Data: Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (mcc-berlin.net)
Are we thinking about the emission of greenhouse gasses such as methane and carbon when we do day to day activities like: driving a car, using energy to cook or heating our houses? Probably not. But by doing this we are making our small but constant contribution to the problem of Global Warming. We see from worsening weather disasters around the world that this returns as a boomerang back to our houses and families.
of all natural disasters were related to climate change
USA share of global world cumulative CO₂ emission
people can be pushed into poverty by 2030 because of climate change impact
Statistics Source: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states?country=~USA
Statistics Source: Executive Summary - Climate Science Special Report
The overall trend in global average temperature indicates that warming is occurring in an increasing number of regions. Future Earth warming depends on our greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades.
At present, approximately 11 billion metric tons of carbon are released into the atmosphere each year. As a result, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is on the rise every year, as it surpasses the natural capacity for removal.
warmest years on historical record have occurred since 2010
is the total increase in the Earth's temperature since 1880
warming rate since 1981
Observations from both satellites and the Earth’s surface are indisputable — the planet has warmed rapidly over the past 44 years. As far back as 1850, data from weather stations all over the globe make clear the Earth’s average temperature has been rising.
In recent days, as the Earth has reached its highest average temperatures in recorded history, warmer than any time in the last 125,000 years. Paleoclimatologists, who study the Earth’s climate history, are confident that the current decade is warmer than any period since before the last ice age, about 125,000 years ago.
Clean hydrogen has 3 main uses: energy storage, load balancing, and as feedstock/fuel. Used in all sectors, including steel, chemical, oil refining & heavy transport. Actions to accelerate decarbonization & increase clean hydrogen use include:
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and achieving carbon neutrality requires widespread renewable energy and a huge increase in vehicles, products, and processes powered by electricity.
Electricity generated from increasingly renewable energy sources is the right way to create a clean energy system. Switching from direct use of fossil fuels to electricity improves air quality by reducing emissions of local pollutants.In order to increase the use of electricity, we can do the following:
As the foremost element in the periodic table, hydrogen holds a unique position in the universe, given its status as the lightest and one of the most ancient and abundant chemical elements.
Hydrogen, in its pure form, needs to be extracted since it is usually present in more intricate molecules, such as water or hydrocarbons, on Earth.
Hydrogen powers stars through nuclear fusion. This creates energy and all the other chemicals elements which are found on Earth.

Hydrogen is an essential part for manufacturing Ammoniam Nitrate fertilizers. Half of the world's food is grown using hydrogen-based ammonia fertilizer.
Hydrogen is used in the production of methanol, where hydrogen is reacted with carbon monoxide to produce chemical feedstocks.
Hydrogen fuel cells make electricity from combining hydrogen and oxygen. Power plants are showing increased interest in using hydrogen, and gas turbines can convert from natural gas to hydrogen combustion.

Hydrogen is an alternative vehicle fuel. It allows us to power fuel cells in zero-emission electric drive vehicles.
Hydrogen heat is used in order to reduce emissions in the manufacturing process.
Steelmaking is an industry that is beginning to successfully use hydrogen in two ways to eliminate almost all greenhouse emissions from the steelmaking process. First for Direct Reduced Iron (DRI) replacing coke (from coal) with hydrogen to remove oxygen from iron ore. Second for heat to melt the iron ore into DRI and then into low carbon steel.
Liquid hydrogen has been used by NASA as a rocket fuel since the 1950s.
Hydrogen is used in production of explosives, fertilizers, and other chemicals; to convert heavier hydrocarbons to lightweight hydrocarbons to produce many value-added chemicals; to hydrogenate organic compounds; and to remove impurities like sulfur, halides, oxygen, metals, and/or nitrogen. It's also in household cleaners like ammonium hydroxide.

Hydrogen is used to make vitamins and other pharmaceutical products.
In the production of float glass, hydrogen is needed to provide heat and to prevent the large tin bath from oxidizing.
It is used to hydrogenate unsaturated fatty acids in animal and vegetable oils, to obtain solid fats for margarine and other food products.
Using clean hydrogen makes it possible to reduce emissions while "cracking" heavier petroleum into lightweight hydrocarbons to produce many value-added chemicals.
By 2030
Statistics Source: IEA Global Hydrogen Review 2022
SMR is a way of producing syngas (Hydrogen and Carbon monoxide) by mixing hydrocarbons (like natural gas) with water. This mixture goes into a special container called a reformer vessel where a high-pressure mixture of steam and methane comes into contact with a nickel catalyst. As a result of the reaction, hydrogen and carbon monoxide are produced.
To make more hydrogen, carbon monoxide from the first reaction is mixed with water through the WGS reaction. As a result, we receive more hydrogen and a gas called carbon dioxide. For each unit of hydrogen produced there are 6 units of carbon dioxide produced and in almost all cases released into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a harmful gas causing climate change.
$863 ($0.86 per kilogram of Hydrogen)
(Electricity = $474 + Methane $383 + Water $6 US EIA May 2024*)
The SMR method involves combining natural gas with high-temperature steam and a catalyst to generate a blend of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Then, more water is added to the mixture to make more hydrogen and a gas called carbon dioxide.
For each unit of hydrogen produced there are 6 units of carbon dioxide produced. In a few experimental trials, to help the environment, the carbon dioxide is captured and stored underground using a special technology called CCUS (Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage). This leaves almost pure hydrogen.
One of the main problems with carbon capture and storage is that without careful management of storage, the CO2 can flow from these underground reservoirs into the surrounding air and contribute to climate change, or spoil the nearby water supply. Another is the risk of creating earthquake tremors caused by the storage increasing underground pressure, known as human caused seismicity.
$1,253 ($1.25 per kilogram of Hydrogen)
(Electricity $474 + Methane $505 + Water $4 US + CCS $270 EIA May 2024*)
This technology based on natural gas emits no greenhouse gases as it does not produce CO2. Methane Pyrolysis refers to a method of generating hydrogen by breaking down methane into its basic components, namely hydrogen and solid carbon.
Oxygen is not involved at all within this process (no CO or CO2 is produced). Thus, for the production of hydrogen gas there is no need for an additional of CO or for CO2 separation.
$1,199 ($1.20 per kilogram of Hydrogen)
(Electricity $433 +Methane $766 EIA May 2024*)
The concept of Green Hydrogen involves generating hydrogen from renewable energy sources by means of electrolysis, a process that splits water into its fundamental constituents, hydrogen and oxygen, using an electric current. This process can be powered by a range of renewable energy sources, such as solar energy, wind power, and hydropower.
The electricity used in the electrolysis process is derived exclusively from renewable sources, ensuring a sustainable and environmentally-friendly production of hydrogen. It generates zero carbon dioxide emissions and, as a result, prevents global warming.
$3,289 ($3.29 per kilogram of Hydrogen)
(Electricity $3,278 + water $11 US EIA May 2024*)
Known as "White" hydrogen, it can be generated through various geological processes. The study of geologic hydrogen and its potential as an energy resource is an active area of research, as it holds promise for renewable energy applications, particularly in the context of hydrogen fuel cells and clean energy production.
It's important to note that the creation of geologic hydrogen is generally a slow and long-term process, occurring over geological timescales. This is because the other methods are human production technology methods and this is creation by a natural phenomena. The availability and abundance of geologic hydrogen can vary significantly depending on the specific geological setting and the interplay of various factors such as rock composition, temperature, pressure, and the presence of suitable reactants.
Serpentinization is a chemical reaction that occurs when water interacts with certain types of rocks, particularly ultramafic rocks rich in minerals such as olivine and pyroxene. This process results in the formation of serpentine minerals and produces hydrogen gas as a byproduct. Serpentinization typically takes place in environments such as hydrothermal systems, oceanic crust, and certain tectonic settings.
In regions with high concentrations of radioactive elements, such as uranium and thorium, the decay of these elements releases radiation. This radiation can interact with surrounding water or other fluids, splitting the water molecules and generating hydrogen gas through a process called radiolysis. This mechanism is believed to contribute to the production of hydrogen in certain deep geological settings, such as deep groundwater systems and radioactive mineral deposits.
Geothermal systems, which involve the circulation of hot water or steam through fractured rocks, can generate hydrogen gas as a result of various processes. High-temperature hydrothermal systems can cause the thermal decomposition of hydrocarbons, releasing hydrogen gas. Additionally, the interaction between water and hot rocks in geothermal reservoirs can lead to the production of hydrogen through serpentinization or other geochemical reactions.
Abiotic methane refers to methane gas that is not directly derived from biological sources, such as microbial activity. In certain geological environments, abiotic methane can be generated through processes like thermal decomposition of organic matter or reactions between carbon dioxide and hydrogen. This methane can subsequently undergo thermal or catalytic cracking, producing hydrogen gas.
Keep current hydrogen production methods BUT
make additional steps to broaden them with cleaner production methods
And as a result the world will get more vital hydrogen and become one step closer to net zero emission
The market is dominated by grey hydrogen produced from natural gas through a fossil fuel-powered SMR process. Every year, the production of grey hydrogen amounts to approximately 70 to 80 million tons, and it is primarily used in industrial chemistry. More than 80% is used for the synthesis of ammonia and its derivatives (fertilizer for agriculture, 50 perecent of food worldwide) or for oil refining operations. Unfortunately, for every 1 kg of grey hydrogen, almost 6-8 kg of carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere.
More than 95% of the world's hydrogen production is based on fossil fuels with greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, to achieve a more stable future and promote the transition of pure energy, the global goal is to reduce the use of other “colors” of hydrogen and focus on the production of a clean product, such as green or turquoise hydrogen. Reaching the zero carbon footprint will require a gradual transition from grey to green/turquoise hydrogen in the coming years.
It is possible to produce decarbonized hydrogen. An option is to use another feedstock, namely water, and convert it in large electrolyzers into H2 and oxygen (O2), which are returned to the atmosphere. If the electricity used to power the electrolyzers is 100% renewable energy (photovoltaic panels, wind turbines, etc.), then hydrogen becomes green. Currently, it is about 0.1% of the total production of hydrogen, but it is expected that it will increase since the cost of renewable energy continues to fall.
U.S. additions to electric generation capacity from 2000 to 2025. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that the United States
is building power plants at a record pace. As indicated on the chart, nearly all new electric generating capacity either already installed or planned
for 2025 is from clean energy sources, while new power plants coming
on line 25 years ago, in 2000, were predominantly fueled by natural gas. New wind power plants began to come on line in 2001 and new solar plants, 10 years, later in 2011. Since 2023, the U.S. power industry has built more solar than any other type of power plant. The EIA predicts that clean energy (wind, solar, and battery storage) will deliver 93% of new power-plant capacity in 2025.
Global surface air temperature departures between 1940 and 2024 from the average temperature for the period 1991-2020 (averages below the 11-year average are blue and those above are red). The average in October 2024 was +0.80 degrees Celsius above the reference period average, down from +0.85 degrees Celsius above the reference period average in 2023, which was the warmest October on record.
Hyundai Motor Group is building a facility at an existing steel plant in South Korea to test out its technology to produce direct reduced iron before opening its flagship project in Louisiana.
Last week, the automaker announced plans for a pilot-scale DRI plant at its Dangjin Steelworks in South Chungcheong province, southwest of Seoul. The facility already operates a coal-fired blast furnace, a basic oxygen furnace, and an electric arc furnace, which makes steel from recycled scrap metal.
But DRI, a cleaner method of making iron that relies on gas or hydrogen to turn ore into iron, instead of a more polluting blast furnace, was until now missing from the mix. Construction on the DRI facility has already begun. Once it’s complete, the facility will have the capacity to produce 30 kilograms of molten iron per hour and will provide key technical data to help inform the future U.S. operation; by contrast, a typical blast furnace can produce tens of thousands of kilograms of molten iron per hour.
Reports in the Korean newspaper Chosun Biz and the trade publications Hydrogen Central and Fuel Cell Works indicate that the DRI pilot will use hydrogen as the fuel for the iron-making process. While it’s not clear what kind of hydrogen Hyundai plans to use in South Korea, the company has said its debut steel plant in Louisiana will depend, at least for the first few years, on blue hydrogen, the version of the fuel made with gas equipped with carbon-capture equipment. In the mid-2030s, however, Hyundai intends to swap blue hydrogen for the green version, made with electrolyzers powered by carbon-free electricity.
Hyundai did not respond to emailed questions from Canary Media.
The Louisiana project, set to come online by 2029, will be the most significant clean steel facility in the United States. Hyundai has invested heavily in the U.S. as the South Korean automaker faces increased competition in Asia from Chinese car companies. In the U.S., automotive manufacturers are the largest consumers of primary steel. Since President Donald Trump returned to office last year, American steelmakers have largely doubled down on older, dirtier methods of making the metal.
That’s a problem for automakers that have pledged to curb emissions. Hyundai, for instance, has a goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. To ensure a supply of clean steel, Hyundai is charging ahead with its own plant, despite recent challenges from the Trump administration.
“We’re taking the positive view that they’re making this investment in South Korea,” said Matthew Groch, senior director of decarbonization at the environmental group Mighty Earth. “This is a good sign that they’re committed to clean operations in Louisiana.”
A debate playing out in Wisconsin underscores just how challenging it is for U.S. states to set policies governing data centers, even as tech giants speed ahead with plans to build the energy-gobbling computing facilities.
Wisconsin’s state legislators are eager to pass a law that prevents the data center boom from spiking households’ energy bills. The problem is, Democrats and Republicans have starkly different visions for what that measure should look like — especially when it comes to rules around hyperscalers’ renewable energy use.
Republican state legislators introduced a bill last week that orders utility regulators to ensure that regular customers do not pay any costs of constructing the electric infrastructure needed to serve data centers. It also requires data centers to recycle the water used to cool servers and to restore the site if construction isn’t completed.
Those are key protections sought by decision-makers across the political spectrum, as opposition to data centers in Wisconsin and beyond reaches a fever pitch.
But the bill will likely be doomed by a “poison pill,” as consumer advocates and manufacturing-industry sources describe it, that says all renewable energy used to power data centers must be built on-site.
Republican lawmakers argue this provision is necessary to prevent new solar farms and transmission lines from sprawling across the state.
“Sometimes these data centers attempt to say that they are environmentally friendly by saying we’re going to have all renewable electricity, but that requires lots of transmission from other places, either around the state or around the region,” said State Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, a Republican, at a press conference this week. “So this bill actually says that if you are going to do renewable energy, and we would encourage them to do that, it has to be done on-site.”
This effectively means that data centers would have to rely largely on fossil fuels, given the limited size of their sites and the relative paucity of renewable energy in the state thus far.
Gov. Tony Evers and his fellow Democrats in the state legislature are unlikely to agree to this scenario, Wisconsin consumer and clean-energy advocates say.
Democrats introduced their own data center bill late last year, some of which aligns closely with the Republican measure: The Democratic bill would similarly block utilities from shifting data center costs onto residents, by creating a separate billing class for very large energy customers. It would require that data centers pay an annual fee to fund public benefits such as energy upgrades for low-income households and to support the state’s green bank.
But that proposal may also prove impossible to pass, advocates say, because of its mandate that data centers get 70% of their energy from renewables in order to qualify for state tax breaks, and a requirement that workers constructing and overhauling data centers be paid a prevailing wage for the area. This labor provision is deeply polarizing in Wisconsin. Former Republican Gov. Scott Walker and lawmakers in his party famously repealed the state’s prevailing-wage law for public construction projects in 2017, and multiple Democratic efforts to reinstate it have failed.
The result of the political division around renewables and other issues is that Wisconsin may accomplish little around data center regulation in the near term.
“If we could combine the two and make it a better bill, that would be ideal,” said Beata Wierzba, government affairs director for the nonprofit clean-energy advocacy group Renew Wisconsin. “It’s hard to see where this will go ultimately. I don’t foresee the Democratic bill passing, and I also don’t know how the governor can sign the Republican bill.”
Wisconsin’s consumer and clean energy advocates are frustrated about the absence of promising legislation at a time when they say regulation of data centers is badly needed. The environmental advocacy group Clean Wisconsin has received thousands of signatures on a petition calling for a moratorium on data center approvals until a comprehensive state plan is in place.
At least five new major data centers are planned in the state, which is considered attractive for the industry because of its ample fresh water and open land, skilled workers, robust electric grid, and generous tax breaks. The Wisconsin Policy Forum estimated that data centers will drive the state’s peak electricity demand to 17.1 gigawatts by 2030, up from 14.6 gigawatts in 2024.
Absent special treatment for data centers, utilities will pass the costs on to customers for the new power needed to meet the rising demand.
Two Wisconsin utilities — We Energies and Alliant Energy — are proposing special tariffs that would determine the rates they charge data centers. Allowing utilities in the same state to have different policies for serving data centers could lead to these projects being located wherever utilities offer them the cheapest rates, and result in a patchwork of regulations and protections, consumer advocates argue. They say legislation should be passed soon, to standardize the process and enshrine protections statewide before utilities move forward on their own.
Some of Wisconsin’s neighbors have already taken that step, said Tom Content, executive director of Wisconsin’s Citizens Utility Board, a consumer advocacy group.
He pointed to Minnesota, where a law passed in June mandates that data centers and other customers be placed in separate categories for utility billing, eliminating the risk of data center costs being passed on to residents. The Minnesota law also protects customers from paying for “stranded costs” if a data center doesn’t end up needing the infrastructure that was built to serve it.
Ohio, by contrast, provides a cautionary tale, Content said. After state regulators enshrined provisions that protected customers of the utility AEP Ohio from data center costs, developers simply looked elsewhere in the state.
“Much of the data center demand in Ohio shifted to a different utility where no such protections were in place,” Content said. “We’re in a race to the bottom. Wisconsin needs a statewide framework to help guide data center development and ensure customers who aren’t tech companies don’t pick up the tab for these massive projects.”
Limiting clean energy construction to data center sites could be especially problematic, as data center developers often demand renewable energy to meet their own sustainability goals.
For example, the Lighthouse data center — being developed by OpenAI, Oracle, and Vantage near Milwaukee — will subsidize 179 megawatts of new wind generation, 1,266 megawatts of new solar generation, and 505 megawatts of new battery storage capacity, according to testimony from one of the developers in the We Energies tariff proceeding.
But Lighthouse covers 672 acres. It takes about 5 to 7 acres of land to generate 1 megawatt of solar energy, meaning the whole campus would have room for only about a tenth of the solar the developers promise.
We Energies is already developing the renewable generation intended to serve that data center, a utility spokesperson said, but the numbers show how future clean energy could be stymied by the on-site requirement.
“It’s unclear why lawmakers would want to discriminate against the two cheapest ways to produce energy in our state at a time when energy bills are already on the rise,” said Chelsea Chandler, the climate, energy, and air program director at Clean Wisconsin.
Renew Wisconsin’s Wierzba said the Democrats’ 70% renewable energy mandate for receiving tax breaks could likewise be problematic for tech firms.
“We want data centers to use renewable energy, and companies I’m aware of prefer that,” she said. “The way the Republican bill addresses that is negative and would deter that possibility. But the Democratic bill almost goes too far — 70%. That’s a prescribed amount, too much of a hook and not enough carrot.”
Alex Beld, Renew Wisconsin’s communications director, said the Republican bill might have a hope of passing if the poison pill about on-site renewable energy were removed.
“I don’t know if there’s a will on the Republican side to remove that piece,” he said. “One thing is obvious: No matter what side of the political aisle you’re on, there are concerns about the rapid development of these data centers. Some kind of legislation should be put forward that will pass.”
Bryan Rogers, environmental director of the Milwaukee community organization Walnut Way Conservation Corp, said elected officials shouldn’t be afraid to demand more of data centers, including more public benefit payments.
“We know what the data centers want and how fast they want it,” he said. “We can extract more concessions from data centers. They should be paying not just their full way — bringing their own energy, covering transmission, generation. We also know there are going to be social impacts, public health, environmental impacts. Someone has to be responsible for that.”
Utility representatives expressed less urgency around legislation.
William Skewes, executive director of the Wisconsin Utilities Association, said the trade group “appreciates and agrees with the desire by policymakers and customers to make sure they’re not paying for costs that they did not cause.”
But, he said, the state’s utility regulators already do “a very thorough job reviewing cases and making sure that doesn’t happen. Wisconsin utilities are aligned in the view that data centers must pay their full share of costs.”
If Wisconsin legislators do manage to pass data center legislation this session, it will head to the desk of Evers. The governor is a longtime advocate for renewables, creating the state’s first clean energy plan in 2022, and he has expressed support for attracting more data centers to Wisconsin.
“I personally believe that we need to make sure that we’re creating jobs for the future in the state of Wisconsin,” Evers said at a Monday press conference, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “But we have to balance that with my belief that we have to keep climate change in check. I think that can happen.”
Texas just hit a huge milestone: It got more electricity from solar than it did from coal last year, a first for the second-biggest state in the country.
That’s a big shift from a few years prior. Back in 2020, the Texas grid got just 2% of its electricity from solar power and 18% from coal, according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which operates the grid for the vast majority of the state. In 2025, nearly 14% of ERCOT’s electricity came from solar — and just under 13% was produced by burning coal.

Texas, long a leader on wind energy, has been building solar at a blistering pace in recent years. It’s now the state with the most utility-scale solar capacity, beating out longtime champion California for the top spot.
It makes sense that solar has taken off in Texas. Two things it has in spades are sunshine and land, and ERCOT’s competitive markets and fast interconnection processes are appealing to solar developers. In recent years, the state’s solar boom helped create one of the nation’s hottest markets for grid batteries, which in turn has strengthened the business case for installing even more solar.
Meanwhile, coal has been declining in Texas for more than a decade, knocked off balance first by a combination of fracked gas and cheap wind power.
Overall, however, fossil fuels still produce the majority of Texas’s electricity. The state got 54% of its power last year from coal and gas, with the latter fuel serving as Texas’ biggest source of electricity by a long shot.
It’s worth noting that solar beat out coal in what was a comeback year for the fossil fuel, in Texas and beyond. After two years of declines, coal generation jumped by 8% in Texas in 2025. But because solar grew so fast — by a staggering 41% last year — the clean-energy source eclipsed coal anyway.
Not everyone in Texas is happy about the rising tide of solar.
Some state Republicans have tried and failed, several times now, to limit the growth of clean energy. Instead, they’d like to see the construction of natural gas plants to meet the state’s surging electricity demand. But Texas faces the same reality as the rest of the country: Solar and storage are simply too cheap and easy to deny.