> My argument is the whole idea of "take it slow" would've been fine 2 decades ago. We past that point. We need drastic changes on the level of WW2 now.

I think you are mistaking my comment. It wasn't meant as we are doing enough. Only that we are not "just" adding more energy ontop of old fossil fuel burning. There is change going on and denying that won't help you to figure out, what needs to be done, and what has to be sped up to help the transitioning effectively.

>We can't afford to do this slowly anymore.

I agree with that, and I certainly didn't want to imply otherwise.

>None of that matters since emmisions literally hit record highs last year.

Yet, this is a kind of bad conclusion from that urgency. Exactly because of this urgency it is important to register the changes we do make, and observe what works. It most certainly does matter what progress we make. This is not changed by the fact that it took us too long, or that it is a only a slow turning around so far. I think there is a good chance that we do peak emissions this year, and we need to speed up the efforts to reduce them quicker.

> Right now it looks like it's just adding more power on top of traditional carbon emitting sources.

Here is what the IEA observes on 2022:

>In a year marked by energy price shocks, rising inflation, and disruptions to traditional fuel trade flows, global growth in emissions was lower than feared, despite gas-to-coal switching in many countries. Increased deployment of clean energy technologies such as renewables, electric vehicles, and heat pumps helped prevent an additional 550 Mt in CO2 emissions. Industrial production curtailment, particularly in China and Europe, also averted additional emissions.

Or in other words: we are not "just" adding power on top of traditional carbon emitting sources. Rather, the deployment of low-carbon sources has reached a point, where we are very close to a balancing point at which those low-carbon additions cover the increment in global energy consumption completely.

More observations from the IEA:

>A strong expansion of renewables limited the rebound in coal power emissions. Renewables met 90% of last year’s global growth in electricity generation. Solar PV and wind generation each increased by around 275 TWh, a new annual record.

>China’s emissions were relatively flat in 2022, declining by 23 Mt or 0.2%.

>The European Union saw a 2.5% or 70 Mt reduction in CO2 emissions despite oil and gas market disruptions, hydro shortfalls due to drought, and numerous nuclear plants going offline.

>US emissions grew by 0.8% or 36 Mt. The buildings sector saw the highest emissions growth, driven by extreme temperatures. The main emissions reductions came from electricity and heat generation, thanks to unprecedented increases in solar PV and wind, as well as coal-to-gas switching. While many other countries reduced their natural gas use, the United States saw an increase of 89 Mt in CO2 emissions from gas, as it was called upon to meet peak electricity demand during summer heat waves.

>Emissions from Asia’s emerging market and developing economies, excluding China, grew more than those from any other region in 2022, increasing by 4.2% or 206 Mt CO2.

>Germany is back to burning coal at record pace.

That's just not true, though?

Record coal burning for electricity after 2000 in Germany was at 305.63 TWh in 2003. In 2022 it was at 181 TWh, doesn't look like a record to me.

>EU exceeding the 2030 target might be and understatement since they're going backwards

In what respect? Emissions seem to trend downwards?