zlacker

Thank you. At this point the renewable energy cheerleaders have resorted to greenwashing; we need voices of reason to hold us accountable.

The headline was clearly written to tell a story - that renewables are winning. According to what metric? If the goal is to reduce dependence of fossil-fueled carbon emissions (remember that pesky detail?) then renewables are evidently failing at their core objective. It's observable truth but a very uncomfortable one, as shown by the number of people downvoting - most would rather shift the goalpost than admit failure.

>>perryg+(OP)
The subheadline:

> Solar power has doubled in just three years, according to thinktank Ember, but rising electricity demand from air conditioning, AI and electric vehicles means electricity from fossil fuel sources still grew.

>>sightb+x7
Which is objectively a different statement than the headline - it heavily caveats the narrative stated in the headline yet still doesn't backpedal fast enough. It completely ignores the fact that electricity is only 20% of carbon emissions. We need massive amounts of energy for industrial processes that are nowhere near being electrified, even in concept let alone in practice at scale. It's looks distinctly like the data was cherry-picked and manipulated to highlight the easy wins we've accomplished already and to serve the "renewables are winning" narrative.

This is beyond burying the lede. This is an intentionally misleading headline. Holding ourselves accountable to the real goal (reducing CO2) is the only way to succeed - as soon as we start fudging the goalpost and claiming victory, we're no longer doing credible science communication.