I'm a huge green energy supporter, but the data belies the headline. These types of headlines are often leverage to discredit the transition.
1. US emissions didn't jump. See the first chart. The 2.4% increase easily falls within 1 standard deviation of typical changes. In that line, US emissions have remained flat since 2019.
2. The caption over that chart uses more neutral language "U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased in 2025" instead of jumped. Which is it?
3. The 2.4% increase in emissions matches 2.4% increase in energy use nationwide.
4. The title is structured to make it sound like coal power is primarily causal of the emissions increase even though that's clearly not the case.
Unrelated point: Coal quite literally poisons the air. Why are activists so fixated on the abstract specter of climate change to convert others? I'm pretty sure we could win over lots of MAHA types with that framing.
1. US emissions didn't jump. See the first chart. The 2.4% increase easily falls within 1 standard deviation of typical changes. In that line, US emissions have remained flat since 2019.
2. The caption over that chart uses more neutral language "U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased in 2025" instead of jumped. Which is it?
3. The 2.4% increase in emissions matches 2.4% increase in energy use nationwide.
4. The title is structured to make it sound like coal power is primarily causal of the emissions increase even though that's clearly not the case.
Unrelated point: Coal quite literally poisons the air. Why are activists so fixated on the abstract specter of climate change to convert others? I'm pretty sure we could win over lots of MAHA types with that framing.