Money to ‘Decarbonize’ as Useless as Gym Memberships and Extended Warranties

By Gary Abernathy

This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

Nearly all of us have fallen prey to schemes, scams or even well-intentioned projects that come up short of the results promised for the money spent.

For instance, the new year has undoubtedly brought the annual rush of gym memberships from Americans convinced they’ll shed those holiday pounds and get back into shape. Or there’s that extended warranty we were talked into on a large kitchen appliance that wouldn’t go bad unless it was dropped from the top of a 10-story building. How ‘bout that costly monthly charge we incur for a streaming service so we can enjoy the one show we’re really going to watch?

Time and again, Americans find themselves on the short end of the stick, paying through the nose for services that never live up to their promise. Nowhere is that more evident than in the decades-long climate-based hoax that promised a revolution in the energy industry to save us all from extinction.

A recent column by William Murray, former chief speechwriter for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a past editor of RealClearEnergy, lays bare how promises made by far-left environmentalists fell far short of their assurances. Murray points out that $20 trillion – that’s $20 trillion – has been spent (over the last couple of decades, according to his source), largely by the U.S. and Europe, to “decarbonize” the global economy. Murray notes that the expenditure is “pretty much the total present value of America’s GDP.”

The result? “Hydrocarbon consumption continued to increase anyway. All that was achieved was a tiny reduction, just 2%, in the share of overall energy supplied by hydrocarbons. Put simply, as the energy pie got bigger and all forms of energy supply increased, hydrocarbons ended up with a slightly smaller share of a larger pie.”

If such a pitiful return on investment happened in any other walk of life, companies pushing the scheme would go bankrupt and reputations would be in shambles. But the “climate warriors” just grow more emboldened.

Haven’t renewables made great strides? That’s what we read in the mainstream media, parroting the renewables industries. But read the careful wording used by most advocates of renewables when they boast about advancements.

For instance, The Renewable Energy Institute featured a story headlined, “Renewables Account for 90% of US Power Generation in 2024.” Wow! But the details were a little less impressive, clarifying that “renewable energy made up nearly 90% of the total US power generation capacity added during the first 3 quarters of 2024, as per a review conducted by the SUN DAY Campaign using Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) data.”

At first glance, readers not carefully parsing the language – or relying only on the headline – might think that renewable energy accounted for 90 percent of total power generation in the first three quarters of 2024. Of course, that’s not the case. The story was merely claiming that 90 percent “of the total US power generation capacity added (emphasis added)” was from renewable energy.

In fact, as reported by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “In 2024, the United States produced a record amount of energy, according to data in our Monthly Energy Review. U.S. total energy production was more than 103 quadrillion British thermal units in 2024, a 1% increase from the previous record set in 2023.” In other words, the renewable industry is claiming responsibility for 90% of the 1% added (at least during the first three quarters). Fine.

In reality, the top sources for energy in 2024 continued to be natural gas and natural gas plant liquids (47% combined), crude oil (27%) and coal (10%). In fact, natural gas plant liquids (9% of total energy production when broken out alone) were up 7% from 2023.

“Domestic NGPL production have increased every year since 2005 as U.S. natural gas production and processing capacity have increased,” according to the report. Meanwhile, all “renewables” (wood, waste, wind, solar, geothermal) combined accounted for the remaining 16% of total U.S. energy produced. Wind blew in at just over 1.5% of all energy produced, with solar just over 1%.

Here’s the kicker: Even just a 1% capacity increase from 2023 to 2024 meant that the U.S. produced record levels of total energy capacity. However, electricity capacity powered by wind and solar provides “almost no reliability to the grid.”

That’s according to Mitch Rolling and Isaac Orr of the “Energy Bad Boys” Substack, who point out that “wind and solar capacity is not the same as dispatchable capacity due to their intermittency. Intermittent generators are inferior to dispatchable resources for a number of reasons, but mainly
because operators cannot control when they produce electricity and when they won’t.”

As an example, “Despite having more capacity installed than ever before, reliable capacity in PJM (the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland regional transmission organization) has actually decreased by 2 gigawatts (GW) since 2016, from 198 GW to 196 GW, and is down 6.8 GW since firm capacity peaked in 2018. This comes at a time when peak demand hit new records in 2025 at over 160 GW, according to data from the EIA Hourly Electric Grid Monitor.”

The $20 trillion investment in “decarbonization” in the U.S. and Europe has been an abject failure. It would be a wiser expenditure of tax dollars for governments to subsidize lifetime gym memberships for every citizen. At least then there’d be a slight possibility of some return on investment.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
4.7 19 votes
Article Rating
36 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
strativarius
January 26, 2026 6:30 am

With climate alarmism, the fabled energy transition etc it is always, without fail, always a case of jam tomorrow; to paraphrase the White Queen. In other words, you are required to fully suspend your disbelief and embrace the truly absurd.

To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolutionThe Guardian

A what?

Government admits its approval for Buckinghamshire AI datacentre should be quashed
The U-turn comes after environmental campaigners concerned about the carbon emissions and water use of energy-hungry datacentres claimed the approval was unlawful.The Guardian

Only a Carbon based lunatic elite would declare a war on Carbon dioxide. It keeps the world going, and in their hands, it’s power – quite literally.

Bryan A
Reply to  strativarius
January 26, 2026 6:49 am

To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution – The Guardian

OK Guardian, lead the way and immediately cease all online publishing. Then your avid follower will stop using their computer to read articles.

strativarius
Reply to  Bryan A
January 26, 2026 6:57 am

…you are required to fully suspend your disbelief and embrace the truly absurd.

DonK31
Reply to  Bryan A
January 26, 2026 9:18 am

And they must stop printing because their ink is derived from hydrocarbons.

Reply to  Bryan A
January 26, 2026 10:23 am

And make shure their printing is exclusivly on a cave wall in France…sarc

Reply to  strativarius
January 26, 2026 10:17 am

Those Guardian links are unbelievable. And there is the wonderful quote in the second one:

The government has been forced to admit its own planning approval for a major AI datacentre should be quashed after it failed to fully consider the climate impact, in what campaigners described as “an embarrassing climbdown”

What climate impact?

Of course no amount of AI datacenters that the UK could conceivably install would have the slightest effect one way or the other on the climate. Raise or lower UK electricity use by any feasible number of AI GW, its in the noise globally. The UK in total does about 2% of global emissions, but only one third of those emissions are from power generation, and then of that, how much is the site going to add?

Its actually in the noise for the UK. Peak UK power use is about 48GW. How much is this site going to add? Can’t tell from the piece, but a few MW? Say it was even 1GW. That’s only increasing UK power use by 2%. You want to get serious about reducing electricity use, look at heat pumps and EVs.

Oh, wait a minute….

Insane and innumerate, the lot of them.

strativarius
Reply to  michel
January 26, 2026 11:26 am

Mad as hatters

Iain Reid
Reply to  michel
January 26, 2026 11:29 pm

Michel,

the U.K. is, by policy, increasing the uptake of heat pumps and evs in the scenario of nuclear power stations coming to end of life and the one under construction some years away. (And only half of the capacity what is being lost).
Our Gas generation fleet is also ageing and near end of life, with an extended lead time for replacement.
So government wants more electrical demand in the face of a diminishing firm generation capacity.
what could possibly go wrong?

Reply to  strativarius
January 26, 2026 11:42 am

why we need a Luddite revolution – The Guardian

The Gruniad are certainly in a good position to lead a Luddite Revolution. !!

Tom Halla
January 26, 2026 6:31 am

Ah, but investing in renewable energy appeases The Green Blob, which is a significant voting group.

January 26, 2026 6:52 am

The semantic abuse of the word “capacity” when referring to the nameplate ratings of intermittent sources of electricity such as wind, solar, and battery storage, is a feature, not a bug, of the misguided promotion of “renewables.”

The correctly understood capacity value to the overall system is zero for any such source, when considered in the context of a worst-case design scenario. What kind of scenario is that? Perhaps a widespread winter storm with snow and ice and frigid temperatures. Like, maybe, right now in a large portion of the U.S. ANY contribution from these sources in such a scenario is from luck, not from its reliability.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter of language usage.

AlbertBrand
January 26, 2026 7:06 am

An old adage comes to mind. Don’t throw good money after bad. Now that we’ve gone down this road maybe it’s time to keep what works and discard what doesn’t. New technology is a wonderful thing but unintended consequences can rear their ugly heads at any time. I believe it’s time to think.

KevinM
Reply to  AlbertBrand
January 26, 2026 12:42 pm

keep what works and discard what doesn’t
You’ve defined the process, but not the goal.
ie, What works to accomplish what end?
If the goal were plentiful and affordable transportation and energy, then what works?

sidabma
January 26, 2026 8:02 am

I just read that more electricity was produced burning wood and garbage than was produced by wind. Coal with the right technologies an be combusted almost as clean as natural gas.
America is very blessed with the amount of coal and natural gas that we have in the ground. Enough for well over 100 years.
Energy is power. Energy is strength. Energy is wealth. America must use it to it’s fullest, but we must do so much more efficiently Han we have in the past. Natural gas power plants with some planning and engineering can consume its natural gas at near 100% energy efficiently, instead of the 50 or 55% that we cave become accustomed to. This natural gas has to be pulled out of the ground and then processed to American quality and then pipelined. It then gets combusted ~ and without blinking we allow 50% to be blown into the atmosphere- wasted – gone forever. WHY?
Coal is mined out of the earth and then transported to coal power plants. How do we recognize a coal power plant? By its big tall chimneys. Why big and tall? We have the technology to convert all that exhaust into saleable products. It takes earth based products in an atmospheric collection reactor to convert ALL the products of combustion into 3 useable products. One of those earth based products is agriculturally grown. America’s farmers used to grow thousands of acres, but it’s one of those crops that have been slowly dying out. The equipment is still there. Let’s put it back to work before it rusts out completely.
Waste Is Not Waste If It Has A Purpose, and the combusted exhaust from both natural gas and coal have a purpose. This combusted exhaust can be turned into good paying full time jobs and money.
Secretary Chris Wright, we would like to make an appointment with you and your energy engineer’s to review together this opportunity, Andy when it passes muster, it needs to be applied as soon as possible.
These fuels need to be put on the DOGE list of products that America must stop wasting. And No Emissions Going Into The Atmosphere.
This is a story tip that needs to be focused in more discussions.

KevinM
Reply to  sidabma
January 26, 2026 12:47 pm

I agree with your general message, but are you sure about:
“Natural gas power plants with some planning and engineering can consume its natural gas at near 100% energy efficiently, instead of the 50 or 55% that we cave become accustomed to.”
My understanding is that natgas power plants boil water to make stream to turn turbines to spin rotors in electric generators. That process can not get near 100% efficiency.
And if my understanding is wrong (yes I might be wrong) then why has no one done it since the first natural gas electric plant opened in Switzerland 80 years ago?

Eng_Ian
Reply to  KevinM
January 26, 2026 1:24 pm

Gas generation plants typically use gas turbines, (think engines on planes), to spin a generator. The exhaust gases, which are very hot, are then used to heat water and produce steam. This is a combined cycle plant. Open cycle just dumps the hot gases.

And yes, you are correct, you cannot get near to 100% from a heat engine. The efficiency is always a function of the difference in temperature from the source to the sink. The fist stage, (the turbine), heats cold air to very high temperatures, so is very efficient, the waste heat, (a little colder now, heats up hot water till it boils), this is a lower delta T process and is hence less efficient.

In theory, you could take the exhaust gases after the boiler and use it to boil an ammonia solution and recover more energy but this is not done due to the diminished returns and the obvious costs.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle for more info on heat engine efficiencies.

Iain Reid
Reply to  KevinM
January 26, 2026 11:36 pm

Kevin,
combined cycle gas turbines are normally rated at about 60% efficient, if managed well.

In the U.K. our CCGT fleet often runs at far below optimal load and hence efficiency drops. low load on a turbine drops exhaust gas temperature and so steam production.
The mis use of a potentially effective generator is entirely due to what the level of renewable generation is as they have priority on the grid.

KevinM
Reply to  Iain Reid
January 27, 2026 8:21 pm

60% sounds plausible, I trust the E_I and IR answers. The limiting factor would be the use of heat as a step in energy conversion, which just doesn’t allow efficiency in the area of 100%.

eg:
“The most efficient production combustion engine cars utilize high-compression ratios, lean-burn, or hybrid systems to achieve up to 50% thermal efficiency. Top performers include the Geely BHE15 (46.5% efficiency), Nissan’s e-POWER STARC system (50% efficiency), and the 2022 Hyundai Ioniq Blue (59 MPG).”
(example is cars, but the reason is the same)

Thermal power has trouble getting super efficient because everything it “touches” (colder, therefore a sink) steals energy by heat transfer.I don’t doubt sid could produce some generator quoted at high efficiency, but that might be specsmanship – a novel definition of efficiency will be burried in foot notes and found to exclude some important source of loss.

January 26, 2026 8:19 am

It would be wiser to not have spent the money at all.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
January 27, 2026 5:31 pm

It would be wiser to spend the money on something that you get a return on. Such as curing cancer or developing sewage systems, things like that.

The $20 trillion investment in “decarbonization” in the U.S. and Europe has been an abject failure.

Of course it is. Because the only goal is to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels by reducing human emitted CO2. Since that has not happened and won’t happen without eliminating half the worlds human population, it is impossible to ever claim any success.

Harry Durham
January 26, 2026 8:39 am

Unfortunately, your title is wrong. The money was, from one perspective, completely useful. As disclosed by the work of DOGE, the investigations into fraud in MN & CA, the wealth accumulated by “Representatives” and “Senators” misusing (whether illegal or not, it’s at LEAST ‘misuse’), etc., it seem likely that a portion of that $20T found its way into the pockets of the beneficiaries of the machinations of those in power. Think ‘Solyndra’ and Obama and the “loan” for $535M. The sheer scale of an unaccountable elite controlling the disbursement of that much money almost invites it. Or demands it, in the minds of some…

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  Harry Durham
January 27, 2026 3:02 am

Scott Adams has always said it is inevitable. The larger the $sum and the lower the accountability the more inevitable it becomes.

Bruce Cobb
January 26, 2026 9:06 am

And that $20 trillion we’ve spent doesn’t include the cost of dismantling and disposing of all of that Retardable energy crap in the coming decades, plus reclamation of the land. You’re talking $trillions more there.

Richard Rude
January 26, 2026 9:14 am

Fossil fuels? My petroleum engineer brother in law and oil company owner once said: Petroleum is too valuable to just use as fuel, as he pointed to all the things in the room made from petroleum.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Richard Rude
January 26, 2026 9:43 am

Someone has been keeping track; now 6,000 and counting.

Randle Dewees
Reply to  Richard Rude
January 26, 2026 12:13 pm

So, use coal exclusively for energy? And coal powered ships, cars, trucks, and trains? Motorcycles and planes?

KevinM
Reply to  Randle Dewees
January 26, 2026 12:52 pm

“Yes, coal is used as a raw material to make plastics, especially in countries like China, through processes that convert coal into chemicals like olefins, though crude oil and natural gas are the primary sources for most plastic production globally.”

Randle Dewees
Reply to  KevinM
January 26, 2026 4:14 pm

Apparently, there were coal powered trucks in the WW2 period. Coal is not considered petroleum as the origins are different. I guess I have a problem with RR’s brother’s statement (which was possibly ironic?) as it is a chicken/egg thing.

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  Randle Dewees
January 27, 2026 3:05 am

Well coke for sure. A small gas generator on the truck or tractor and away we go.

Reply to  Randle Dewees
January 27, 2026 4:54 am

Yes, town gas is made from coal.

John Hultquist
January 26, 2026 9:39 am

If all the new gym members used machines with little generators attached the energy set in motion could be useful for local consumption. New transmission lines would not be required.
https://media.craiyon.com/2025-04-02/4ngcAfUhToKNOxHvp40tcg.webp

KevinM
January 26, 2026 12:21 pm

Hey!!
I like my gym membership!

Edward Katz
January 26, 2026 2:42 pm

Proponents of renewable energies love to play these numbers games to publicize the supposedly great strides sources like wind and solar are making. And when they have a credible or paid-under-the-table media helping them out, they can play the con games more effectively. Just a couple of weeks ago I heard an environmentalist on the consistently alarmist CBC extol the great strides China and India were making in their adoption of and conversion to wind and solar. Yet the same news blurb conveniently omitted mentioning that despite the changeover those two countries still were the 1st and 3rd leading carbon emitters globally. So whatever money China and India are spending to decarbonize is achieving next-to-nothing as their fossil fuel consumption continues to grow. Nor do they intend to affect their economies by wasting money on futile climate action efforts —unlike too many Western countries who love to throw it at supposedly progressive yet ineffectual efforts.

Uzi1
January 26, 2026 7:31 pm

Decarbonization is another attack on Western civilization and capitalism by the globalist elite. EU bowed and accepted this craziness being severely damaged by NetZero– Exactly what the elite demand!

observa
Reply to  Uzi1
January 27, 2026 2:00 am

The watermelons will be happy to know we’re busy decarbonizing Australia-
Santos hails first shipment of Barossa gas to Japan

Jim Karlock
January 27, 2026 9:18 pm

http://www.debunkingclimate.com/cost_solar_wind.html
also see: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/cost_of_renewable.html

THERE IS NO WAY TO MAKE  
SOLAR/WIND BOTH AFFORDABLE AND RELIABLE

What is the Cost of ONE MONTH of battery storage equal to one month’s fossil fuel electrical generation which would be required to cover worst case of winter electrical needs when we have a rare lack of wind plus dark days with power generated during summer months:

Approximately TWICE TOTAL USA GDP using 2035 storage cost estimate

Of course we could cut this in half to only about the total USA GDP by assuming that only 2 weeks of storage is needed!

THIS SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO (currently known, proven) WAY TO MAKE SOLAR/WIND BOTH AFFORDABLE AND RELIABLE.

Also see the electricity cost page

HERE’S HOW WE GOT THAT NUMBER PLUS a 2050 ESTIMATE:

COST:

Figure ES-2 shows the overall capital cost for a 4-hour battery system based on those projections, with storage costs of
$147/kWh, $243/kWh, and $339/kWh in 2035 and
$108/kWh, $178/kWh, and $307/kWh in 2050 (values in 2024$).
from: https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy25osti/93281.pdf|
We used the middle estimates.

ENERGY:

ONE month’s electric Net Generation (Million kWhr).  
(Jan 2025 was chosen as the latest data covering a high consumption winter month.)

Coal………… 83,153
petro…………  3,289
nat gas……… 157,040
other fossil…..   1,103
    sum………..244,585 (Million kWhr)
from: https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pd

Calculation using 2035 median estimated cost in 2024 dollars:

244,585e6 kWh x , $243/kWh = 5.94e13 = 59.4e12 TRILLION , almost DOUBLE the 2025 USA GDP of $31 TRILLION