[epistasis]

Google AI is not really useful, but going to an actual reliable source from that such as California's emissions inventory:

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-graphs

The graphs seem to contradict those in the article, as the article has a huge annual variability not shown in the government data, and also the article does not show the decline in the "Electric Power" sector that's shown so clearly in the CA government data.

I also would not agree with the article's assessment that Texas is a "disaster" based on the same sort of plot. Serving the needs of ever more people, with an ever growing GDP, but keeping emissions constant is a win environmentally.

[sightbroke]

Texas has both less people and lower GDP than California yet emits more. How is that not a bit of a disaster?

[epistasis]

Well, the status is a disaster but it's an ever decreasing disaster, and when evaluating "do lots of renewables help?" I think it makes more sense to look at the direction of where the puck is going rather than where it started from before the renewables were added. (And one note, Texas' power sector emissions also include lots of "extra" emissions from fossil fuel consumption that should be attributed to the downstream consumers of those fossil fuels).

[sightbroke]

> (And one note, Texas' power sector emissions also include lots of "extra" emissions from fossil fuel consumption that should be attributed to the downstream consumers of those fossil fuels).

Are you saying it includes the USE of fossil fuels produced in the State outside of the State OR the emissions related to the production of fossil fuels in the State?

The former does not in my opinion sound accurate while the latter I fail to see changes anything because surely emissions from other industries (steel/construction/etc) are included for the State that they are made in.