No rest for the insipid

I did not want to do this. But I couldn't help it.

This week, the UN’s secretary-general graced the world with a speech about energy. The speech accompanied the release of a report by the UN titled “Seizing the moment of opportunity: supercharging the new energy era of renewables, efficiency, and electrification,” because the UN hasn’t heard about brevity and clarity.

The speech is exactly 2,400 words and it is actually a poem, both in form and in substance. It does not contain facts, except the occasional observation that there is poverty in the world and this is a bad thing. What it contains is a list of the now customary mix of lies, disinformation, and more lies. But expressed poetically.

Here’s a fragment:

The headlines are dominated by a world in trouble.

By conflict and climate chaos.

By rising human suffering.

By growing geo-political divides.

But amidst the turmoil, another story is being written.

And its implications will be profound.

Powerful stuff though I still prefer T. S. Eliot.

The story referred to above is, of course, the story of wind and solar, which are, respectively, 53% and 41% cheaper than hydrocarbons, we learn from Mr. Guterres. I have no idea on what basis the cost calculation was done and it doesn’t really matter. Facts, as we know well, do not matter when it comes to wind and solar.

Further, Guterres asserts that “Renewables already nearly match fossil fuels in global installed power capacity.” He does not follow up with actual output, however, because it would be awkward.

No, he follows up with lame accusations.

The clean energy future is no longer a promise. It’s a fact.

No government. No industry. No special interest can stop it.

Of course, the fossil fuel lobby of some fossil fuel companies will try – and we know the lengths to which they will go.

But I have never been more confident that they will fail – because we have passed the point of no return.

Part of me wants to know what lengths would those be and what gives the UN’s sec-gen the right to hurl such accusations with no consequences at all. If I say something like this someone would probably sue me for defamation. But Guterres is so drunk on the power to say what he wants, however idiotic it might be, that he doesn’t care. I guess Big Oil and the Saudis don’t care about him, either, or they would’ve responded with some strong-worded comment or other.

Anyway, he then proceeds to tell us that, hold on to your seats, wind and solar are going to prevail because they make economic sense.

For decades, emissions and economic growth rose together.

No more.

In many advanced economies, emissions have peaked, but growth continues.

Ah, yes, let’s talk about the growth of such wind and solar leaders as the UK, Germany, Spain, and the eurozone as a whole. The UK booked a stunning GDP growth rate of 0.7% for 2024. Germany’s economy actually shrank in 2024, by 0.2% which is a massive success because it could’ve shrunk by much more, obviously. Spain bucked the trend, posting growth of 3.4% for 2024, “driven by the strength of the foreign sector, tourism (which contributed 0.7 pps to growth) and the gradual revival of private consumption.” Must be all those foreign investments in more solar. And the eurozone? A whopping growth rate of 0.9%.

But what about China, duly noted as the world leader in wind and solar? Well, China has built such a massive overcapacity in all transition industries it can’t contain it and is going to drown the world in cheap panels, turbines, and EVs, while many manufacturers shrivel and die because there’s not enough subsidies for everyone. Yes, even in China, believe it or not.

Moving on.

Even Texas – the heart of the American fossil fuel industry – now leads the US in renewables.

Why? Because it makes economic sense.

And yet fossil fuels still enjoy a 9 to 1 advantage in consumption subsidies globally – a clear market distortion.

Okay. I’ll let Texans tell the rest of us just how much economic sense all those turbines and panels make but the last line is amusing. First of all, do hydrocarbons really enjoy a 9:1 advantage in consumption subsidies? I seriously doubt that. I know for a fact I’m paying market prices for my petrol and I also know for a fact that the regional coal power heavyweight just reported yet another annual loss because of carbon permits. Oh, and also petrol and diesel car sales in Europe are on the decline, while various EVs and EV-adjacents are on the rise. Consumer subsidy advantage, eh?

Then we have this gem:

Let’s be clear: The greatest threat to energy security today is in fossil fuels.

Yes, that must be why pretty much all countries with abundant oil and gas resources are so energy insecure as opposed to those dependent on imports thereof because, for instance, they’re actively trying to destroy their own supply of oil and gas. It makes perfect sense. This is not to say that all countries with oil and gas are a Norway or a Russia of energy security. There are such things as political chaos and bad management, and, indeed, U.S. sanctions. But, as Guterres himself asserts, local is always better than imported. With that, I agree. I mean, the U.S. has become pretty energy secure since the shale revolution. Onwards.

Modern and competitive economies need stable, affordable energy. Renewables offer both.

There are no price spikes for sunlight.

No embargoes on wind.

Sentence #1 is true. Sentence #2 is BWAHAHA-scale dumb. Sentences #3 and #4 are really mediocre poetry with rather bad timing because the UK government just raised the maximum guaranteed price it will offer wind power developers in its next annual auction. Embargoes on wind there may not be but there are “rising costs over the past few years because of strained supply chains and higher interest rates.” Awkward.

You’d think it’s hard to top this but, oh, Guterres can and does do just that.

You can’t build a coal plant in someone’s backyard.

But you can deliver solar panels to the most remote village on earth.

Solar and wind can be deployed faster, cheaper and more flexibly than fossil fuels ever could.

You know how sometimes you come across a statement so outrageously and cynically misleading you want to scream? No? Just me, then. Anyway, I won’t waste anyone’s time with the obvious unfairness of the comparison and will just ask this: “And do what with the panels once you deliver them to the most remote village on earth? Is it off the grid? Did you bring batteries with the panels and the inverter, and all the cables, and what materials were used to make all that, you adipose piece of weathered leather?”

By 2040, Africa could generate 10 times more electricity than it needs – entirely from renewables.

Yes, just as Europe is now at times generating 10 times more electricity than it needs entirely from renewables, which is why renewables operators are whining about negative electricity prices which are costing them profits. Go figure.

And in places like Pakistan for example, people-power is fueling a solar surge – consumers are driving the clean energy boom.

Right. Yes. Of course. Pakistan and its solar boom. That same boom that has prompted higher electricity prices for everyone without panels because grid operators are struggling to stay profitable. That said, at least the Pakistanis have managed to avoid the grid overload danger by just using the panels for their own needs rather than feeding any excess into said grid.

The rest of the speech is a lot of insipid transition drivel, to end with this beauty:

Today I call on every major tech firm to power all data centres with 100% renewables by 2030.

And – along with other industries – they must use water sustainably in cooling systems.

The future is being built in the cloud.

It must be powered by the sun, the wind, and the promise of a better world.

Sounds about right. Let’s harness the promise of a better world to power our civilisation! In the cloud.