“Upstream fossil fuel extraction productivity … gains are sufficient to outweigh much larger improvements in renewables generation. [R]enewables productivity gains must exceed fossil gains by approximately 4–5× for net emissions to break even: each 1% marginal productivity gain in fossil fuels requires 4–5% gains in renewables.” (Nature Portfolio, below)
When the climate alarmists/forced energy transformationists bow to reality, it is worth noting. The latest example is a setback to the governmental push for wind, solar, and batteries in place of consumer-driven oil, gas, and coal. Instead of “energy transition” and “Net Zero,” the reality is, to use a term of Alex Epstein, fossil future.
“AI-driven Productivity Gains Enable More CO₂ Emissions than They Avoid in a Global Energy–Economy Model,” (Nature Portfolio: August 4, 2026) goes from climate alarmism to energy reality.
Climate change presents profound societal and economic risks and limiting global warming to 1.5 °C requires rapid decarbonization centered on phasing out fossil fuels. Yet fossil fuels continue to supply over 80% of global primary energy and global consumption continues to rise, despite renewables’ increasing deployment and cost parity.
This reflects energy addition rather than substitution: renewables have historically expanded total energy supply while fossil fuels remain largely undisplaced. Beyond electricity, fossil fuels also remain deeply embedded in industrial pathways throughout the broader global economy. Furthermore, path-dependent co-evolution of technological systems with governing institutions reinforces incumbent energy regimes. Together, these dynamics complicate efforts to align technological progress with internationally agreed climate targets.
Complicate? How about one more nail in the Net Zero coffin? Their analysis says so without verbalizing it.
These findings indicate that AI productivity gains, as modeled, help sustain fossil supply economics and increase total fossil consumption, leading to an increase in net global emissions.
And:
In aggregate, under market forces alone, AI’s modeled equilibrium meets our criteria for reinforcement rather than displacement of incumbent carbon-intensive pathways: it sustains fossil supply economics, increases total fossil consumption, and amplifies economic activity within these fossil-embedded systems.
More Climate Intervention
The reality check comes with a call-to-action from the authors:
Absent policy steering, AI’s modeled effects increase the carbon intensity of the global economy and reinforce fossil fuel incumbency—outcomes that current analytical and governance frameworks do not fully capture.
Policy Steering? Five recommendations follow, the two most important being:
… governance regimes must … constrain AI-enabled increases in fossil fuel productivity.
… carbon pricing should operate as part of a broader portfolio that includes supply-side constraints on AI-enabled fossil productivity gains.
More intervention? More Statism? More global governance? More Climate Big Brother?
Just say No. The world is going the other way with energy affordability and surface area protection against wind/solar degradation.