Early opposition to renewable energy isn't new. When the first wind-powered generator was invented in Scotland in 1887, local coal mine owners successfully convinced the public to reject free electricity from the inventor, framing the new technology as demonic to protect their own profits.
China's dominance in clean energy technology presents a deep paradox: it is funded by fossil fuels. Manufacturing solar panels, batteries, and EVs is incredibly energy-intensive. To meet this demand, China is increasing its coal imports and consumption, simultaneously positioning itself as a climate 'saint' for its green exports and a 'sinner' for its production methods.
While controversial, the boom in inexpensive natural gas from fracking has been a key driver of US emissions reduction. Natural gas has half the carbon content of coal, and its price advantage has systematically pushed coal out of the electricity generation market, yielding significant climate benefits.
Like railroads, AI promises immense progress but also concentrates power, creating public fear of being controlled by a new monopoly. The populist uprisings by farmers against railroad companies in the 1880s offer a historical playbook for how a widespread, grassroots political movement against Big Tech could form.
Poorer countries, unburdened by legacy fossil fuel infrastructure, have a unique advantage. They can bypass the dirty development path of wealthy nations and build their energy systems directly on cheaper, more efficient renewable technologies, potentially achieving energy security and economic growth faster.
Despite developing the world's cheapest solar power, China remains addicted to coal for political, not economic, reasons. Countless local governments in poorer regions depend entirely on coal mining for revenue and employment. This creates a powerful political inertia that the central government is unwilling or unable to overcome, prioritizing local stability and energy security over a complete green transition.
Contrary to political narratives, US red states have been leaders in renewable energy deployment. The motivation is not climate ideology but practical, local benefits: landowner income, energy independence, and reducing local air pollution. This suggests a powerful, non-partisan path for the energy transition.
Charts showing plummeting solar and wind production costs are misleading. These technologies often remain uncompetitive without significant government subsidies. Furthermore, the high cost of grid connection and ensuring system reliability means their true all-in expense is far greater than component costs suggest.
Despite the narrative of a transition to clean energy, renewables like wind and solar are supplementing, not replacing, traditional sources. Hydrocarbons' share of global energy has barely decreased, challenging the feasibility of net-zero goals and highlighting the sheer scale of global energy demand.
The political challenge of climate action has fundamentally changed. Renewables like solar and wind are no longer expensive sacrifices but the cheapest energy sources available. This aligns short-term economic incentives with long-term environmental goals, making the transition politically and financially viable.
The suspicious death of an MIT fusion researcher echoes historical patterns, like Nikola Tesla's suppression, where breakthrough technologies threatening established industries (e.g., energy) face violent opposition from powerful incumbents like 'Big Oil'.