Very sad, is the cost of energy way down at least?

I expect increased demand will lead to higher prices, which is one of the reasons that people are protesting data centers being installed near them

Nope. We are failing to invest now in any potential future generation, it seems?

Would love to be demonstrated to be wrong! I heard rumblings of a few reatarted nuclear reactors out there, but its like... that a few dozens of Mw?

Looks grim boy & girls!

more benefits of "AI"

Thanks TrumpyBear!

Don't let your political opinions get in the way of understanding what is happening around you.

> The increase in greenhouse gas emissions is attributable to a combination of a cool winter, the explosive growth of data centers and cryptocurrency mining and higher natural gas prices, according to the Rhodium Group, an independent research firm. Environmental policy rollbacks by President Donald Trump’s administration were not significant factors in the increase because they were only put in place this year, the study authors said.

Tom Cotton, (R) Arkansas is proposing a bill to shield households from increases in power costs in their region if datacenters are taking excessively in their grid sector. It *ALSO* allows for private power plants to bypass the EPA regulations public power grids are subject to.

So the argument is that Donald called his puppet Tom on the phone, spelling out to him a bill that once enacted will be sent 2 years back in time, causing it to have at least some effect on emissions in 2025.

I get it now. Thanks Donald.

Your first reply was insightful, but this one is not a thoughtful take.

Power consumption and emissions are already increasing, and any regulatory changes in 2025 are not factored in to discussion of those numbers. It’s more interesting to discuss what these changes mean when they are a factor in 2026 and on.

One can hope! Can we get national legislation please or is this just for Red States?

Presidents can influence if data centers get built. Trump's inaction with regard to data center construction was a choice.

An intentional choice of inaction raised pollution.

Don't let spin doctors letting politicians off the hook rob you of critical thinking.

There can be hardly be many that both commenced construction and went online in 2025 during his current term. Most that went online in 2025 will have commenced construction during the Biden administration.

Nonetheless, natural-gas and electricity prices are downstream of the past three or four or five Administrations' worth of public policy choices. I live in a place where electricity prices have shot up and it has taken us eight years to build transmission lines up to Quebec so we can import cleaner, cheaper energy from them. Eight years and tomorrow it's finally done: https://www.wwlp.com/news/massachusetts/massachusetts-poised...

I would suggest you to consider how your holier than thou misunderstood bro-stoicism is doing exactly the same to your understanding of what’s actually going on.

maybe on the right path?

the cost of re-industrialization anyway?

You don’t need more gas to reindustrialise.

The biggest single thing the US could do to bring down power prices quickly is let people put solar panels on their home roofs more easily.

My country, New Zealand, is intent on self-flagellating with carbon policy which just feels so absurd and silly when our emissions are a tiny drop is the gigantic ocean of carbon emissions from the US and China. Why should we hurt ourselves economically when we cannot possibly make a difference, while our adversaries and allies alike enrich themselves while destroying the planet?

I hear you, and I think it's also fucked up (as someone who lives in the US) that our climate success is so easily reversed by the whims of whoever is in power today. If it makes you feel any less bad, new Zealand doing it acts as fantastic proof that a good chunk of New England could do it, or that the American South could do it. Plus, there isn't a lot of love for polluting policies; just tolerance from the government for polluters. Nobody here likes to see their kids have asthma, or to see their water contaminated. The size thing can make it feel hopeless, but what is the US if not a handful of New Zealand's?

Because reducing emissions is good on its own.

- Using renewable energy in most applications is now several times cheaper than constantly importing coal, oil and gas. It's weird to suggest using renewables hurts a country economically.

- Not burning fossil fuels in your country improves air quality and correspondingly health outcomes.

- Not importing fossil fuels gives your country geopolitical security

- And when has the goodness of a deed ever been dependent on what others are doing.

US emissions have been declining - not fast enough, and from a very high baseline - for the last 20 years before this year’s result. Europe’s emissions have been declining since the 1990s.

China’s emissions may have peaked in 2025, or are very close to peaking.

Big emitters have not done enough, but to claim they have done nothing is a nonsense.

If it helps China is improving: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108292

> Why should we hurt ourselves economically when we cannot possibly make a difference, while our adversaries and allies alike enrich themselves while destroying the planet?

You shouldn’t, it’s basic game theory.