Burning fossil fuels is said to kill almost 9 million people per year. Reservoirs are evaporating because of global warming. Heat-related deaths are expected to triple by 2050, and rises in temperature could even cause post-apocalyptic fungal diseases. Recent climate findings have been far from encouraging.

But a new report from energy analysts Ember provides a ray of hope. The study says that this year will mark the first drop in use of fossil fuels coal, oil and gas outside of a pandemic or global recession.

The report also recorded a spike in renewable energies such as wind and solar, which now produce 12% of our global electricity supply.¹ Global use of solar energy grew by 24% last year, and renewable sources will meet all additional demand that arises this year.

The authors of the study particularly sang the praises of historically coal-powered China, which is producing 50% of new global wind energy and 40% of new global solar energy. It is also offering subsidies to companies developing green technology.

The results have been lauded as a "turning point". Electricity production is the single biggest factor contributing to global warming. A turn towards green energy will be one of our most colossal undertakings if we are to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, a key milestone.

Clearly regulators have cause for optimism. At the end of March, negotiators from the EU's Parliament and Council set a new and more optimistic provisional target for renewable energy, agreeing that by 2030 EU countries would commit to acquiring 42.5% of their energy from renewable sources.

As the tides turn, rendering renewable energies a cheaper alternative to fossil fuels, global economic powerhouses are increasingly turning to green power to succeed. In India, where 70% of electricity is currently fuelled by coal, officials aim for 90% to be fuelled by renewables by 2047.

But some experts caution against optimism. According to them, we are moving far too slowly to put a dent in rapid rates of global warming.

Some cite the Oil Shock of 1973 as a key precedent. In retaliation against the countries which supported Israel against Egypt and Syria in the Yom Kippur war, Arab members of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries imposed an oil embargoAn official ban on trading with another country. on several major oil importers.²

As a result of the embargo, the price of a barrel of oil quadrupled to $12 in 1973-4. After a second crisis in 1979, by 1981 prices had skyrocketed again to $32 per barrel. A huge investment boom followed, focused on non-fossil energy alternatives such as nuclear.

The energy crisis which followed Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was bound to spark similar investment in alternatives, say experts, but this does not mean that we are taking purposeful steps towards a greener planet. Some say it even proves that climate breakdown is not a sufficient economic incentive.

Some also claim that today's investment still pales in comparison to the 1970s, as firms are reluctant to take financial risks in light of geopolitical tensions and the uncertainties of transitioning to green energy.

Yes: Converting to green energy is the single most significant step that we need to take to meet our climate targets. The fact that we are meeting all new demand with renewables would not even have been conceivable a few years ago.

No: Our generation of fossil fuels will only decline by 0.3% this year, and we are set to overstep our 1.5 degrees C target by leaps and bounds. Nobody could call this a real turning point.

Or... This may be a turning point, but not for the right reasons. The only reason we are investing in renewables is that they can now be cheaper thanks to the energy crisis. We are responding to economic incentives, not to the climate breakdown.