How to see emissions will peak soon - with a check list to see why it is possible to target 1.5 C - and to check if people online are aware of all the work many countries do to reach this goal

It’s surprising how few people seem to know that COP28 set a target to triple renewables by 2030 as part of a plan that will keep us on track for 1.5 C above preindustrial warming if we can keep to it.

See my:

I’m often asked, why are so few people saying this online? I don’t know and encourage others to write about this.

I thought I’d do some supporting information here with a few charts to help you to fact check some of the claims you see online.

Just check if they mention:

• Solar power doubling every 3 years

• Wind power doubling every 7 years

• Chinese emissions likely peaked or close to peaked

• Emissions from all the countries other than Asia added together peaked already around 2007.

Then specifically on the 1.5. C pledge are they aware that:

• if countries keep to their zero emissions pledges we are already on track for 1.7 C which is a realistic target as all the big emitters except the US either exceed or equal their pledges

• The US has falling emissions anyway and global goals will not be much affected by 4 years under Trump.

• Do they mention the IEA 1.5 C path?

• Do they say that the final text for COP28 committed to tripling renewables by 2030 and to follow the IEA 1.5 C path?

• Do they mention that this is the main objective for COP30 to get countries to pledge to tripling renewables by 2030?

It is very different if they know all these things and give some constructive criticism of them.

But I never see that in the people online who claim that we can’t target 1.5. C.

They just show no awareness of any of this.

two possibilities

• they don't know about the COP28 decision or the IEA report etc

  • if so, they are not reliable because they don’t know much

• they do know and are not saying

  • if so they are not reliable because they are holding back this information they have that highly reliable sources come to different conclusions from what they say

  • and are not reliable because they don’t discuss why they have a different view from the IEA and the countries that are parties to the Paris Agreement.

So the relevant question isn’t:

• why are these people online saying something different from the IPCC / IEA / COPs

Rather it is:

• Why don’t these people on the internet talk about what the IPC / IEA / COPs / all the governments say - and all are doing to fight global warming and take action on biodiversity.

Why don't they even comment on or recognize the mainstream view on the topic, and the goal of all the countries that are parties to the Paris Treaty?

• If the answer is they don't know

• that's the root of the reason why they say such different things.

Myth 1: no cliff - rather we do more not less as the effects become more noticeable

That was one of the points in the IPCC worst case scenario in 2018. They assumed the Paris agreement completely fell apart which didn't happen.

Even in that situation the IPCC’s own worst case was 3 C not 4 C because it wasn't plausible that we do nothing as we approach 3 C.

Sadly the IPCC hasn’t done a worst case scenario since then, I wish they did as it would help counter all the false claims that the worst case is billions of people dying or an uninhabitable Earth. But if you look at that 2018 worst case it’s nothing like that and we are in a far better position today than we were when they did that worst-case in 2018.

But in reality we are doing a huge amount already and so long as countries keep to their net-zero pledges, we are headed for well below 2 C.

Also we have a path mapped out for 1.5 C that is feasible with many countries already signed on as I already mentioned.

Myth 2: no warming tipping point

This was an entire chapter in IPCC AR6 / WG1, published in 2021. Yet I can’t find anyone who has drawn the attention of the public to it. If you know of a popular account of it other than mine do please say.

It deals with a lot of online confusion and junk science once you know this.

How can we be headed for net zero with emissions still rising? The three overlapping industrial revolutions

The main question I get is - how can we be confident we are headed for zero emissions when our emissions globally are still rising?

This seems unintuitive, I agree.

It starts to make sense once you realize we have three overlapping industrial revolutions going on. It seems unintuitive to those of us in the West because our industrial revolution is over, the energy use and emissions peaked, and we find it hard to understand how another country could be seriously working towards net zero if it has rising emissions.

But in reality the Asian economies are doing huge amounts to transition to renewables.

• Western industrial revolution - started in the nineteenth century, emissions peaked already - transitioning to renewables with rapid reductions in emissions already, only need to reduce slowly, e.g. the UK from peak in 1971 to net zero in 2050

• Asian industrial revolution, started in the 1960s, emissions still rise but will peak soon then fall rapidly as they transition to renewables - need to reduce fast, e.g. China plans to reduce rapidly from a peak around now to net zero around 2060 (likely before)

• African (and other weaker economies) industrial revolution, with the help of the stronger economies they can have a 100% renewables industrial revolution with emissions staying low from the start.

This graphic shows how our emissions already peaked globally in 2007 if we leave out China, India, and the rest of Asia.

That peak also leaves out international aviation and shipping but it would still have peaked with those included.

In this graphic, I’ve just coloured the Chinese, Indian and other Asian emissions white in the chart from Our World in Data to make the peak easier to see.

Graphic from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region?time=1935..latest

There are three overlapping industrial revolutions here.

The Europe / North American fossil fuel based industrial revolution

• started in the nineteenth century and emissions rose throughout the 20th century.

• it is now over, we already passed peak emissions and peak energy use

• emissions are now declining fast as we transition to renewables and more efficient use of electricity

The Asian industrial revolution is happening right now.

• Started around the 1960s and emissions are still rising

• Originally fossil fuel powered but they are transitioning to renewables in the middle - emissions continue to rise but level off sooner than for the Western industrial revolution because of the transition to renewables

• Once they reach peak energy use the emissions will start to fall rapidly

China’s emissions may have already peaked. India expects its emissions to peak in the 2030s.

Africa's industrial revolution hasn't yet started in earnest.

• it can be renewables based from the start with rising energy use but almost no increase in emissions

But the Asian revolution is already strongly fossil fuel based so their challenge is to keep industrialising while switching to renewables.

Once you understand this it is easier to understand why we don't yet see peak emissions.

China has rapidly increasing energy use and still has lower energy use than the US per capita though it has just recently reached EU levels of energy use - with the EU levels falling as they build more efficient appliances.

And India has far far less energy use.

This is the central chart. Notice how all the Western economies have falling energy use per person - it’s far easier to have falling emissions if you’re energy use per person is falling. Most of them also have a more or less steady or falling population too.

Notice how China and India have rising energy use per person. India has far less use per person than China and China has similar energy use to the EU, less than the EU at its peak and less than half the US energy use per person.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab=line&country=IND~USA~CAN~CHN~GBR~OWID_EU27

Then the main thing people are missing is the way most renewables are growing faster and faster every year. Especially solar. Solar power is doubling every 3 years or so and wind every 7 years.

It’s remarkable how fast a doubling progression like that can get to 100%.

For instance if a country has 12.5% of its electricity from solar and is doubling every three years then nine years later it’s at 100% of its electricity from solar (doubling 12.5% to 25% to 50% to 100%)

Hydro is the one exception, it is increasing steadily by a little over 1000 Terrawat hours per decade.

Wind is doubling every 7 years

But Solar is by far the fastest growing, doubling every 3 years

That is why the IEA triple renewables pledge works. The maths of it in this graphic:

Recoloured solar to yellow.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/modern-renewable-prod?time=2009..latest

Then if you look at the share of electricity from solar

You have to go a bit further back to 4 years to see a doubling of the % - that’s because of the growth in electricity production in the weaker economies, stronger economies for the most part have almost steady or even declining total electricity production.

The EU hasn’t quite doubled in 4 years, China has more than doubled, US has more than doubled its solar energy use in 4 years.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-solar?tab=discrete-bar&time=2020&country=OWID_WRL~IND~CHN~USA~OWID_EU27

We can do a very theoretical calculation to help see how exponentials are most noticeable just towards the end.

Suppose solar was the only source of renewable power, how soon would we be able to generate all our power from solar at this rate and assuming the doubling continues?

With the word at 6.91% in 2024 and assuming doubling every 4 years how soon do we get 100% electricity from solar?

The number of doublings is n where 2^n*6.91 = 100

So the number of years is 4 * log(100/6.91)/log(2) = 15.42 years.

At this rate we can expect all electricity to be powered by solar by 2040.

It would reach 50% by 2036 and 25% by 2032, 12.5% by 2028 at this rate.

Then if solar power was all we had we’d have enough solar power to power all our cars and industry as well by 2044.

But of course the other renewables are increasing as well. And eventually the exponential growth of solar would slow down once we have almost all power from renewables.

Then the initiative to triple renewables by 2030 may increase the adoption of solar power.

But you can see from this crude calculation how solar power has the potential to overtake fossil fuels remarkably quickly.

It may go faster than that. There can be breakthrough technologies that increase adoption of solar power such as the roll up low cost Perovskite panels

BLOG: Perovskite could halve solar panel prices yet again quickly
— solar panels are already competitive with lowest cost fossil fuels
— will halve in price anyway eventually without perovskite
READ HERE: https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Perovskite-could-halve-solar-panel-prices-yet-again-as-soon-as-2022-already-competitive-with-lowest-cost-fossil-fuels
Also solar power is already competitive with the lowest price fossil fuels but is set to halve in price at least once more and it may well halve in price several times more with breakthrough technologies.

New solar and wind projects now produce electricity at around half the price of the lowest cost fossil fuel alternative - and 91% of them produce it at a lower cost than any fossil fuels.

The prices are going to continue to fall - to halve at least once more. The savings are greatest in Asia - because in the EU we haven't yet adapted our networks sufficiently to make optimal use of renewables.

QUOTE STARTS

In 2024, solar photovoltaics (PV) were, on average, 41% cheaper than the lowest-cost fossil fuel alternatives, while onshore wind projects were 53% cheaper. Onshore wind remained the most affordable source of new renewable electricity at USD 0.034/kWh, followed by solar PV at USD 0.043/kWh.

The addition of 582 gigawatts of renewable capacity in 2024 led to significant cost savings, avoiding fossil fuel use valued at about USD 57 billion. Notably, 91% of new renewable power projects commissioned last year were more cost-effective than any new fossil fuel alternatives.

Renewables are not only cost-competitive vis-a-vis fossil fuels but are advantageous by limiting dependence on international fuel markets and improving energy security. The business case for renewables is now stronger than ever.

While continued cost reductions are expected as technologies mature and supply chains strengthen, short-term challenges remain. Geopolitical shifts including trade tariffs, raw material bottlenecks, and evolving manufacturing dynamics, particularly in China, pose risks that could temporarily raise costs.

Higher costs are likely to persist in Europe and North America, driven by structural challenges such as permitting delays, limited grid capacity, and higher balance-of-system expenses. In contrast, regions like Asia, Africa, and South America, with stronger learning rates and high renewable potential, could see pronounced cost declines.

https://www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2025/Jul/91-Percent-of-New-Renewable-Projects-Now-Cheaper-Than-Fossil-Fuels-Alternatives

What happens once solar power costs far less than fossil fuels? Not just a half, a quarter or less?

That may lead to even faster adoption than we have at present.

To answer some questions from those who claim we can’t do a renewables revolution:

See also

BLOG: Yes we can rise to the resource challenges of mining minerals for renewables for the green revolution
— with climate smart mining
READ HERE: https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Yes-we-can-rise-to-the-resource-challenges-of-mining-minerals-for-renewables-for-the-green-revolution-with-climate-sma

For China, then there's decent evidence that they are close to peaking already or may have already done so.

For India then they project it to peak in the 2030s assuming it keeps to its net zero pledge.

Both are exceeding their renewables pledges. So they may peak sooner.

China may have peaked in March 2024.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-clean-energy-just-put-chinas-co2-emissions-into-reverse-for-first-time/

They don't know for sure if China’s emissions did peak in 2024. It could rise again in response to the tariffs. It is only 1% below the peak.

The rise in 2021 is well understood.

It's because of the huge demand on Chinese goods in 2021 after the lifting of restrictions after the pandemic. They hadn't got enough renewables to power the industry and so had to boost capacity of their coal fired power plants to meet the demand.

Once that was over then the demand fell back to on track

So its been rising roughly linearly to March 2024 and now seems to be levelled off.

But under the hood they have very rapid exponential rise in renewables.

They are sure to peak before 2030 the question is which year.

China staying steady while increasing energy use means that all the increase in energy use is being met with renewables.

That is the difference from e.g. the EU keeping steady and slowly falling. That is just from changing from fossil fuels to renewables. The energy use is more or less constant. In the UK it is falling.

But in China the energy use is still rising but will peak soon.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-energy-cons?tab=line&country=~CHN

This shows the percentage of primary energy use from renewables

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy?tab=line&facet=none&hideControls=true&Total+or+Breakdown=Select+a+source&Energy+or+Electricity=Primary+energy&Metric=Share+of+total&Select+a+source=Renewables&country=~CHN

Here you can see how most of the increase in power recently has been through renewables.

The lower purple arrow shows the increase in fossil fuel use and the upper purple arrow shows the total primary energy use increase including renewables. You can see how much steeper it is.

This doesn’t directly map to the CO2 emissions because it also includes emissions from other sources such as cement and it would also take account of how natural gas produces less CO2 per kilowatt hour than other sources and much less if the emissions are captured.

This is how China puts it:

QUOTE China made a commitment in 2020 to peak carbon emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060, meaning that China will cut carbon emission intensity more than any other country in the world and move from carbon peak to carbon neutrality in the shortest span in history, according to a Xinhua think tank report released earlier this year.

http://english.scio.gov.cn/m/chinavoices/2025-05/22/content_117889178.html

I’m not sure if it is the shortest in history. But that 30 to 35 year timeline is certainly far faster than the UK.

UK emissions peaked in 1971. We aim to reach net zero in 2050. So that’s 79 years from peak to net zero.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=~GBR

In China, when the energy use peaks with renewables continuing to grow then the emissions fall.

And with the renewables increasing exponentially then they fall faster and faster.

China’s solar power is currently tripling every 4 years. That’s a 15 fold increase per decade.

Remember the energy use diagram where they are currently at similar levels of energy use per person as the EU.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab=line&country=IND~USA~CAN~CHN~GBR~OWID_EU27

The renewables are already rising faster than the energy use.

Their energy use may continue to rise. If they rise right up to US energy levels then it would stay level for longer before falling.

Right now they are increasing their renewables capacity just at the right rate to keep up with the increase in energy use.

But the renewables are increasing faster and faster (exponentially), they add more and more each year. While the energy use is increasing at a more steady rate and will level off probably before they reach US levels of energy use - even if they reached that, it has only a little over one more doubling left.

So - the Chinese emissions may or may not have peaked already. But are sure to peak in the next few years before 2030.

After that it will start to fall and fall faster and faster.

Then the slower increase in the Indian emissions from a far lower energy use per capita likely peaks in the 2030s, and transitions to a renewables industrial revolution then.

Other countries that are further behind, such as the low income countries in Africa can start off with a renewables based industrial revolution early on.

With this background hopefully it is clearer now how we can talk about a 1.5 C compatible path even while the emissions are just leveling off and haven’t yet started to fall dramatically.

Reminder of our check list: just check if they mention:

• Solar power doubling every 3 years

• Wind power doubling every 7 years

• Chinese emissions likely peaked or close to peaked

• All the countries other than Asia added together peaked already around 2007.

• That if we keep to zero emissions pledges we are already on track for 1.7 C with all the big emitters except the US either exceed or equal their pledges and US with falling emissions anyway and not much affected by 4 years under Trump.

• Do they mention the IEA 1.5 C path?

• Do they say that the final text for COP28 committed to tripling renewables by 2030 and to follow the IEA 1.5 C path?

• Do they mention that this is the main objective for COP30 to get countries to pledge to tripling renewables by 2030?

And here is my blog post about our 1.5 C goal.

This is about why Trump as president makes virtually no difference to our climate goals.

CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL

You can Direct Message me on Substack - but I check this rarely. Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com

Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.

FOR MORE HELP

To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks

Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly

• Facebook group Doomsday Debunked

Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.

SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS

You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.

CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date

NEW SHORT DEBUNKS

I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.

I often write them up as “short debunks”

See Latest short debunks for new short debunks

I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:

. doomsdaydebunks.bsky.social

I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.

I go through phases when I do lots of short debunks. Recently I’ve taken to converting comments in the group into posts in the group that resemble short debunks and most of those haven’t yet been copied over to the wiki.

TIPS FOR DEALING WITH DOOMSDAY FEARS

If suicidal or helping someone suicidal see my:

BLOG: Supporting someone who is suicidal

If you have got scared by any of this, health professionals can help. Many of those affected do get help and find it makes a big difference.

They can’t do fact checking, don’t expect that of them. But they can do a huge amount to help with the panic, anxiety, maladaptive responses to fear and so on.

Also do remember that therapy is not like physical medicine. The only way a therapist can diagnose or indeed treat you is by talking to you and listening to you. If this dialogue isn’t working for whatever reason do remember you can always ask to change to another therapist and it doesn’t reflect badly on your current therapist to do this.

Also check out my Seven tips for dealing with doomsday fears based on things that help those scared, including a section about ways that health professionals can help you.

I know that sadly many of the people we help can’t access therapy for one reason or another - usually long waiting lists or the costs.

There is much you can do to help yourself. As well as those seven tips, see my:

BLOG: Doing what matters at times of stress
— new WHO booklet to help with mental health during COVID19 pandemic

BLOG: Breathe in and out slowly and deeply and other ways to calm a panic attack

BLOG: Tips from CBT
— might help some of you to deal with doomsday anxieties

PLEASE DON’T COMMENT HERE WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER TOPICS - INSTEAD COMMENT ON POST SET UP FOR IT

PLEASE DON'T COMMENT ON THIS POST WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC:

INSTEAD PLEASE COMMENT HERE:

Post to comment on, with off topic potentially scary comments - or send me a private message - or use our group on Facebook

The reason is I often can’t respond to comments for some time. The unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else

Also even an answered comment may scare them because they see the comment before my reply.

It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.

It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here.

This is specifically about anything that might scare people on a different topic.

PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE

This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.

We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.

If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.

But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.

If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.

It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.