this post was submitted on 24 May 2026
264 points (100.0% liked)
Climate
8669 readers
245 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To me, the case of India and Saudi Arabia are the strangest examples of climate denial, because they are going to be the most uninhabitable and keep buying/selling. Like they think they can outrun global warming through fossil accelerated development. Australia too, because they are drowning in solar power, but still hold onto coal. russia at least makes sense, they just want to become warmer and unlock new land, even if the whole place will turn into a giant swamp.
This is a poorly written / researched opinion piece which does not accurately reflect India's policy towards fossil fuels.
I follow Indian politics fairly closely and I was suprised to see the assertion that Modi has denied climate change for years especially since India has been fairly aggressive at expanding renewable usage since it is a matter of energy independence for them. Unlike Saudi Arabia, India imports essentially all of its oil and has very little to none domestically.
The often referred to quote from the speech he gave was ""Climate has not changed. We have changed. Our habits have changed." In the rest of the speech he goes on to explain further that the environment isn't changing on its own; human behavior, lifestyle shifts, and a lack of harmony with nature are driving environmental destruction. The argument he was making recognized anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change; it wasn't a denial of it.
From 2025 to 2026 India added 55+ GW of non-fossil fuel capacity and is currently the world's third largest market for installed renewable energy.
Modi was vocal about combatting climate change at COP26, committing India to a "Net Zero" emissions target by 2070 and pledged that India would source 50% of its energy capacity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030.
India also recently had its fast breeder Thorium reactor reach criticality and is planning to expand capacity to meet 15% of domestic energy demand by 2047.
There's a lot of reasons not to like Modi but this is a misrepresentation of his and India's current stance on climate change.
Yes, India still burns coal. No country in history has developed without coal. It is cheap, abundant and accessible domestically. Renewables are still too inefficient and pricey to meet the needs of a rapidly developing nation robustly. Oil is a foreign import for India, which comes with its own costs and geopolitical complexity. Energy has been crucial to India pulling 30 million people out of poverty domestically per year and abandoning coal at this stage would likely mean decreasing that number.
Its a complicated situation, but what is very clear is India takes climate change very seriously and has clear intention to expand renewable usage over the next several decades. For India it's not only a matter of domestic climate but energy independence also.
This should be a top-level comment so that others have a chance to educate themselves and form their opinions better.
There is lot to criticise about Modi like rising unemployment, systemic dismembering of journalism, whataboutism, and so much more!
But twisting the words of his speech (that is more than a decade old now) is just pathetic and immediately makes anyone pedalling that narrative foolish. It is even worse when a journalist does it, since fact checking is paramount.
Mosquito ridden swamps
Swamps can be drained.
I've heard that one before.
Saudi Arabia makes sense if you think the royal family intends to move overseas and let the populace die
and MODI wants datacenters in the country apparently. which is why rubio went there.
Australia is mostly ruined in the top 3/4. The bottom section where most of the people live will be relatively okay.
The >50⁰C heat waves in Melbourne when the wind is northwesterly in summer aren't going to be fun. By the end of the century there could be occasional fatal wet bulb temperatures.
(the current record is 46⁰C in 2009, but extremes get more extreme)
the outback is expanding i heard.
When sea levels rise enough all the coastal cities will be gone
Elevation levels are not the same across the world.
At an extreme 10 metre rise, nearly all of Bangladesh will be under water while Melbourne and Sydney will only lose a small bit of land.