US Carbon Pollution Rose In 2025, a Reversal From Prior Years (nbcnews.com) 62
In a reversal from previous years, U.S. carbon emissions rose 2.4% in 2025 compared with the year before. NBC News reports: 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. Heat-trapping gases from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas are the major cause of worsening global warming, scientists say.
American emissions of carbon dioxide and methane had dropped 20% from 2005 to 2024, with a few one- or two-year increases in the overall downward trend. Traditionally, carbon pollution has risen alongside economic growth, but efforts to boost cleaner energy in recent years decoupled the two, so emissions would drop as gross domestic product rose. But that changed last year with pollution actually growing faster than economic activity, said study co-author Ben King, a director in Rhodium's energy group. He estimated the U.S. put 5.9 billion tons (5.35 billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide equivalent in the air in 2025, which is 139 million tons (126 million metric tons) more than in 2024.
The cold 2025 winter meant more heating of buildings, which often comes from natural gas and fuel oil that are big greenhouse gas emitters, King said. A significant and noticeable jump in electricity demand from data centers and cryptocurrency mining meant more power plants producing energy. That included plants using coal, which creates more carbon pollution than other fuel sources. A rise in natural gas prices helped create an 13% increase in coal power, which had shrunk by nearly two-thirds since its peak in 2007, King said.
American emissions of carbon dioxide and methane had dropped 20% from 2005 to 2024, with a few one- or two-year increases in the overall downward trend. Traditionally, carbon pollution has risen alongside economic growth, but efforts to boost cleaner energy in recent years decoupled the two, so emissions would drop as gross domestic product rose. But that changed last year with pollution actually growing faster than economic activity, said study co-author Ben King, a director in Rhodium's energy group. He estimated the U.S. put 5.9 billion tons (5.35 billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide equivalent in the air in 2025, which is 139 million tons (126 million metric tons) more than in 2024.
The cold 2025 winter meant more heating of buildings, which often comes from natural gas and fuel oil that are big greenhouse gas emitters, King said. A significant and noticeable jump in electricity demand from data centers and cryptocurrency mining meant more power plants producing energy. That included plants using coal, which creates more carbon pollution than other fuel sources. A rise in natural gas prices helped create an 13% increase in coal power, which had shrunk by nearly two-thirds since its peak in 2007, King said.
Re: (Score:1)
Found the MAGAtard
So much winning... (Score:2)
Reading about US stories, especially about policy changes and other government actions, reminds me of the "Florida man" stories... "What on earth have they done again?" ...
I love the bit about coal-powered data centers, given the impact of burning coal and the ever-growing need for data centers, that's match made in heaven.
Higher natgas prices? (Score:1)
Why would higher prices on natgas increase carbon dioxide emissions?
Re:Higher natgas prices? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if people chose coal as an alternative, there are only so many scenarios where that would be possible. Customers bound to natgas (particularly consumer-level users, of whom there are many) only have the choice of turning down the heat/using less hot water. In general, higher energy prices means less energy used which means less carbon emitted.
another braindead MAGA over here !! (Score:1)
Re:Higher natgas prices? (Score:4, Insightful)
Profits > somewhere healthy to live. One of the many "Fsck you, I've got mine!" mantras of unfettered capitalism - it's almost like they're trying to come up with their own version of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition...
Re: (Score:2)
Because it becomes more cost effective to use less environmentally-friendly alternatives that produce more CO2, like coal, instead of natgas.
Profits > somewhere healthy to live. One of the many "Fsck you, I've got mine!" mantras of unfettered capitalism.
Most utilities in the US are tightly regulated, especially with respect to price. When the retail prices are fixed by regulation and the cost of production goes up, they have to do something to avoid losing money. In a truly market-based, capitalist, system, they could pass the question on to consumers, offering them the choice of different power source mixes, with the consequences that choosing a greener mix might cost more. Some utilities actually have permission from the regulators to do this, and off
Natural monopoly [Re:Higher natgas prices?] (Score:4, Insightful)
Most utilities in the US are tightly regulated, especially with respect to price. When the retail prices are fixed by regulation and the cost of production goes up, they have to do something to avoid losing money. In a truly market-based, capitalist, system, they could pass the question on to consumers, offering them the choice of different power source mixes, with the consequences that choosing a greener mix might cost more.
Nope. Utilities are what's known in economics as a "natural monopoly"-- the distributor has complete control. In a free market, why would they offer the consumer a choice of power sources? The consumer is not going to build their own set of power lines to some other distributor if they don't like their choices. In an unregulated free market, the electric distributor would buy from the cheapest source, sell at the highest price, and profit from the difference.
Some utilities actually have permission from the regulators to do this,
More specifically, some utilities are required by law to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Utilities are what's known in economics as a "natural monopoly"-- the distributor has complete control. In a free market, why would they offer the consumer a choice of power sources?
It doesn't have to be that way. In Pennsylvania and Ohio they've deregulated natural gas and made it competitive, in exactly the same way that many areas have done for Internet: The only "natural monopoly" part is the last mile, so that's government-owned and operated, and consumers have a choice of suppliers. The same can also work for electrical power. "Natural" monopolies are nothing of the sort.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Utilities are what's known in economics as a "natural monopoly"-- the distributor has complete control. In a free market, why would they offer the consumer a choice of power sources?
It doesn't have to be that way. In Pennsylvania and Ohio they've deregulated natural gas
Incorrect. In Ohio, natural gas is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). It is not deregulated. Many people use the word "deregulation" to mean "regulations that required the distributors to be open to multiple providers," but this is achieved by regulation.
and made it competitive,
Let me rewrite that sentence to make it accurate: In Ohio, they've regulated natural gas to make it competitive. Specifically, they mandated that supplying gas to the distribution system be decoupled from distributing the natural g
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know but I'd guess that it makes other CO2 intensive generation more attractive.
Ultimately, the majority of fossil fuel generation is doomed, renewables are now comfortably cheaper by pretty much any metric unless you put a very high value on 100% availability.
For a long while the west will probably need a rump of fossil generation because our entire system is built around 100% reliable grid power at any load. It will likely be the developing world that will get there first as they don't already hav
Re: (Score:2)
Same for California, and Germany I think?
Re: (Score:3)
The USA actually had an increase in the price of natural gas due to Russia invading Ukraine, which caused the embargo on Russian oil and natural gas, so a lot of the oil and natural gas produced in the USA is now going to Europe when previously it would have stayed in the USA. But, we have Moscow Mitch McConnell who WANTS coal to be used, because his third world state is a coal producer, and we have Trump who is against anything that might produce clean energy because his demented mind thinks that it's ba
Re: (Score:1)
TVA service area. Consumer electrical prices remain low.
Re:Higher natgas prices? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm still waiting on actual price comparisons between natgas and solar/wind + storage.
Translation: “I’m still waiting for someone else to do 30 seconds of googling for me.” Lazard (a finance firm, not a Greenpeace pamphlet press) publishes an annual LCOE+ benchmark. Unsubsidized $/MWh ranges for new-build generation in their 2025 report:
Utility solar: $38–$78
Onshore wind: $37–$86
Utility solar + storage: $50–$131
Onshore wind + storage: $44–$123
Gas combined cycle: $48–$109
Coal: $71–$173
Gas peaker: $149–$251
The “price comparison” you claim to be waiting on exists, is mainstream, and it directly contradicts the narrative you are trying to tee up. The data is more than enough to dismantle any claim that renewables are inherently the expensive option. Pretending this data doesn’t exist is a distraction tactic, allowing the discussion to float in vibes where “renewables feel expensive” hide the real story, which is pretty simple: When gas gets expensive, coal looks good in the short term. But In the economic (and ecological) long run, renewables win, and all fossil fuels lose.
Seems like every market that fully embraces renewables experiences high electrical prices despite continued assurances that renewables are cheap.
This is a classic fossil fuel industry bait-and-switch: conflating generation cost with retail billing, then blaming renewables for everything from transmission buildout to legacy regulatory failures. The story we’re discussing is that 2025 U.S. emissions went up. Why they went up is exactly what your request for cost data attempts to obfuscate. The answer is right there in the Rhodium report:
Emissions: +2.4%
Coal generation: +13%
Henry Hub natgas prices: +58% (a key driver of coal coming back onto the margin)
Solar: +34% (zero-emitting sources hit 42% of the grid)
The actual 2025 lesson is clear: when gas gets pricey, the system backslides to coal—causing emissions to jump—unless we build enough clean capacity to absorb the demand. That isn't "renewables making electricity expensive." That is fossil volatility and dispatch economics yet again biting us in the ass. Attempting to drag this thread into a mushy debate about high utility prices in renewable states ignores the hard data in the articles. Fossil fuel generation is a price-volatility machine that defaults to coal when the gas market sneezes. If you want to argue system costs, start a thread about system costs. But using that complexity to hand-wave away a massive spike in coal emissions is transparently dishonest.
Re: (Score:1)
Gas combined cycle is still beating nearly everyone (solar/wind without storage "doesn't count" since it requires expensive peaker plants for support).
Also that is bulk power generation. Show me the cheapest commercial and consumer rates and then show me the power breakdown for them. Hint: it's combined natgas and hydroelectric with some coal.
Re: (Score:2)
Gas combined cycle is still beating nearly everyone (solar/wind without storage "doesn't count" since it requires expensive peaker plants for support).
Well, good luck expanding electricity supply with that option. Last I heard, the lead time [brave.com] on new gas turbines is 5-7 years. Solar and batteries can go from green field to exporting power in ~1 year.
Re: (Score:2)
Gas combined cycle is still beating nearly everyone
"Beating nearly everyone" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Lazard’s unsubsidized new-build ranges have gas combined-cycle at $48–$109/MWh. Utility solar is $38–$78. Onshore wind is $37–$86. Those ranges overlap significantly, and in many markets wind/solar are simply cheaper. You cannot claim gas is beating nearly everyone while ignoring the half of the chart where it plainly isn't.
(solar/wind without storage "doesn't count" since it requires expensive peaker plants for support).
Peakers existed long before modern renewables. They exist because demand peaks due to
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting on actual price comparisons between natgas and solar/wind + storage.
That is very location dependent.
Seems like every market that fully embraces renewables experiences high electrical prices despite continued assurances that renewables are cheap.
That is very location dependent.
Disgusting, simply disgusting (Score:3, Insightful)
But I don't think they will be.
YOU ARE VOTING FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE DELIBERATELY FUCKING UP THE PLANET WE ALL LIVE ON.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
I'm not sure that even starting a war with Europe will be enough to get rid of Trump.
Re:Disgusting, simply disgusting (Score:4, Informative)
Hmm why would anyone blame Trump for going all in on coal making the problem worse...I guess we'll never know.
Remind us all again which team is trying to ban windmills?
Re:Disgusting, simply disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly don't think Trump's policy has much to do with it at all. The big drop from 2005-20[12][1-4] has everything to do with around 1998 being when people started taking carbon reduction seriously. That period saw a lot of the low hanging fruit and low costs to address emissions sources handled. You continue to see improvements in the 2020-2024 range due to massive economic contraction related to covid policy.
Nobody wants to pollute, generally speaking more carbon emissions means more energy from no
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Trump administration doesn't agree with you. They are forcing old, outdated, or broken coal plants to stay open, seemingly to please the coal industry: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Half the summary explains this was entirely a Biden era event caused by weather.
Er, it was not a "Biden era" event, it was a Trump era event... caused by weather. Other than three weeks at the beginning, Trump was president in 2025.
You blame Republicans.
Yep, that was wrong. And you turned around and did the same damned thing in the other direction!
If you're going to criticize the intellectual integrity of others, don't do it by immediately demonstrating your own lack of the same.
Re: (Score:2)
I am dumber than dumb but still smarter than 99% of the people posting and modding here.
Gotta love it when dumb people insist it's everyone else who's the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
You called yourself dumb so it's hardly an attack. I'm just running with what you said.
Meanwhile I very clearly had a point to make, people blaming everyone else for being the problem are likely too dim or full of themselves to grasp that they are the problem.
Datacenters. (Score:3)
Forced to stay open (Score:5, Informative)
Grand success for the stable genius (Score:2)
Shocking! (Score:3)
Who knew that kneecapping the EPA would lead to more pollution? That gay woke agency created by (checks notes) Richard Nixon?
Y\ou're Welcome (Score:1)
Great. We're staving off he Coming Ice Age. Dear Everyone: You're Welcome.
Oh, "warming'? With an 1850 (Very COLD time) as baseline.... sheesh!
If you want BS predictions, ask a "climate scientist."
If you have even a shadow of a clue, you're talking with solar physicists.
Re: (Score:2)
Great. We're staving off he Coming Ice Age. Dear Everyone: You're Welcome.
Absent global warming, the next glacial advance would have been expected in roughly 10,000 years. Probably not worth a lot of effort to push this off, but, yes, it's true that glacial advances would be worse for humans overall than warming.
pollution (Score:2)
CO_2 is not pollution. Also, it is not carbon. Soot is pollution. Some soot actually is carbon. Other random organic compounds are pollution. Methane might or might not be pollution. Diamonds are carbon.