removed from the atmosphere.  Any ongoing emissions of greenhouse gases must be balanced by the removal of those gases.

It is important to note that net zero does NOT necessarily mean that there will be no greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. absolute zero), rather that certain actions can be undertaken to balance greenhouse gas emissions with the removal of those gases through various means.  For instance, while China and India may continue to increase their greenhouse gas emissions, other nations could use sequestration, solar and wind power, forests, wetlands and grasslands and other technologies like carbon capture and storage to reduce their own emissions levels to less than the actual volumes that they emit, thereby offsetting growing emissions by the aforementioned nations.  It is important to understand that nature can also absorb carbon dioxide without mankind's intervention, in particular, at the ocean-atmosphere interface where ocean waters absorb carbon which is ultimately transferred to ocean sediments.  

Here is a quote regarding net zero from the University of Oxford's Net Zero website: 

"The ‘net’ in net zero is important because it will be very difficult to reduce all emissions to zero on the timescale needed. As well as deep and widespread cuts in emissions, we will likely need to scale up removals. In order for net zero to be effective, it must be permanent. Permanence means that removed greenhouse gas does not return into the atmosphere over time, for example through the destruction of forests or improper carbon storage."  

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that net zero needed to be achieved by 2050 to retain the possibility of reaching the 1.5 degree Celsius global temperature increase, a number that was reached through the use of modelling. 

Here is a table from the United Nations Emissions Gap Report 2024 "No more hot air...please" report showing emissions from various nations and regions of the world:

To achieve net zero, one of the most important aspects is to reach peak national emission levels; the United Nations notes that seven of the G20 nations have not yet reached peak emissions including China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Republic of Korea, and Türkiye.

Not surprisingly, there are many pitfalls with the concept of net zero as follows:

1.) national net zero target dates vary widely and are frequently changed

2.) some nations choose to ignore emissions from certain economic sectors

3.) net zero targets are not legally binding

4.) some nations link emissions reduction targets to their rate of economic growth (i.e. emissions intensity) while others do not

Some wealthy nations have also funded greenhouse gas offset projects outside of their borders in developing nations while still emitting high volumes of greenhouse gases within their home territory.

Now for my opinion (not that you might care but I'll offer it anyway).  Yes, I believe that greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere are rising. That said, I don't believe that the rising levels are necessarily entirely anthropegenic and that the net zero plans being put in place will likely do very little to lower these levels.  Greenhouse gas components include methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and chlorofluorocarbons and, most importantly, water vapour which is the largest component of greenhouse gas, being responsible for about half of earth's greenhouse effect.  Here is a quote from NASA: 

"Data from satellites, weather balloons, and ground measurements confirm the amount of atmospheric water vapor is increasing as the climate warms. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report states total atmospheric water vapor is increasing 1 to 2% per decade.) For every degree Celsius that Earth’s atmospheric temperature rises, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can increase by about 7%, according to the laws of thermodynamics."

Basically, it's like a self-perpetuating or self-amplifying system.  Temperatures rise resulting in higher volumes of water vapour which further increase temperature which further increases atmospheric water vapour content etcetera ad infinitum.

Let's look at two of the many reasons why net zero may be unachievable.  Climate is likely influenced by solar activity, a controversial phenomenon which is being studied by scientists and is not fully understood as shown in this study:

Volcanic eruptions can also have a significant impact on global climate since they emit carbon dioxide, particulate matter and, in the case of submarine volcanoes, water vapour, into the atmosphere as shown in this study:

 

The January 2022 Hunga Tonga - Hunga Ha'apai eruption in Tonga is estimated to have released 150 million metric tons of water vapour along with 0.5 to 1.5 metric megatons of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, raising the global levels of stratospheric water vapour by 10 percent. In this case, the eruption resulted in a temporary but notable cooling of the tropical stratosphere.

The massive eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 in Indonesia caused oceans to cool for nearly a century and had a significant impact on atmospheric temperatures as well.  Volcanic carbon dioxide does have the potential to promote global warming whereas volcanic sulphur dioxide has the potential to lower global temperatures so the impact of volcanic eruptions on the global climate is heavily impacted by the type of gases contained in the eruptions.

Here is a diagram showing how volcanic gases interact with the atmosphere:

There are many natural processes that will impact global climate, some over the short- and medium-term and some over the long-term and these processes are currently being studied to better understand how they impact global temperatures.  Our politicians would have us believe that there is a simple solution to the global climate "crisis"; reaching net zero through the adoption of heat pumps, electric vehicles and carbon taxation.  As you can see from the information that I have provided in this posting, the earth's atmosphere is an extremely complex system with some of the potential climate-impacting processes being totally uncontrollable by humanity.  That is why I believe that net zero is a fallacy being perpetrated on us by individuals with a climate emergency agenda that is not necessarily in our best interest but is in the best interest of the "global few".

A History of Global Mean Surface Temperatures

We keep hearing from the global ruling class and its dupes in the mainstream media that the "earth is boiling" and that atmospheric temperatures are at record highs, a common theme during the summer months in the northern hemisphere.  As a geoscientist, I'm interested in the very long-term trends, looking at global temperatures well before the modern age which is the focus of the vast majority of climate scientists, meteorologists and those climate change evangelists that would have us believe that we are living on the edge of climate disaster.

Let's open with a graphic showing the geological time scale for those of you who are not familiar with the geological record.  This will help you put the information in this posting into context:

With that background, let's look at the subject matter of this posting.  In a paper which appeared in Science in September 2024 entitled "A 485-million-year history of Earth's surface temperature" by Emily J. Judd et al, the authors examined the long-term geological record of global mean surface temperature (GMST) using a combination of proxy data with climate modelling.  In the paper, the authors present PhanDA, a reconstruction of GMST spanning most of the Phanerozoic Eon, the last 539 million years of earth's history.  PhanDA was created using a method that statistically integrated geological data with climate model simulations.  PhanDA's global mean surface temperature shows a strong relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide, suggesting that carbon dioxide exerts dominant control over the climate during the Phanerozoic.  This surprised the authors since they anticipated that solar luminosity would have a greater impact on climate.  They hypothesize that changes in planetary albedo (reflectivity of the earth's surface) and the atmospheric content of other greenhouse gases like methane helped to compensate for the increase in solar luminosity. 

Here's what the study revealed:

1.) the relationship between GMST and carbon dioxide had a relatively constant impact on Earth's climate system sensitivity.  For example, the temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide was roughly 8 degrees Celsius no matter whether the climate was warm or cold. 

2.) the Earth's temperature has varied between 11 degrees Celsius and 36 degrees Celsius over the past 485 million years.  This is in line with other temperature estimates from the Cenozoic Era (the last 66 million years of earth's history). 

3.) there was a relationship between global mean surface temperature and the pole-to-equator temperature gradient with larger temperature changes closer to the Earth's polar regions.  Tropical temperatures ranged between 22 degrees Celsius and 42 degrees Celsius.

4.) overall, the earth has spent more time in warmer climate states during the Phanerozoic Era.

To close, here is a graphic showing the global mean surface temperature as estimated using PhanDA for the past 485 million years with the grey shaded areas showing different confidence levels and the black lines showing the average temperature and the orange and red bars showing climate that is warmer and blue and turquoise bars showing climate that is cooler:

What can we learn from this study?  From my perspective, it appears that the earth has spent more of its history with a far warmer climate that today and yet both plant and animal life flourished.  It is the use of graphics like this one which show significant and, one might say alarming, growth in warm temperature anomalies since 1960:

...that can have us believing that we are at a climate crisis point, however, given that the data on the chart only goes back to 1880, we can see now that this is hardly a long-term view of Earth's climate.  

We have to carefully examine the motives behind those who would have us believe that the earth is boiling and that we are living on the cusp of total climate destruction.  What do these individuals have to gain personally from promoting this narrative?  That, to me, is the bottom line.  If they have something to gain either financially or from increasing their control over humanity, then their motives may not be entirely trustworthy.

Mark Carney - The Globalist Environmentalist

I have posted on the subject of Mark Carney, the self-proclaimed environmentalist in a previous posting but with Carney now thinking that he stands a good chance of becoming Canada's Prime Minister after declaring himself a candidate for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, I thought that the time was perfect to revisit his connections to the global elite in a two part posting.  In part one, we will look at how a central banker morphed into a banking environmental evangelist followed by a posting which looks at his significant connections to the global ruling class.  

As the former Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, two of the world's most influential advanced economy central banks, Mr. Carney is obviously a leading figure in the world of central banksters.  As though that weren't enough, this darling of the global ruling class is also doing his best to influence the global response to climate change, often through the lens of the banking system which is quite familiar to economist Carney.

 

Let's start with this announcement from the United Nations, soon to be the world's sole parliamentary body if they have their way with the rest of us, dated December 1, 2019:

 

From the information that is available online, it would appear that while Mr. Carney has extensive experience in the field of finance, he has limited or no formal training in environmentalism, climatology, chemistry, physics or any of the sciences that are involved in formulating an educated response to impacting the world's climate, however, like his ruling class peer, Mr. Bill Gates who just happens to be the world's foremost expert on epidemiology, vaccinology and human health in general, one should never let a lack of training get in the way of forcing your ideas on the rest of humanity.

 

Here's what I could find regarding his qualifications:

 

Since his retirement from the heady and cloistered world of central banking at the end of 2019, Carney now happens to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, a Canadian non-profit conservation organization.  One would think that this would give him ample opportunity to flaunt his environmental and science credentials, however, such is not the case as shown here:

 

 

With that background behind us, let's look at some interesting comments that were made by Mark Carney during his tenure as climate "czar" for the United Nations.  Here is an interview of the Special Envoy that appears on the United Nations website dated January 2021:

 

Here is the first question:

 

"You have said that the goal of net zero is the greatest commercial opportunity of our time. Why?"

 

And, here's his answer with my bolds for emphasis throughout:

 

Climate change is an existential threat. We all recognize that, and there’s increasing urgency around it. But the converse is, if you are making investments, coming up with new technologies, changing the way you do business, all in service of reducing and eliminating that threat, you are creating value. And what we have seen increasingly, spurred initially by the Sustainable Development Goals, accelerated by Paris, and then by social movements and governments, is societies putting tremendous value on achieving net zero. Companies, and those who invest in them and lend to them, and who are part of the solution, will be rewarded. Those who are lagging behind and are still part of the problem will be punished.

  

How these companies and investors will be punished, he does not say, but it is a rather threatening statement given his stature in the world of finance.

 

Here is another question:

 

"Why is mandatory carbon disclosure by large companies so important?

 

Here's his response:

 

"We all know that what gets measured gets managed. Climate change is not yet consistently measured, although the private sector has moved in this direction since Paris. We now need to make measurement and disclosure mandatory. That’s a priority of the UN COP26 climate conference in Glasgow at the end of this year."

 

And, the follow-up question:

 

"How do small companies figure in this?"

 

And again, his answer:

 

"If I’m running a company committed to net zero, what does that mean? It’s not just disclosing and managing the emissions in producing my product. It’s also the emissions involved in the energy I use, and the emissions all the way through my value chain, in other words, the emissions of my suppliers, many of whom are small businesses, as well as the emissions from people using a product. That company becomes responsible for disclosing all of those, and it has an incentive to manage all of those down. So it has an incentive to work with small businesses or choose those working towards lower emissions. 

 

If multinational companies focus on their emissions all the way across their value chain, many parts of which are based in developing countries, they have an incentive to invest and help reduce emissions there as well. It is quite powerful. That’s how emissions reductions can be pulled through economies and across the world."

 

So, in other words, even small companies will be expected to calculate and disclose their carbon footprint, an issue that will prove to be extremely expensive for very small family-run businesses who supply goods and services to megacorporations.  On the upside, firms that provide the necessary services to calculate the carbon footprint of these companies will be rubbing their hands together with glee at the very thought of the massive revenues that will be generated.

 

Let's close with this advice from a central banker on how we can all get involved in the global climate agenda, albeit, not at his level since he is far more important that we can ever hope to be:

 

"We all have a role in this adjustment. One of the most basic roles we have as individuals is asking questions. The bank that has our money, what’s their position on climate change? How well are they managing relative to net zero? If they give an answer you don’t like, you can move your money to an institutions that is part of the solution. 

 

One other thing, I’m not a politician. But I’ve worked around them many times, and when constituents ask questions it is very powerful. It tells politicians what people care about. Don’t assume that your politician cares about this issue as much as you do. But they will the more you and others raise it with them. And now is the time, because climate is becoming a mainstream issue, and a lot of big decisions are being taken."

Since we appear to be heading toward a cashless society funded by a universal basic income and a central bank digital currency ecosystem, the point about moving your money to another bank may prove to be moot.

 

I do agree - a lot of big decisions are being taken, unfortunately, the climate decisions being made by governments on our behalf are, at best, first order thinking where the ultimate impact of the decision is not considered (i.e. forcing us into electric vehicles but not considering where the electricity is sourced, where the plastic to make the vehicle is sourced and how the vehicles and the lithium batteries that power them will be managed once the batteries reach the end of their life cycle).

 

Should you happen to be interested in the entire interview, here it is:

 

In 2020, Carney was appointed by then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to be the finance advisor to the United Kingdom presidency of the COP26 United Nations Climate Change conference which was held in Glasgow Scotland in November 2021 as shown here:

 

In November 2021 at COP26, Carney also assembled the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), a group of bankers, insurers and investors who have committed to put climate change at the centre of their work as shown here:

 

...and here:

 

 

Here is a quote from his speech which gives us a good idea of his mindset, keeping in mind that he views Net Zero as "the critical infrastructure of the new financial system":

 

"It is about client focus, going to where the emissions are to help get them down. So, companies that have plans in place to reduce the emissions, will find the capital, those who don’t won’t. So highly recommend getting those plans in place.”

 

Once again, doesn't that sound like a banking threat to companies that don't have plans in place to reduce their emissions as Mr. Carney and his globalist partners demand?  He certainly tries to come across as a "banking tough guy", doesn't he?

While Mr. Carney's pontifications sound relatively reasonable, let's take a brief but only partial look at his personal impact on the climate.  Thanks to the Bank of England, here is a copy of Mark Carney's expenses for the period from January to December 2019, noting in particular the number of flights that he took:

 

 

In 2019, Mr. Carney took 26 flights (in business class) on official business for the Bank of England to various destinations around the globe, travelling as far as San Francisco.  In addition, there were 11 rail trips within Europe.  This does not include trips that were paid for by other parties on his behalf.  I dare say, that's quite a substantial carbon footprint, isn't it?  But then again, it's "rules for thee but not for me", isn't it?

As a bit of an aside, battling climate change is predominant in the Carney family.  Here is a screen capture from the website of the Eurasia Group, a Canadian policy institute which just happens to employ Mark Carney's wife who also touts herself as an expert on global climate and energy policy even though her Master's degrees are in agricultural economics and international relations:

  

Let's summarize.  As you can see, Mark Carney is another of the global elite who preaches what he does not practice.  It's quite easy for the ruling class to tell us what to do regarding cutting back on our personal greenhouse gas emissions; it is quite another thing for the oligarchs who live by a totally different set of rules that benefits them commercially or personally.  With Mark Carney's growing influence in the global environmental/financial movement, you can be certain that you will hear from him or about him as time passes, particularly if he should happen to occupy the office of the Prime Minister of Canada which would prove to be a nightmare for Canada's economically important oil and natural gas sector and Canadians who are hoping to see the end of the punitive carbon tax.  

In part 2 of this posting, I will take a look at Mark Carney's current and previous connections to various ruling class organizations, some of which have plans in place for global domination. 

California's Wildfire History and Where Governments Went Wrong

With the leftists insisting that California's current wildfire situation is "historical" and is directly tied to "global climate change" and "increased anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions", research would suggest that California has long been a locus of major wildfires that have scorched millions of acres of land on an annual basis.

  

A 2007 study entitled "Prehistoric fire area and emissions from California's forests, woodlands, shrublands and grasslands" by Scott L. Stephens et al summarizes the literature on fire history in the state, examining estimates of the spatial extent of the fires and their resultant emissions prior to the European-American settlement of the region.  

  

The modern state of California has directed its efforts to reducing the negative effects of wildfires in the urban - wildland intermixed zone without giving consideration to wildfire behaviour prior to the expansion of non-Native American settlements.  Prior to the expansion of human population in the state, lightning was the most common ignition source for fires in California's ecosystem.  Once the area was settled by Native Americans, ignition by both lightning and deliberate setting of fires by Native Americans worked together until the arrival of Euro-American settlers in the 19th century.  

  

To reconstruct fire history for the state, researchers use dendrochronology (analysis of tree rings and tree ages) to determine the fire history.  In scrublands and grasslands, dendrochronology cannot be used because of the absence of trees, necessitating the use of charcoal deposit analysis, however, the ability of these studies makes it difficult to determine the temporal and spatial resolution of wildfires.  Native American burning practices can be used to estimate fire frequency in California because the Native American population used fire management in grasslands and woodlands for various purposes including the maintenance of forest structure, sustainable and revitalized growth and biodiversity.  In other words, Native Americans used fire to help a healthy forest ecosystem flourish.  This practice of intentional burning was outlawed under California's 1850 Act for the Government and Protection of Indians because the practice was seen as "primitive".  In the early 20th century, California adopted a policy of fire exclusion which resulted in undesirable impacts on the ecosystem including increased tree density, higher fuel loads and changes to wildlife habitats in ecosystems that previously experienced more frequent, low to medium intensity fires.  Prescribed fires that are used in California today to manage its forests and shrublands are constrained by several factors including smoke production, the impact on endangered species, lack of crew availability and the fear that prescribed fires may escape their boundaries and enter urban areas.

 

The authors of the paper estimated prehistoric fire areas by using two methods:

 

1.) Fire rotation - the time period of interest divided by the proportion of the study area that burned in that time period.

 

2.) Fire-return interval - the time between two successive fire events at a given site or area of a specified size, more specifically the median fire-return interval and the high fire-return interval.

 

These fire metrics were divided into the area of each vegetation type to arrive at estimates of the area burned each year excluding California's desire regions because fire was likely rare in these areas which have limited vegetation productivity.

 

Here are tables showing the annual prehistoric fire estimates for California for various vegetation types:

 

 

To summarize, the amount of area burned annually in California varied from 1,814,614 hectares (4,484,008 acres) to 4,838,293 hectares (11,955,682 acres) during the prehistoric period or between 4.5 percent and 12 percent of the state's lands burning every year.

 

The authors note that in the modern period between 1950 and 1999, wildfires in California have burned approximately 51,000 hectares (126,023 acres) annually and forested areas have burned at approximately 23,000 hectares (56,834 acres) annually.  If one totals the total area burned on an annual basis when grasslands and woodlands are included, approximately 102,000 hectares (252,047 acres) burn in wildfires on an annual basis in California.  This is a very small area (roughly 5.6 percent of what would have been burned in the past) compared to prehistoric levels largely because relatively large areas of grasslands and woodlands have been converted to agricultural and urban use.

This study clearly shows that, in general, the area burned by wildfires in the state of California is far smaller in the modern age than in prehistoric, pre-Euro-American times when fires were often deliberately set by Native Americans to improve the health of the state's ecosystem.  The lack of fires and the changes in the amount of forest cover in the modern age as shown on this graphic:

 

...shows us that it is the buildup of fuel that has resulted in wildfires impacting urban areas that continue to spread into grassland and forested ecosystems that are prone to burning.  In large part, this can be blamed on state and federal regulations that resulted in closely packed forests that are prone to parasitic attacks and crown fires after logging and a lack of controlled burning because of concerns about air quality in urban areas.  While our government leaders love to fear monger and blame any wildfires on global climate change, in fact, history shows us that wildfires of far greater areal extent than we are experiencing today were quite common and, in the absence of human habitation, were actually very healthy and necessary for the environment.

Big Tech, AI and the Global Electricity Conundrum

While the ruling technocracy loves to tout its record and promote the anti-greenhouse gas mantra when it comes to their own operations, a recent release from Google (the host company of this blog) shows us that the rubber does not always meet the road when it comes to environmental stewardship.

  

In its 2023 Environmental Report:

 

...Google's Chief Sustainability Officer Kate Brandt and Senior Vice President of Learning and Sustainability Benedict Gomes state the following in the introductory Executive Letter:

 

"Our annual Environmental Report offers a deep dive into our efforts to harness technology—particularly AI—to drive positive environmental change and operate our business sustainably. This year, we’re also offering a new experimental AI chatbot, powered by NotebookLM, to help summarize key findings, clarify complex topics, and explore the details about our environmental work."

 

In fact, one section in the report outlines Google's use of "AI for sustainability":

 

"We know that scaling AI and using it to accelerate climate action is just as crucial as addressing the environmental impact associated with it."

 

...and in these graphics:

 

Google boldly claims that AI has the:

 

"…potential to help mitigate 5–10% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030. "

 

Google also claims the following:

 

"We have a bold goal to reach net-zero emissions across all of our operations and value chain by 2030, supported by a goal to run on 24/7 CFE (carbon-free energy) on every grid where we operate. In addition, we’re working to advance water stewardship, build a circular economy, and restore and enhance nature and biodiversity. This year’s report shows how we continue to make progress across all of these areas:

1.) Ten of our grid regions 10 achieved at least 90% CFE, and even with our total electricity load increasing across our data centers, we maintained a global average of 64% CFE. We also celebrated a first-of-a-kind enhanced geothermal project now delivering CFE to the grid

 

2.) We signed contracts to purchase approximately 4 gigawatts of clean energy generation capacity 11 in locations such as Texas, Belgium, and Australia—more than in any prior year."

 

All of this sounds just magical, doesn't it.  Unfortunately, this is where reality doesn't meet expectations.  Google's target is to "reduce 50% of its combined Scope 1, 2 (market-based), and 3 absolute greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030."  Unfortunately, that goal looks increasingly unlikely as shown on this graphic from the report:

 

Google's total GHG emissions in 2023 increased by 13 percent on a year-over-year basis and a 48 percent increase when compared to 2019.  The company's total emissions of 14,314,800 tonnes of CO2 equivalent consists of the following:

 

Notice the large Scope 2 emissions.  The main source of these emissions is purchases of electricity for the company's data centres and offices despite the fact that the company claims that its data centres are among the most efficient in the world.  The company will procure carbon-free energy to reduce its Scope 2 emissions with the goal of running on carbon-free energy 24 hours a day, seven days a week by 2030.  In 2023, the company's data centres and offices ran on carbon-free energy for 64 percent of its electricity use on an hourly basis, the same percentage as in 2022 ranging from 0 percent in Qatar and Saudi Arabia and 4 percent in Singapore to 100 percent in Canada (thanks to Hydro-Quebec) and 98 percent in Finland. 

 

While artificial intelligence is being touted as the panacea to the global climate crisis, as Google is finding out, such is not the case.  Here is a graphic from my favourite globalists at the World economic Forum have observed the conundrum between AI and energy usage as shown here:

 

 

Here's an example of the AI/global environment conundrum from Tom’s Hardware:

 

"Nvidia's H100 GPU is projected to consume approximately 3,740  kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity annually. Assuming that Nvidia sells 1.5 million H100 GPUs in 2023 and two million H100 GPUs in 2024 and that there is a 61 percent annual utilization, there will be 3.5 million such processors deployed by late 2024. In total, they will consume a whopping 13,091,820,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year, or 13,091.82 GWh."

This is roughly the annual power consumption of entire nations like Georgia, Guatemala and Lithuania and that the 3.76 million Nvidia GPU shipments could consume as much as 14.38 TWh, the same annual power needs as 1.3 million American households...for one model of a GPU.

 

The International Energy Agency projects that global electricity demand from AI, data centres and cryptocurrencies could reach more than 1000W TWh in 2026, a 217 percent increase from 2022, equivalent to the electricity consumption of Japan and you can assure yourself that much of this growth in demand will NOT be fulfilled with renewable sources.

 

With Big Tech and Google in particular spending untold hundreds of billions of dollars on accelerating AI development and increasing both the speed and power consumption of GPUs, it's increasingly looking like the move to AI is going to be the global energy/environment canary in the coal mine and most certainly not the solution to the problem (that they are creating).