Gregor Macdonald

Just to remind, here in PDX we're one of the few US cities without fluoride, as Portlanders again shot down an effort to adopt it in 2012. And, that's because of our woo contingent at the other end of the spectrum, so score another point for horseshoe theory.

When charts become popular on social media they tend to transform into collection bins for everyone's priors. This one is fully loaded now, piled high with explanations.

I am cautious.

I have a few nitpicks with this piece by Michael, which I'll get to at some point, but more important is that he's offering a far more realistic model for energy transition's timeline.

For those of us who have followed this trend break every step of the way since 2013-2014, it's been fascinating to watch all the myriad explanations pour forth from observers but one: global oil demand growth slowed down this past decade, and the majors clearly understood that.

Just saying: we don't talk about this trend enough.

Yes, but my answer to the question is more definitive: unless the West is prepared to forcibly shutter economically viable power generation assets, then fleet turnover will be slow b//c wind+solar while are unbeatable for new generation are not competitive against incumbent generation.

EU wind and solar generation growth last year exceeded total demand growth: 60.5 TWh vs 53.1 TWh. All good. However, this is colored by the unfortunate fact that EU industrial production is currently in a downtrend.
www.coldeye.earth/p/next-steps

Jane Mayer on John Hersey’s “Hiroshima” His monumental report changed history, journalism, and me.

Jane Mayer looks back on John Hersey's 1946 piece “Hiroshima,” a monumental account of the nuclear blast that obliterated the city.

The US could see a 30-40% decline in new international student enrollment, resulting in nearly $7 billion in lost revenue and more than 60,000 fewer American jobs. https://www.nafsa.org/fall-2025-international-student-enrollment-outlook-and-economic-impact

Truly enjoyed this year's Tour de France, and here's a terrific photo set from @theathletic.com with the perfect shot of the final stage: Pogacar on the cobbled climb to Montmartre.
www.nytimes.com/athletic/651...

Figure showing coal, oil, and gas emissions from 1960, with a little red dot for 2025, with 0.5% growth in coal, 1% in oil, 1.6% in gas, and -1.1% for cement. These are all leap year adjusted since 2024 had one more day than 2025...

Based on fossil fuel growth rates from the IEA Coal Mid-Year Update, July Oil Market Report, & Gas Market Report Q3, fossil CO2 emissions would grow around 0.8% in 2025, reaching another record high...

We are only half way through the year, but don't build too much expectation for peak emissions.

The natural gas adoption boom in global power generation continues, and is forecast to advance "by 1.3% in 2025 and reach a new high, following growth of 1.9% in 2024" per latest from the IEA.
www.iea.org/reports/elec...

Climate journalism shares the same, stylistic standards that govern science and economics journalism: when data claims are made, sources should be cited, and required language should be employed. CO2 no different than GDP comparisons: annual, quarters, or months must be noted. Otherwise: mush.

Writers on climate are under no obligation to serve the emotional needs of their audience. Indeed, audience capture is a real problem and you must fight it. This little sequence of thoughts from @volts.wtf about taking a stoic approach for self-care purposes, during the Trump era, is spot on.

Friday 1 August, 2025: Notably strong advance, in just one day, of the authoritarian project.

For sure they burned less gas, but the EU grew combined wind and solar generation by roughly 9 more TWh than their total growth of demand from all sources. (61 v 53 TWh). Just as an aside: this is one way to win the war, just flood the zone with new clean gen, overwhelm the incumbents.

Well, this is data about generation only. That said, if you think the EI Stat Review has made an error because marginal growth of solar alone renders their generation number far off the mark, I would love to see that post.

Unclear to me which (total?)TWh you are referring. But maybe this helps: all data from recent release of EI Stat Review, and the columns are correctly labeled as each combines the marginal growth from both wind and solar. BTW, do you think EU sold surpluses across borders?

It means that they grew generation from wind+solar by an amount even greater than their total demand growth. The next Q would be of course: where did the surplus go? I don't have that answer but likely the power was marketed to users near/adjacent to the region.

If you've seen a claim recently that 96% of global demand for new electricity last year was met by renewables, that's not close to being true--even if you add in nuclear.

Wind and solar met 50% of the new demand.

Separated Bike Lanes Means Safer Streets, Study Says — Streetsblog USA Cities that build protected lanes for cyclists end up with safer roads for people on bikes and people in cars and on foot, a new study of 12 large metropolises revealed Wednesday.

Never forget, a 13-year study found that protected bike-lanes led to a drastic decline in fatalities for all road users.

ALL ROAD USERS.

And painted bike-lanes? No safety improvement at all.

For sharrows, it’s actually safer to NOT have them.

Via @usa.streetsblog.org @nyc.streetsblog.org

Welp, this claim about CA using 40% less natgas to generate electricity vs 2 years ago, or 2023, or "summer," has no data support on any timeline. And it also doesn't conform to reporting style: has to be annual, Q over Q, etc. Just extremely sloppy work from the original source. (not the only ex.)

But in advance of that deflationary pressure coming through say over the next 6-12 mos, it seems we'll first digest higher prices through CPI data etc, and that itself will trigger movement across markets, interest rates. So, there may be steps that unfold before the disinflationary effects arrive.

This is my lean as well. I'm particularly interested in the hit to US based manufacturers who typically source portions of their product. But, together with the austerity-for-everyone-but-the rich in the overall new spending bill, this sums to a deflationary pressure.

HAPPENING NOW: Appeals court judges raise immediate skepticism about whether President Trump had the power to impose sweeping and broad-based tariffs under his emergency powers.

"IEEPA doesn’t mention the word tariffs anywhere," one judge noted.

In President Trump's latest threat before the Friday deadline for countries to agree to trade deals with the U.S., he said it would be “very hard” to make a trade deal with Canada after it said it may recognize Palestine as a state. Follow updates.

It's mostly because tariffs are magic. You see, they pile up as revenues when collected, while simultaneously being eaten by each node in the supply chain. Can't believe no on thought of this before. Also, who is Ricardo again?

I did not fully comprehend until today how much the administration believes it is winning on trade.

Needless to say, Trump is not winning on trade. Not even a little. To win something, you must either have an absolute or a net gain. No there, there.

Meanwhile, we are finally coming into a flashpoint in macro, as a number of uncertainties--labor market, inflation, growth, rates, tariffs--are ready to assert themselves. Today's GDP a good example of the brewing problems. Resolution is coming, and the 90 days of Q3 are going to tell the tale.

Yes, it's hilarious to see the administration still trying to sell a Schrodinger's Tarrif view: that we are collecting tremendous revenue while the exporters will "eat them" anyway. Ha. All this said, there's no escape from the logic of either higher prices paid or lower profit margins.