Information Pollution

The Deliberate Pollution of Our Information

Just as the fossil fuel companies pollute our air and water, they also pollute our information. They fund PR firms and lobbyists to sway public opinion and influence public policy, favoring their profits at the expense of our environment.

Just as polluted air makes it harder to breathe, polluted information makes it harder to think. When the public has misinformation (or disinformation) that they use as a foundation for their thinking, they will come to the wrong conclusion.

Who is funding information pollution

The financing behind climate information pollution is not a random or organic phenomenon; it is a meticulously executed campaign led by a powerful network of financial interests. Major fossil fuel corporations, including ExxonMobil, Shell, and Chevron, along with the vast, interconnected web of libertarian and right-wing organizations known as the "Kochtopus," are at the heart of this strategy.[1, 2] The book Climate Obstruction reveals that these efforts have been systematically countering environmental protection and regulation since the 1960s, a deliberate, long-term endeavor to protect their business interests.[3, 4]

The scale of this funding is truly staggering. A 2010 Greenpeace report identified the Koch network as the leading funder of climate disinformation, even surpassing ExxonMobil.[1] ExxonMobil has a long history, having spent a total of approximately $23 million on organizations designed to undermine climate science. On a broader scale, the fossil fuel industry collectively spent around $125 million to influence the US government in 2022 alone.[2] Much of this money is funneled through "dark money" contributions, a tactic that reporter Amy Westervelt and others have exposed.[5] This makes the original source of the donations difficult to trace. This deliberate opacity is a critical part of the strategy, as it allows funders to sway public opinion and policy without public scrutiny or accountability. The investment is not merely transactional; it is a long-term plan to reshape the entire political and cultural environment, so that their ideological position appears to be a legitimate, widely held viewpoint, rather than one that has been meticulously manufactured.

Why are they funding information pollution

The most obvious motivation is to protect corporate profits and obstruct policies that would force accountability for damage or a transition away from fossil fuels.[2, 6] However, the motivations are far more complex. The authors of Climate Obstruction reveal that this funding is a concerted effort to preserve the current status quo, which Martin Hultman and others call "industrial modernity".[7] Information pollution works by framing climate action as an existential threat to this system, rather than a necessary and beneficial transition.[4, 8] Amy Westervelt's work has shown how the industry promotes a narrative of "energy security," connecting its product to keeping people "safe and prosperous" in order to justify its continued existence.[6]

A central, and highly effective, narrative is the false dichotomy between a healthy economy and a healthy environment.[6] This messaging frames environmentalists as "elitists or radicals" [6] and makes the public believe that climate solutions will "punish citizens" with "lifestyle changes, rising prices, [and] livelihoods".[9] The psychological research of Kirsti M. Jylhä shows that disinformation is not the sole cause of climate denial; it works by exploiting pre-existing psychological needs, such as fear of change, a desire to protect the status quo, and a preference for hierarchical relationships.[4, 10] By making climate action feel like an attack on a person's identity or way of life, it creates a deeper, more emotional resistance that is far more challenging to counter with simple facts. This is the foundation of climate "obstruction" as a comprehensive framework, encompassing denial, delay, and inaction.[3, 4] The ultimate goal is to win over hearts and minds, not simply to confuse them.

Who is carrying out the information pollution

This is not a single entity but a multi-faceted system of interconnected actors, which has been described as a "denial machine".[11, 12]

• Lobbyists and Trade Groups: The fossil fuels lobby, including powerful organizations like the American Petroleum Institute (API), spends immense sums to obstruct and delay government action.[2] The presence of 636 fossil fuel lobbyists at a single UN climate conference (COP27) demonstrates the depth of their reach into international policy.[2]
• Conservative Think Tanks (CTTs): As central players, CTTs such as the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute "manufacture uncertainty" by actively attacking climate science.[11, 12] A crucial finding is that more than 90% of papers that are skeptical of climate change originate from these groups, and many are not peer-reviewed, allowing them to recycle scientifically unfounded claims that are amplified by conservative media outlets.[12]
• Public Relations (PR) Firms: These are the professional communicators hired to craft, distill, and distribute the narratives of their fossil fuel clients.[13] A 2024 report by Clean Creatives found that over 500 advertising agencies had more than 1,000 contracts with fossil fuel companies.[14] They use sophisticated techniques to promote a positive corporate image, even as their clients work to stall climate action.[13]
• Political Parties: A trend noted by Kristoffer Ekberg and his coauthors is that right-wing and far-right political parties in Europe and the US have adopted climate change denial and a return to 20th-century energy policy as a core part of their political platforms.[8, 15] They often merge climate denial with anti-establishment rhetoric and xenophobia, effectively using climate issues as a wedge to mobilize a specific political base.[7, 8, 15]

Spreading misinformation and disinformation

The tactics used by these groups have evolved from outright denial to more subtle and insidious forms of delay.[6, 16] This evolution is key to understanding modern information pollution, as the "playbook" has become more sophisticated. The table below provides a taxonomy of these modern tactics, many of which Amy Westervelt has documented.

Tactic	Description	Example/Source
Greenwashing	Presenting a company or product as more environmentally friendly than they are to maintain a "social license to operate".[13, 17] This can be done by promoting small, showy initiatives to distract from massive pollution.[6]	ExxonMobil's "advanced recycling" claims that yield few results [18], or the widespread use of terms like "low-carbon" and "net-zero" to describe fossil fuels.[6] More money spent advertising algae fuels than spent producing them.
Promoting Pseudo-Solutions	Directing public and political attention and funding toward technologies that benefit the fossil fuel industry but do not meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[6]	Promoting carbon capture, liquefied natural gas, and hydrogen as primary climate solutions, despite critics arguing they are more focused on preserving profits than real change.[6] This is often supported by industry-funded university research that "re-centered natural gas in the conversation about renewables".[19]
Manufacturing Uncertainty	Creating the false impression of a legitimate scientific debate where none exists.[11, 12] The goal is to make people believe that "a significant number of scientists disagree on the cause of climate change".[9]	Exxon's 1998 "Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan" aimed to make average citizens and policymakers "understand (recognise) uncertainties in climate science".[1, 2] The tactics are a direct parallel to the tobacco industry's playbook.[1]
Targeting Specific Demographics	Tailoring misinformation campaigns to appeal to the values, psychological needs, and political concerns of a particular audience.[10, 13]	PR firms creating social media videos in the style of Buzzfeed's "Tasty" series to target Gen Z.[13] Or messaging that ties fossil fuels to "energy security" and the "national economy" to appeal to voters in swing states.[5, 6, 9]

This strategic shift is a testament to the sophistication and adaptability of the information pollution campaign. The new tactics are arguably more dangerous than outright denial because they present themselves as part of the solution, creating a "false balance effect" in the media [10] and making it harder for the public to discern true solutions from corporate-friendly distractions. The objective is to redirect public attention and energy away from the fundamental need to transition off fossil fuels and toward a prolonged debate about "solutions" that conveniently protect industry profits.

Impact on public opinion and public policy

Despite overwhelming scientific consensus, a significant portion of the public remains either skeptical or misinformed, which is the intended outcome. For instance, in the US, 35% of the population believes "a significant number of scientists disagree on the cause of climate change," and 46% believe it is not mainly human-caused.[9] In Australia, 43% of people believe that oil and gas are essential components of the national economy and that it would be impossible to do without them.[9]

This misinformation fuels a "crisis of trust" in science, media, and government institutions [20, 21], which creates division and makes consensus on climate action nearly impossible.[16] This weakened public sentiment then provides a political justification for lobbyists and political actors to obstruct and delay critical legislation.[2, 22] Examples include lobbying against the Kyoto agreement [1] and attempts to rescind the EPA's endangerment finding.[22] The ending of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program by a previous administration is a prime example of a direct political outcome of this influence, as it makes it harder to hold polluters accountable and craft policy solutions.[23]

This deliberate, cause-and-effect chain is clear. The polluted information creates a false perception of scientific uncertainty and societal disagreement, which in turn weakens public demand for change. This provides political cover for inaction and obstruction, which then allows for the continued increase of greenhouse gas emissions, driving us toward a climate catastrophe. The polluted information is not a side effect of corporate behavior; it is the primary tool used to create a political and social environment where climate inaction is not only tolerated but actively supported. It is the invisible, psychological lever that allows physical pollution to continue unchecked.

What can be done to fight information pollution

Just as the problem is multifaceted, so must the solutions be. A multi-pronged approach is required, combining individual resilience, institutional accountability, and a collective effort to build a new narrative.

The first line of defense is strengthening individual resilience through media literacy. Organizations like UNESCO and the Environmental Defense Fund are promoting "ecomedia literacy," a framework that teaches people to critically evaluate media's role in shaping environmental beliefs and to spot greenwashing and disinformation.[24, 25] We must learn to communicate more effectively by using techniques like the "truth sandwich," which combats lies without amplifying them.[26] The UN also suggests using "trusted messengers" like scientists, doctors, and people directly affected by climate change.[17]

We must also hold institutions accountable. The UN Secretary-General has called for governments to "ban fossil fuel lobbying and disinformation," comparing it to the fight against the tobacco industry.[14, 27] Legal efforts are also targeting PR firms and companies, aiming to hold them liable for the damages caused by their disinformation campaigns.[13, 14, 28] We must also fight for the preservation and re-implementation of programs like the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, as without the data, we cannot hold polluters responsible.[23]

Finally, we must proactively build a new narrative about a sustainable future. The psychological research by Kirsti M. Jylhä shows that simply presenting facts is often insufficient to change minds, as denial is rooted in deeper psychological and ideological factors.[10, 29] The UN recommends empowering people, linking climate action to justice, and focusing on the opportunities and benefits of a clean energy transition, such as green jobs, cleaner air, and improved health.[17, 30] This moves the conversation from a defensive posture to a positive one, making the vision of a sustainable future appealing. The most effective strategy involves combining fact-checking with proactive, values-based communication that empowers people and connects climate solutions to their personal well-being, economic security, and sense of justice.

References: 

1.  Greenpeace. *Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine*. 2010.
2.  Global Strategic Communications Council. *The fossil fuel industry’s lobbying and political spending in the US*. 2023.
3.  Ekberg, K., B. Forchtner, M. Hultman, & K. Jylhä. *Climate Obstruction: How Denial, Delay and Inaction are Heating the Planet*. Routledge. 2022.
4.  Jylhä, K. M. *Denial versus reality of climate change (2nd edition)*. 2024.
5.  Westervelt, A. *Unmasking Dark Money: How Fossil Fuel Interests Can Undermine Clean Energy Progress*. The Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, University of Pennsylvania. 2023.
6.  Westervelt, A. *A Reporter's Guide to Investigating Fossil Fuels*. Global Investigative Journalism Network. 2025.
7.  Hultman, M., & J. Anshelm. *A green fatwā? Climate change as a threat to the masculinity of industrial modernity*. *NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies*. 2014.
8.  Ekberg, K., B. Forchtner, M. Hultman, & K. Jylhä. *The Far Right and Climate Obstruction*. In *The Far Right and the Environment: Politics, Discourse and Communication*. Routledge. 2022.
9.  Climate Action Against Disinformation. *The Impacts of Climate Disinformation on Public Perception*. 2022.
10. Jylhä, K. M., & S. Ojala. *Science denial: A narrative review and recommendations for future research and practice*. *European Psychologist*. 2023.
11. McCright, A. M., & R. E. Dunlap. *The Conservative Movement and Climate Change: A Study of Climate Change Denial Books*. *The Sociological Quarterly*. 2011.
12. Oreskes, N., & E. M. Conway. *Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming*. Bloomsbury Press. 2010.
13. House Natural Resources Committee. *PR Firms Preventing Action on Climate Change*. 2022.
14. Clean Creatives. *F-List 2024: A Report on PR and Ad Agencies Working for Fossil Fuels*. 2024.
15. Hultman, M. *Why don't we take climate change seriously?*. Chalmers University of Technology. 2016.
16. Lamb, W. F., et al. *A Taxonomy of Climate Change Denial and Delay Narratives*. *Nature Climate Change*. 2020.
17. United Nations. *Communicating Climate Change: The UN Toolkit*. 2024.
18. Westervelt, A. *Exxon doubles down on ‘advanced recycling’ claims that yield few results*. *The Guardian*. 2022.
19. Westervelt, A. *Fossil fuel companies donated $700m to US universities over 10 years*. *The Guardian*. 2023.
20. Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy. *Addressing Rampant Climate Disinformation*. 2024.
21. European Commission. *Climate Disinformation*. 2024.
22. Whitehouse, S. *Rhode Island Senator Seeks to Uncover Lobbying Efforts to Overturn EPA Rule*. The Guardian. 2025.
23. The Associated Press. *Trump administration ends pollution tracking program*. 2020.
24. Environmental Defense Fund. *How We Can Fight Climate Change Misinformation*. 2025.
25. UNESCO. *Navigating Climate Information with Media and Information Literacy*. 2024.
26. Environmental Defense Fund. *The Truth Sandwich*. 2025.
27. Guterres, A. *UN Secretary-General António Guterres warns of the 'breakdown of democracy' due to 'climate disinformation'*. UN News. 2024.
28. Make Polluters Pay Campaign. *New Research Links Oil Giants' Emissions to Heatwaves, Paving the Way for Legal Liability*. 2025.
29. Jylhä, K. M., et al. *Psychological Barriers to Climate Action*. In *Climate Obstruction: How Denial, Delay and Inaction are Heating the Planet*. Routledge. 2022.
30. United Nations. *Sustainable Development Goal 13: Climate Action*. 2025.

Exxon's Green Slime Green Wash

The $600 Million Green Slime:
Don't Fall for the Algae PR

Greenwashing is, sadly, a part of the modern era of corporate communication. As public awareness of the climate crisis has sharpened, the oil and gas industry (long the villain in the environmental narrative) has shifted its strategy from outright climate denial to subtle "solution-sponsoring". Nowhere is this strategic pivot more clearly illustrated than in ExxonMobil’s ambitious (and ultimately hollow) venture into algae-based biofuels. By pledging an impressive sum to a project with limited commercial viability, Exxon essentially bought a decade of positive press, demonstrating that perception management can be far more profitable than a genuine energy transition. This case illustrates the seductive power of a well-funded scientific distraction.

A Pledge of Green, A Plan of Oil

Following the departure of ExxonMobil's climate skeptic CEO, Lee Raymond, in 2005, the company sought a new, greener identity to align with competitors, such as Shell and BP, which had already begun signaling awareness of climate change. The opportunity arose when the US government began advocating for a reduced reliance on foreign oil. The company settled on algae as its biofuel savior. Algae offers a tantalizing promise: it grows rapidly, and doesn't directly compete with food sources like corn or soy, and the message resonated with the public. In 2009, Exxon made a grand gesture, pledging $600 million toward algae research and development. This spectacular sum immediately framed Exxon not as just a fossil fuel giant, but as a future-focused innovator committed to creating a sustainable drop-in fuel.

However, the scientific reality was never quite as sparkling as the multiple public announcements. Internal skepticism existed from the start, with Exxon’s own research vice president noting the project’s questionable scalability and long, uncertain timeline. While the initial pledge was substantial, the actual investment ended up being around $350 million over the program’s lifetime, a minuscule fraction of a massive oil company’s annual capital expenditure. The true value of the algae project was not the fuel it might produce one day, but the public praise and political protection it provided.

Propaganda and Disparity in Production

The divergence between public marketing and private strategy was stark. Between 2017 and 2023, Exxon reportedly spent $68 million on advertisements promoting its "amazing algae," generating an estimated 3.7 billion media impressions. These campaigns ran during high-profile events like the World Series and NBA finals, assuring the public that the company was on the verge of a breakthrough that would "someday help meet the world's energy demands."

Yet, even as the green slime enjoyed its public moment, Exxon was doubling down on its primary business. In 2018, in the prime of its algae ad blitz, the company announced plans to significantly boost oil output.

Production Target	Source of Fuel	Daily Target (Barrels/Day)
Algae Oil Goal	Algae Biofuel (Theoretical)	10,000
Oil Production Increase	Traditional Fossil Fuel	1,000,000
Difference		100x

As the table above shows, the company’s planned increase in traditional oil production was one hundred times greater than the total theoretical (and never achieved) capacity of the algae oil they were advertising. The goal for the algae project was merely to gain the technical ability to produce 10,000 barrels per day. The campaign thus served as a rhetorical smokescreen, effectively using the small, aspirational number to obscure the massive, concrete commitment to increased oil extraction.

The Quiet Retreat

Despite achieving promising lab results such as doubling the fat content of algae, the technical challenges of creating a viable biofuel ultimately proved insurmountable. When considering the entire algae biofuel cycle, findings showed that the large-scale algae oil process might actually be more carbon-intensive than regular diesel. This sealed the program’s fate. In 2023, ExxonMobil quietly shuttered the entire algae program, having spent only a fraction of its grand $600 million pledge. Exxon's partner algae company later filed for bankruptcy, and all that remained were the billions of ad impressions. The company had achieved its goal: it maintained a reputation of innovation during a critical period, delaying accountability for its core, highly polluting activities. Internal emails from scientists during the campaign suggest widespread discomfort with the misleading language, but these concerns were overridden by the public relations objective of showcasing contributions to environmental solutions.

The ExxonMobil algae biofuel story is a perfect example of what happens when the financial incentive for appearing helpful far outweighs the incentive for actually solving the problem. It is a cautionary tale about trusting giant corporations whose core competency is resource extraction to simultaneously lead the movement for a clean energy future. They found a way to 'extract' trust from the public. The focus must be placed on verifiable, large-scale, and profitable climate solutions, not on fanciful, fleeting flourishes of false faith.

In summary, Exxon’s $600 million pledge was a masterful PR play, designed to distract and deflect rather than deliver. The lesson for the public is clear: we must hold these companies accountable for their actual investment and production actions, not just their marketing slogans. Only by doing so can we build genuine momentum toward a future free from fossil fuels.

The Rise and Fall of Oil

Crude Oil vs. Electricity: A Century of Energy Drama (and the Plot Twist Ahead)

Introduction

Humans love energy. Since our first campfire, our energy needs have only increased. We've burned stuff for heat, for transportation, and now to train AI models that hallucinate 6-fingered cat images. For most of the last hundred years, the star of the energy show was crude oil: portable, dense; it worked for cars, planes, and plastics. Electricity started as a sideshow in the 1920s, mostly lighting rich homes, but it has quietly turned into the workhorse that powers everything from fridges to factories. Today, in late 2025, the world guzzles about 195 EJ of primary energy from crude oil and petroleum products every year (roughly 104 million barrels a day), while final electricity consumption sits at around 110 EJ (over 30,500 TWh). Oil still edges it out in raw primary-energy terms, but electricity is closing the gap faster than a performance Tesla in ludicrous mode. The next twenty years look set to flip the script entirely.

Where We Stand Today

In 2024 (the latest year with complete data), global primary energy demand hit roughly 630 EJ. Oil delivered about 31% of that, or 195 EJ, while electricity came in at ~110 EJ. Oil is still ahead, but remember that electricity is way more efficient: almost none of it is wasted as heat up a smokestack before it reaches you. On a useful-energy basis, the two are already neck-and-neck, and electricity is pulling away.

A Quick Romp Through the Last 100 Years

In 1925, the world used approximately 45 EJ total, mostly coal and firewood. At that time, oil was a plucky newcomer at ~8 EJ, and electricity generation was a pathetic 200 TWh (~0.7 EJ). Fast-forward to 1950: oil had climbed to ~30 EJ and was the cool new kid. By 1975, during the disco-and-oil-crisis era, oil peaked at ~45% share and 130 EJ absolute. Electricity had grown to 6,000 TWh (~22 EJ). Since then, oil's share has slid to ~30%, but absolute consumption kept rising. Electricity, meanwhile, multiplied like rabbits: from under 1,000 TWh in 1950 to 15,000 TWh in 2000 to over 30,000 TWh today.

Year	Total Primary Energy (EJ)	Oil (EJ / % share)	Electricity Generation (TWh / EJ equiv.)
1925	~45	~8 / 18%	~200 / 0.7
1950	~100	~30 / 30%	~950 / 3.4
1975	~280	~130 / 46%	~6,200 / 22
2000	~450	~160 / 36%	~15,600 / 56
2024	~630	~195 / 31%	~30,500 / 110
Historical energy consumption trends (approximate values)

Electricity grew ~150× over the century; oil “only” grew ~24×. Moral of the story: wires beat barrels at compounding.

The Next 20 Years: The Great Flippening

According to the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2025, things are about to get spicy. In the realistic Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS), oil demand plateaus around 102–104 mb/d through the early 2030s (~210 EJ primary), then gently declines as EVs, efficiency, and petrochemical saturation bite. The more ambitious IEA scenarios see sharper drops, but even the business-as-usual Current Policies path only pushes oil to ~113 mb/d by 2050.

Electricity, on the other hand, is about to go supernova. Demand rises ~40% by 2035 in STEPS, and keeps climbing. By 2045, we are easily looking at 55,000–65,000 TWh (~200–235 EJ). Drivers? Electric cars (840 million on the road by 2035), heat pumps, air-con in a warmer world, and yes, data centres training the next Grok while you read this. Renewables cover most of the growth, with solar and wind doing the heavy lifting and batteries smoothing the bumps. The result: sometime in the 2035–2045 window, electricity overtakes oil as the biggest single chunk of global energy delivery. Oil hangs on for planes, ships, and plastics, but the center stage belongs to electrons.

Primary Energy                     

Useful Energy Is What Matters

Energy Carrier	Primary Energy (2024)	Typical End-Use Efficiency	Approximate Useful Energy Delivered to Society
Crude Oil & Products	~195 EJ	Road transport (ICE cars): 20–30% Aviation/shipping: 35–45% Petrochemicals/heating: 70–90% Weighted global average: ~35–40%	68–78 EJ of useful energy (most of the rest is wasted as engine/boiler heat)
Electricity	~110 EJ (final consumption)	Electric motors: 85–95% LED lighting: 60–90% Heat pumps: 300–500% (COP) Resistance heating: ~99% Weighted global average: ~75–80%	83–88 EJ of useful energy
Bottom line (2024): On a useful-energy basis, electricity already delivers more real work than oil, even though oil still looks bigger in raw primary-energy numbers.

The point of energy is to do useful work: move a car, toast bread, or run a server farm. Electricity dominates in turning primary energy into useful work because it dodges the cursed Carnot limit that caps heat engines at ~40% efficiency. Petrolium must be burned or exploded (throwing away 60% as heat), then fight friction to produce motion. Electricity skips the bonfire: it flows through a wire, spins a 95% efficient motor, or drives a heat pump that delivers 400% “efficiency.” Same joule in, massively more work out. That, friends, is why electrons will eat oil’s lunch.

Useful Energy                       

Conclusion

Over the past century, crude oil took us from horse-drawn carriages to jumbo jets and suburban sprawl. It was a hell of a run. But the physics of efficiency and the economics of plummeting solar/battery costs are merciless. The next twenty years will see electricity surge past oil in useful energy delivered, all while the total energy pie keeps growing to lift billions more people into decent living standards. Oil won’t vanish; it will just become a supporting actor instead of the lead. If that sounds like progress without the doomsday vibes, that’s because it is. The grid is getting cleaner, cheaper, and frankly more fun. Time to plug in your EV, heat pump, and solar panels and enjoy the ride.

The Uncanny Valley of Autonomy: Why Self-Driving Cars Still Freeze at Four-Way Stops (and Why That Will Soon Be Hilarious History)

Introduction

In November 2025, self-driving cars have achieved something remarkable: they embarrass themselves in ways no human driver ever would. A Waymo Jaguar glides flawlessly through dense San Francisco traffic, anticipates a lane-changing Uber with superhuman precision, then arrives at an unmarked intersection and simply... waits. Forever. Four human drivers exchange waves, nods, and the universal "after you" eyebrow raise. The robotaxi, socially mute, sits paralyzed like a Victorian debutante who has forgotten her dance card. This paradox defines the current era of autonomous vehicles (AVs): statistically safer than humans in almost every metric that causes fatalities, yet comically inept at the informal choreography that makes real-world driving fluid. It mirrors the uncanny valley once suffered by AI image generators, where 95% photorealism produced images more disturbing than outright cartoons. Happily, just as six-fingered horrors vanished from Midjourney v6 and Flux outputs by mid-2025, the AV industry's social awkwardness is on the verge of becoming a quaint footnote.

The Socially Oblivious Super-Driver

Human driving relies heavily on implicit negotiation: eye contact, hand gestures, head tilts, headlight flashes, and micro-adjustments in speed that scream "I'm yielding, you idiot." AVs excel at explicit rules and physics but remain tone-deaf to this primate signaling system. The result? Viral videos of robotaxis creeping forward like anxious turtles or blocking entire intersections while waiting for a gap that human courtesy would have created in seconds.

These failures feel disproportionately infuriating because the cars can have miles and miles of flawless driving. An AV maintains perfect lane centering, tracks 52 objects at once, then freezes at an intersection because another car crept forward an inch or two. It is competence so lopsided it loops back to incompetence, much like early diffusion models that rendered perfect lighting on faces with melting eye sockets.

Failure Type	Human Solution	Typical AV Response (2025)	Why It Feels Uncanny
Four-way stop ambiguity	Quick wave or flash	Indefinite hesitation or awkward creep	Hyper-competent elsewhere, helpless here
Pedestrian "maybe" crossing	Read body language	Full stop until 100% certainty	Over-caution looks paranoid
Construction flagger gestures	Interpret irregular signals	Confusion or conservative wait	Flawless perception, zero pragmatics
Unprotected left turn yield	Detect subtle slowdown/nod	Wait for multi-second gap	Polite humans baffled by rudeness

Lessons from the Image-Generation Escape Hatch

From 2021 to 2023, AI images could induce gag responses: hands with bonus fingers, eyes that stared into your soul wrong, text that almost spelled "Coca-Cola" but settled for eldritch runes. The valley felt permanent. Then, in 2024-2025, scaling laws, cleaner data, anatomy-specific fine-tuning, and RLHF targeted at "does this creep humans out?" obliterated these problems. Flux, Stable Diffusion 3, and Midjourney v6 now routinely produce hands, faces, and typography indistinguishable from studio photography. The revulsion evaporated so completely that society pivoted to panicking about deepfakes instead of deformed thumbs.

AV development trails by roughly three to five years, largely because miles are expensive and interventions cannot be crowdsourced as cheaply as image ratings. Yet the recipe is identical: billions more video clips, synthetic data for rare social scenarios, theory-of-mind modeling, and human feedback loops asking "did that merge feel confident or socially awkward?"

Waymo's latest 2025 safety papers show the climb already underway: over 96 million rider-only miles with 73% fewer injury crashes and 84% fewer airbag deployments than comparable human drivers. Tesla's supervised FSD, while still requiring vigilance, has pushed critical disengagements beyond 500 miles in crowdsourced data. The remaining blunders increasingly cluster in interaction-heavy edge cases, exactly where the image valley once lived.

Climbing Out of the Valley

The AI toolkit is well known, and the AV roadmap will follow the sketch made image generation:

• Massive end-to-end models digesting petabytes of dashcam video.
• Explicit external signaling (it might be scary to allow AI access to your car's horn).
• Pedestrian gaze and torso position used for intent predictions.
• Reinforcement learning rewarding "natural confidence" judged by human raters.

By late 2025, Waymo routinely handles freeway merging for passengers. In China, Baidu's Apollo Go autonomous ride-hailing matches Waymo's weekly ride volume. The awkward freeze is becoming rarer, soon to be as archaic as 2022's six-fingered nightmares.

Conclusion

Self-driving cars currently inhabit their uncanny valley with the earnestness of someone who speaks a second language with flawless grammar but misses the sarcastic cues of native speakers. The frustration stems not from danger (AVs have already slashed severe crashes in their operating domains) but from the jarring contrast between superhuman reflexes and subhuman etiquette. Yet history offers hope: the image-generation valley, once deemed insurmountable, collapsed under the same forces now accelerating AV progress. In a few years, today's viral "robotaxi blocks ambulance" clips will elicit the same nostalgic chuckle as old Midjourney hands. The cars will not merely drive better than humans; they will finally learn to take their turn with the casual grace we expect from any competent primate behind the wheel. And when that day arrives, the only thing left to mock will be the humans who once insisted machines could never master the subtle art of the polite creep-forward.

How Capitalism Accidentally Solved Climate Change Faster Than the UN

Sculpture by Isaac Cordal titled
"Politicians talking about climate change"

Forget the Suits in Belém: Capitalism Is Fixing Climate Change Faster Than Any Treaty Ever Could

Right now, as COP30 stumbles through its second week in Belém, delegates are arguing over commas in texts that nobody will enforce, oil states are watering down every meaningful sentence, and private jets are lined up like Uber Black at the airport. After thirty of these circus acts, emissions are still higher than when the whole charade began. Paris Agreement? Lovely intentions, pathetic execution. Yet the joke is on the doomers: the energy transition is roaring ahead at full speed, and the fuel is pure, unadulterated greed.

The same profit motive that kept us hooked on oil for 150 years is now busy burying it. Turns out, when something is dramatically cheaper, faster to build, and makes investors richer, people don’t need a UN resolution to adopt it. They just do it.

If you're holding your breath waiting for politicians to fix things for you, you might be feeling a little blue. State and local actions can have results, but these UN activities are just words on the wind.  

The Numbers Don’t Lie 

Solar is no longer “promising.” It is the cheapest form of new electricity generation in most of the world, full stop. Even in the conservative Lazard’s 2025 report, unsubsidized US numbers for utility-scale solar comes in at $38 - 78/MWh and onshore wind at $37 - 86/MWh, while new gas plants cost $48 - 109/MWh, new coal $71 - 173/MWh, and new nuclear $141 - 220/MWh. Yes, you read that right: building a brand-new coal plant now costs up to twice as much as solar, per unit of electricity.

Here, look at this table and try not to laugh (or cry, depending on your portfolio):

(Source: Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy+ 2025)

Technology	Unsubsidized LCOE 2025 (USD/MWh)	Beats new coal by how much?
Utility-scale solar	38-78	Up to 56% cheaper
Onshore wind	37-86	Up to 48% cheaper
Gas combined cycle	48–109	Sometimes cheaper, mostly overlapping
Coal	71-173	LOL
Nuclear	141-220	Cash incinerator

Globally, the picture is even more lopsided. IRENA’s 2024 data (published 2025) shows weighted-average onshore wind at $34/MWh and solar PV at $43/MWh. That is stupidly cheap. In sunny places, we are now routinely seeing power purchase agreements under $20/MWh. Twenty dollars. You can’t even build the coal plant’s parking lot for that.

The Growth Is Actually Insane

In the first half of 2025, wind + solar generated more electricity globally than coal for the first time ever. Renewables as a whole overtook coal entirely. Solar generation rose 31% in the first nine months of 2025. Low-carbon power hit 40.9% of global electricity in 2024, and it's still climbing. Ember forecasts 793 GW of new renewable capacity in 2025, an 11% jump from 2024’s already incredible 717 GW. China is installing solar at a rate that would make previous decades look like a grade school science project.

None of this happened because someone in Belém gave a stirring speech. It happened because manufacturers in China, developers in Texas, utilities in India, and datacenter owners in Virginia all looked at the spreadsheets and said, “Wait, this solar stuff is basically free money.” Battery prices are plunging too, so the “but the sun doesn’t shine at night” crowd is running out of excuses faster than a coal executive at a renewable-energy conference.

The Delicious Irony

The fossil-fuel era was built on subsidy, monopoly, and geopolitical muscle. The renewable era is being built on something far more powerful: raw economic dominance. No advertising campaign required. No public shaming needed. Just lower bills, higher returns, with energy security and clean air thrown in as a bonus.

So while COP30 will end with the usual triumphant press releases about “historic progress” and “ambitious new goals” that everyone knows will be locked in policy debates, the rest of the world will keep quietly installing solar panels, turbines, and batteries at a breakneck pace. The delegates can keep their watered-down text. We’ll take the lower electricity bills, cleaner air, and the sweet satisfaction of watching capitalism do what international diplomacy never could.

Greed got us into this mess. Turns out greed is also getting us out, and it’s doing it faster, cheaper, and with zero need for another 30 COPs. Cheers to that.

Federal Solar Incentives Are Gone In 2026 But Oregon Has Your Back!

Solar and Battery Incentives in Oregon: Navigating 2026 Changes

If you're passionate about harnessing the sun's power to fight climate change, cut fossil fuel use, and slash those pesky energy bills, then solar panels and home battery storage are game-changers. They're not just gadgets. They're our ticket to a cleaner, more resilient planet where we generate and manage our own clean energy right at home. But here's the buzzkill: big shifts are coming for 2026 thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed into law on July 4, 2025. This federal legislation guts the Inflation Reduction Act's clean energy incentives, accelerating the end of some key supports that have made going solar more affordable for everyday Americans. While it's a setback for national green momentum, Oregon's got our back with state-level programs that keep the solar dream alive. In this post, we'll dive into the federal and Oregon-specific changes for solar and battery incentives hitting in 2026, why they matter for the environment, and how you can still make the switch to sustainable living. Let's break it down so you can plan your eco-friendly upgrades without missing a beat.

Federal Changes: The Big Hit to the ITC

Starting with the federal side, the biggest shake-up from OBBBA is the axing of the Residential Clean Energy Credit, better known as the Investment Tax Credit or ITC. Under the original Inflation Reduction Act, this bad boy was set to stick around at a solid 30% through 2032, letting homeowners claim a hefty chunk off their federal taxes for solar PV systems, batteries, and related gear. But OBBBA pulls the plug early, ending the 30% credit for residential installations after December 31, 2025. That means if you install solar panels or a home battery in 2026, you're looking at 0% federal tax relief on those costs. No phase-down, no grace period for homes, just a hard stop. For batteries, it's the same story since they qualify under the same credit, whether standalone (as long as they're at least 3 kWh) or paired with solar for on-site use. This could add thousands to your out-of-pocket expenses. For a typical $30,000 solar-plus-battery setup, you'd lose out on a $9,000 credit. Environmentally, it's a bummer because it might slow the rollout of home energy storage, which helps stabilize the grid during peak times and reduces reliance on dirty power plants. On the bright side, if you're eyeing commercial-scale solar or wind, there's a safe harbor: projects that begin construction by July 4, 2026, or get placed in service by December 31, 2027, can still snag the credits. But for us regular homeowners pushing for a greener tomorrow, 2026 looks pricier federally.

Oregon's Response: State Programs Holding Strong

Now, let's zoom in on Oregon, where the state's pro-environment ethos shines through even as federal support wanes. The Oregon Department of Energy's Solar + Storage Rebate Program isn't directly torpedoed by OBBBA since it's state-funded. In 2026, this program will keep rolling with rebates up to $5,000 for solar systems and $2,500 for paired batteries (that's $7,500 combined). It's first-come, first-served, with extra boosts for low to moderate-income households. This addition incentive can cover up to 60% of net costs after other incentives. Standalone batteries won't qualify, though. They've got to team up with solar. Funding's always a wild card, and with OBBBA potentially driving more Oregonians to solar before year-end 2025, reserves might tighten in 2026. 

But here's the exciting part: new Oregon programs are gearing up to fill the federal void. The "Solar for All" initiative, aimed at low-income folks, is set to launch fully in early 2026, offering little-to-no upfront costs for rooftop solar, community projects, and even battery integrations in multifamily setups. Plus, the Home Energy Rebate Programs (HOMES and HEAR), funded by federal dollars but run by Oregon, are slated for rollout in late 2025 or early 2026. These could dish out up to $14,000 per household for efficiency upgrades, including battery storage tied to electrification efforts. It's all about making clean energy accessible, reducing emissions, and building climate-resilient communities, aligned with Oregon's green vibe.

Energy Trust and Local Boosts

Don't forget the Energy Trust of Oregon, which serves customers of Portland General Electric and Pacific Power with cash incentives that stack nicely on top of the state's. Heading into 2026, their programs look stable under the draft 2026-2030 Multiyear Plan, which emphasizes ongoing support for renewables like solar and batteries. Standard rebates might hold at $400 to $450 flat for solar, with $3,000 for paired storage, but watch for tweaks based on funding. For income-qualified households, the "Solar Within Reach" program ramps up the savings: up to $1.00 per watt for solar (max $6,000) and $750 per kWh for batteries (up to $10,000). Programs like "Solar for Tribes" and community solar assistance are also in the mix, though 2026 rates are still being finalized. Environmentally, this is gold. Energy Trust's incentives encourage more distributed solar, cutting carbon footprints and boosting local grids against wildfires or outages. Local utilities like Eugene Water & Electric Board or Ashland Electric have rebates too, often $0.40 to $0.50 per watt for solar, and maybe even battery offerings too. Overall, while OBBBA bites federally, Oregon's ecosystem keeps the incentives flowing to keep our state leading in sustainability.

Comparison: 2025 vs. 2026

Incentive Program	2025 Details	2026 Changes	Environmental Impact
Federal ITC (Residential)	30% credit on solar and battery costs, no cap	Drops to 0% after Dec 31, 2025	Slows adoption, potentially increasing fossil fuel use
Oregon Solar + Storage Rebate	Up to $5,000 solar, $2,500 battery (max $7,500)	Continues, but funding may strain with demand surge	Maintains momentum for clean energy storage
Energy Trust Standard Solar	$400-$450 flat rebate	Expected to continue, possible rate adjustments	Supports grid resilience and emission reductions
Energy Trust Battery (Paired)	$3,000 flat	Ongoing multiyear plan	Promotes energy independence from dirty sources
Home Energy Rebates (HOMES/HEAR)	Not yet available	Launches early 2026, up to $14,000 for efficiency, including batteries	Boosts whole-home green upgrades, cutting CO2

Let's put some real numbers on this. Let's assume you are installing a 5 kW PV array ($15,000) with 15 kWh ($15,000) of home batteries. How much would it cost in 2025 vs 2026, assuming you're in Oregon with a helpful utility?

Incentive Type	2025 Amount	2026 Amount
Federal Residential Clean Energy Credit (ITC)	$2,490 (30% of $8,300 tax basis after rebates)	$0 (ends after December 31, 2025 due to OBBBA)
Oregon Solar + Storage Rebate (Solar Portion)	$5,000	$5,000 (continues, subject to funding)
Oregon Solar + Storage Rebate (Battery Portion)	$2,500	$2,500 (continues, subject to funding)
Energy Trust Incentive (Solar Within Reach, Income-Qualified)	$4,000 ($0.80 per watt for 5 kW system)	$5,400 ($1.08 per watt for 5 kW system, 35% increase for 2026)
Energy Trust (Battery Incentive, Income-Qualified, PGE)	$10,200 ($850 per kWh up to max for 15 kWh system)	$12,750 ($850 per kWh up to $12,750 max for 15 kWh, 25% increase)
Solar for All Program (Low-Income Solar + Battery)	$0 (starts in 2026)	Up to $15,000 (50-100% of costs)
Home Energy Rebates (HOMES + HEAR, Efficiency + Electrification)	$0 (starts in 2026)	Up to $24,000 ($10,000 HOMES + $14,000 HEAR, 50-100% of costs)
Total Incentives	$24,190	$65,650 (max potential with new programs, varies by eligibility)
Final After-Incentive Cost (from $30,000 gross)	$5,810	$0 - $8,300 (depending on eligibility)

Note: All incentives are assumed to apply and stack, with Energy Trust rebates applied first to calculate the net cost for Oregon rebates, and rebates reducing the federal tax basis. The Solar for All and Home Energy Rebates (HOMES + HEAR) are new in 2026, offering substantial increases for eligible low-income households. Funding for Oregon rebates is limited and may deplete; consult ODOE, Energy Trust, or a tax professional for your specific situation.

Wrapping It Up: Keep the Green Momentum Going

In wrapping this up, OBBBA's 2026 changes are a wake-up call for anyone dreaming of a solar-powered home. Federal perks vanishing makes it tougher to afford that eco-upgrade without digging deeper into your wallet. But hey, don't despair. Oregon's stepping up with robust state rebates, Energy Trust incentives, and new programs like Solar for All to ensure clean energy remains within reach, especially for those who need it most. By leaning on these, we can keep slashing greenhouse gases, fostering energy equity, and building a brighter, greener world. If you're considering solar or batteries, act fast in 2025 to grab that 30% federal credit while it lasts, but in 2026, you can still go solar. You can chat with local installers or the Oregon Department of Energy for personalized advice. Together, we can outpace these policy hiccups and power toward a sustainable future, one panel at a time.

Clean Electrification Outpaces Corn Ethanol

The Clear Choice: EVs Outpace Corn Ethanol

The global effort to transition to a low-carbon economy hinges on decarbonizing the transportation sector. For decades, the primary debate centered on two alternatives to petroleum: liquid biofuels, namely corn ethanol, and vehicle electrification. While corn ethanol was initially promoted as a step toward energy independence and sustainability in the US, contemporary life-cycle analysis strongly demonstrates that Electric Vehicles (EVs), particularly when charged with renewable power, offer a profoundly superior pathway for climate and air quality protection. This preference is based on the superior energy efficiency, minimal land footprint, and dramatically lower air pollution associated with the clean electricity pathway.

The Carbon Reality: Electrification vs. Ethanol

When assessing the true environmental cost of a transportation fuel, we must examine emissions across the entire life cycle, from resource extraction to vehicle disposal. In the US, the average EV is already responsible for 66% to 70% lower life-cycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions than a comparable gasoline car, even when charging on the current electricity grid. This is because electric motors are far more efficient than internal combustion engines, and the grid continues to become cleaner over time. When charging is sourced from 100% renewable energy, such as wind or solar, the total carbon footprint approaches near zero, delivering the highest possible climate benefit.

The environmental benefit of corn ethanol is significantly more complicated and widely debated. While many government models suggest modern corn ethanol can reduce GHG emissions by 40% to 52% compared to gasoline, this analysis often relies on optimistic assumptions about agricultural efficiencies and sometimes downplays the indirect effects of land-use change. Furthermore, a substantial environmental advantage of EVs is their lack of tailpipe emissions. Corn ethanol still contributes to significant local air pollution, whereas EVs shift the minimal remaining emissions to the centralized point of electricity generation, which can be easily regulated and cleaned.

Efficiency and Land Use as Key Differentiators

This divergence in performance is rooted in physics and thermodynamics. Electric vehicles are inherently more efficient than combustion engines. An EV requires only about one-quarter of the energy to travel the same distance as a vehicle running on ethanol. This difference amplifies the comparative advantage of clean electricity in terms of land use, which is arguably the most critical limiting factor for biofuels.

The production of corn ethanol requires vast tracts of agricultural land. Photosynthesis in corn is only about 1% efficient in converting solar energy into usable fuel energy. By contrast, modern utility-scale solar panels are around 25% efficient. As a result, supplying the same amount of energy from solar panels requires dramatically less land than growing corn.

Comparative Transportation Pathway Data

Fuel	Primary Fuel Type	GHG Reduction	Land Use Intensity
Gasoline	Fossil Fuel	0% (Baseline)	Oil fields, pipelines,
Corn Ethanol	Biofuel (Corn)	Debatable (Approx. 40% to 52% lower)	Very High (Requires massive acreage)
EV (US Grid Average)	Electricity (Mixed)	66% to 70% lower	Low (Generation footprint)
EV (100% Renewable)	Electricity (Solar/Wind)	Nearly 100% lower	Minimal (Highly efficient land use)

This comparison highlights the fundamental challenge of biofuels: they consume resources (land, water, and fertilizer) that are better allocated to other needs, like food production or ecosystem restoration. The dedication of 1.24% of all US land to corn for fuel, which only supplies a small fraction of transportation energy, represents a massive opportunity cost.

Hidden Costs and Opportunity

Beyond the climate and land questions, we must address the localized impacts and economic opportunity costs of fuel production. Biofuel production often involves significant energy input for refining, transportation, and fertilizer application. Studies have shown that when non-GHG air pollution is monetized, vehicles powered by corn ethanol increase negative environmental health impacts by 80% or more relative to conventional gasoline. In contrast, EVs powered by wind, water, or solar power reduce environmental health impacts by 50% or more.

The economic argument also favors electrification. According to some analyses, the lifetime fuel costs for a corn ethanol vehicle can be tens of thousands of dollars more expensive than an equivalent EV over 15 years. Furthermore, efforts to mitigate ethanol's emissions, such as adding carbon capture technology to refineries, would necessitate building thousands of miles of expensive pipelines and result in additional energy consumption and cost, an investment that would be better directed toward accelerating renewable energy infrastructure.

Conclusion

While corn ethanol played an important historical role in kickstarting the conversation about alternatives to petroleum, the scientific data is now unambiguous. The EV pathway, especially when coupled with the rapidly growing supply of wind and solar power, is the superior option for achieving deep, lasting decarbonization and providing cleaner air. The clean electrification of transport offers higher energy efficiency, a significantly lower carbon footprint, and minimal land pressure, making it the most sensible and sustainable investment for the future.

A Cautionary Tale of iRobot and the Future of Tesla

Camera-First Autonomy

The journey toward widespread autonomy, whether in the confined space of a living room or the complex environment of public roads, has hinged on a fundamental debate regarding sensory input. Both iRobot, the creator of the Roomba robot vacuum, and Tesla, the leading manufacturer of EVs, have adopted a strong stance: autonomous navigation should be primarily or exclusively camera-based. This camera data will be processed by sophisticated visual processing rather than relying on auxiliary sensors like LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). Although this 'vision-first' approach is philosophically elegant, iRobot’s recent struggles present a cautionary tale for Tesla. Will Tesla suffer a similar fate by rejecting redundant sensor modalities?

The iRobot Misstep: vSLAM Versus LiDAR

iRobot’s early dominance in the robot vacuum market was built on its ingenuity, but its subsequent loss of market share is deeply rooted in its adherence to a vision-only system known as Visual Simultaneous Localization and Mapping, or vSLAM. While vSLAM utilizes an upward-facing camera to track the robot's movement relative to ceiling features and visual landmarks, it faced significant practical limitations. A key problem was its reliance on light; in dimly lit environments, such as under furniture or in dark hallways, the camera’s ability to map and localize the robot was severely compromised, leading to inefficient, frustrating cleaning patterns.

As competition intensified, rivals introduced vacuums utilizing LiDAR. LiDAR sensors rapidly send out laser pulses and measure the time-of-flight to create incredibly precise, three-dimensional maps of the environment. Because LiDAR actively generates its own light source, it operates perfectly regardless of ambient light conditions, offering superior speed, accuracy, and reliability in mapping and path planning. By delaying the adoption of LiDAR in favor of improving its vSLAM system, iRobot allowed competitors, such as Roborock, Ecovacs, and Dreame, to surpass it in core functionality, offering devices that mapped homes faster, cleaned more efficiently, and rarely got stuck. This reluctance to adopt superior sensing technology, despite its obvious practical benefits, was a primary factor that eroded iRobot’s competitive edge, leading to a massive decline in its market share and financial viability.

The Greater Complexity and Higher Stakes of the Road

The environment a car navigates is exponentially more complex than a living room, suggesting that Tesla’s reliance on cameras faces far greater engineering hurdles than iRobot's ever did. A robot vacuum operates on a flat, two-dimensional plane in a structured, relatively static environment; objects are typically furniture, dropped items, or stationary pets. An autonomous vehicle, however, operates in a highly dynamic, three-dimensional world that includes rapid movement, unpredictable human drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, changing traffic signals, highly variable weather conditions, and a full spectrum of lighting situations, from blinding sun to pitch black.

To address this complexity, Tesla’s approach is fundamentally different from iRobot’s. The company utilizes a much larger array of cameras (typically eight), providing a full 360-degree view around the vehicle. More importantly, the artificial intelligence architecture employed by Tesla is vastly more sophisticated. Tesla trains its neural networks on petabytes of real-world driving data, allowing its system to perform complex tasks like object recognition, behavior prediction, and depth estimation based purely on visual cues. The company’s argument is that vision, once adequately processed by powerful, deep-learning algorithms, is the only sensor modality necessary to achieve better than human-level driving capability, as humans themselves navigate primarily through sight.

A Cautionary Tale, Not a Harbinger of Doom

While iRobot's failure to incorporate LiDAR led to its downfall in the hyper-competitive consumer electronics market, this narrative should be seen as a cautionary tale for Tesla, not a prediction of the company's ultimate failure. The core lesson is the danger of relying on a single sensor when a superior, practical, and complementary technology exists. iRobot's vSLAM system was fundamentally weak in low light, a flaw that LiDAR easily mitigated, and cars mitigate via headlights.

Tesla’s challenge is different. Its vision-only strategy, dubbed "Tesla Vision," aims for driving generalization: a system that can see and understand the roadways as well as or better than a human. This approach carries immense risk, especially when competitors like Waymo and Cruise employ multi-sensor stacks that combine cameras with high-resolution LiDAR and radar, providing redundancy and immediate, precise depth information is crucial for safety. As we've pointed out previously, sensor suites have their own risks. However, the sheer computational power and massive scale of the data used by Tesla's AI provide a sophistication that far exceeds the relatively simple algorithms used in robot vacuums. For the moment, Tesla’s bet remains contentious, relying on future AI advancements to overcome the current limitations of vision in edge cases, inclement weather, and sudden low-visibility events. Therefore, iRobot serves as a grim reminder that technological obstinacy can be lethal, but the complexity and cutting-edge AI of automotive autonomy means Tesla is playing a completely different, higher-stakes game.

Carbon Capture Is Sabotaging AI’s Future

 

The Case Against Carbon Capture: Prioritizing Renewables for AI Energy Demands

The rapid growth of AI datacenters has created an urgent need for reliable, scalable, and sustainable energy sources. As electricity demand surges, driven by AI's computational requirements, the debate over how to meet this demand while addressing climate goals has intensified. Carbon capture technologies, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), are often touted as a solution to CO2 emissions from fossil fuel plants. However, evidence suggests that carbon capture is an inefficient and costly approach compared to investing in renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and energy storage, which avoids CO2 generation. This analysis argues that prioritizing renewables over carbon capture is critical for meeting AI datacenter energy needs, reducing CO2 emissions, and maintaining global leadership in AI innovation.

AI Datacenter Energy Demands

AI datacenters are a significant driver of global electricity consumption. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), datacenters consumed 415 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2024, representing 1.5% of global electricity use. By 2030, this demand is projected to more than double to 945 TWh, equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of a country like Japan. In the United States, datacenters are expected to account for nearly half of the growth in electricity demand over the next five years. AI-optimized datacenters, with their high computational requirements, are the primary contributors to this surge. Meeting this demand requires energy sources that can be deployed quickly, scaled efficiently, and aligned with global climate goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Limitations of Carbon Capture

Carbon capture technologies aim to (as the name says) capture CO2 emissions from fossil fuel plants or industrial processes, either storing it underground or repurposing it for other uses. However, research highlights significant drawbacks that undermine their effectiveness and economic viability.

A 2019 Stanford University study found that carbon capture systems capture only 10 to 11% of total CO2 equivalent emissions over a 20-year period when accounting for upstream emissions from energy production and equipment manufacturing. The efficiency of these systems is often overstated, with real-world performance, such as a coal plant achieving 55.4% efficiency over six months, falling far below the projected 85 to 90%. Moreover, due to the energy demand of carbon capture system operations, the net effect can be increased air pollution; this is called the energy penalty. The air pollution includes particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, leading to higher social costs, including health impacts, economic losses, and climate damages. In these situations, it would be better to operate fossil fuel plants without capture than with it. However, the even better solution would be transitioning to renewables with energy storage.

CCS cost is another critical barrier. The Stanford study, as reported by Environment America in February 2025, concluded that investing in carbon capture is 9 to 12 times more expensive than switching to 100% renewable energy when considering energy costs, health impacts, and emissions. The IEA notes that while CCUS may be cost-competitive in hard-to-abate sectors like cement and steel production, it is not a scalable solution for widespread emissions reduction compared to renewables. Diverting funds to carbon capture reduces resources available for more effective solutions, such as solar, wind, and energy storage, which offer greater emissions reductions and faster deployment.

The Case for Solar and Wind with Energy Storage

Solar and wind power are the fastest-growing and most cost-effective energy sources available, making them ideal for meeting AI datacenter energy demands. According to Carbon Brief, solar and wind are the fastest-growing electricity sources in history, with solar power generation increasing more than eightfold and wind power more than doubling in the US over the past decade, as reported by Climate Central in April 2024. In 2023, solar added more new capacity globally than coal, increasing its share of global electricity from 4.6% to 5.5%, while wind held steady at 7.8%.

The cost of renewables has plummeted, with solar and wind costs dropping by 85% and 55%, respectively, between 2010 and 2020, according to Ember. These energy sources can be deployed more quickly than fossil fuel or nuclear plants, which require longer lead times and higher upfront investments. To address the intermittency of solar and wind, industrial-level energy storage systems, such as lithium-ion batteries, pumped hydro, and compressed air storage, provide reliable power delivery. The IEA emphasizes that grid-scale battery storage is critical for integrating renewables into the grid to meet future energy needs and net-zero emissions goals by 2050.

Impact on CO2 Emissions and Fossil Fuel Dependence

Investing in carbon capture risks extending the operational life of fossil fuel plants, which undermines efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. A September 2023 Earthjustice report highlighted concerns that carbon capture is used by the fossil fuel industry to justify the continued operation of polluting facilities, perpetuating reliance on coal and gas. A February 2024 article noted community opposition in Louisiana, where carbon capture projects were seen as prolonging the life of dirty power plants. By contrast, prioritizing renewables allows for the phased retirement of fossil fuel plants, directly reducing CO2 emissions and aligning with climate goals.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) reported in November 2023 that some CCS projects produce more emissions than they sequester, particularly when powered by fossil fuels. Redirecting investments to renewables avoids this inefficiency, as solar and wind generate electricity with near-zero emissions during operation. By scaling renewables and storage, countries can meet AI energy demands while accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels, reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions.

Implications for AI Leadership

The ability to meet AI datacenter energy demands is critical for maintaining global leadership in AI innovation. Delays in deploying sufficient clean energy could hinder AI development, as datacenters require consistent and affordable electricity. Solar and wind, supported by energy storage, offer the fastest path to scaling energy capacity, ensuring that AI infrastructure can expand without reliance on fossil fuels. Diverting funds to carbon capture, which is less effective and more costly, risks slowing this progress, potentially ceding technological advantages to countries that prioritize the fast growth that renewables offer.

Conclusion

The evidence suggests that carbon capture is an inefficient and costly approach compared to investing in solar, wind power, and energy storage to meet the growing energy demands of AI datacenters. Carbon capture's low efficiency, high costs, and potential to extend fossil fuel plant lifespans make it a less viable solution for reducing CO2 emissions. In contrast, renewables offer a scalable, cost-effective, and environmentally sustainable path to powering AI infrastructure while supporting climate goals. By prioritizing solar, wind, and energy storage, countries can meet AI energy needs, reduce emissions, and maintain leadership in the global AI race. As of 2025, redirecting resources from carbon capture to renewables is the most strategic approach to achieving these objectives.