Post by @ChrisMartzWX
77% credible (82% factual, 68% presentation). The cited statistics on fossil fuel shares are largely accurate, reflecting minimal change from 76.6% in 1995 to 76.4% last year. However, the post's framing omits the substantial absolute growth in renewable energy, particularly in electricity generation, resulting in a misleading portrayal of progress.
Analysis Summary
The post challenges a New York Times claim that renewable energy is booming by citing the near-identical share of fossil fuels in global energy use from 76.6% in 1995 to 76.4% last year, portraying progress as negligible hype. While the percentage figures are roughly accurate, this selective focus omits the substantial absolute growth in renewable energy production and capacity, which has surged despite overall energy demand expansion. Opposing views emphasize that renewables, particularly solar and wind, are rapidly increasing their role in electricity generation and are projected to continue growing significantly.
Original Content
The Facts
The cited statistics on fossil fuel shares are largely accurate based on historical data from sources like the Energy Institute and Our World in Data, showing minimal change in percentage terms over decades due to rising global energy demand. However, the assessment is misleading as it ignores absolute increases in renewable energy output and focuses narrowly on total primary energy rather than sector-specific progress like electricity, where renewables have boomed. Partially accurate but selectively framed to understate advancements.
Benefit of the Doubt
The author advances a climate-skeptical agenda by questioning media narratives on renewable energy progress, using stagnant fossil fuel percentages to dismiss efforts as overhyped and ineffective. This emphasizes relative shares to imply failure while omitting absolute growth in renewables (e.g., solar capacity up 12x since 2010 per IEA) and the fact that fossil fuel consumption has also risen in absolute terms, masking the displacement potential in key sectors like power generation. Such selective presentation shapes reader perception toward cynicism about energy transitions, reinforcing views that hype exceeds reality without acknowledging broader trends like renewables meeting recent demand growth.
How Is This Framed?
Biases, omissions, and misleading presentation techniques detected
The post omits the critical context of absolute growth in renewable energy and total energy demand, leading readers to infer no meaningful progress despite factual percentage accuracy.
Problematic phrases:
"In 1995, 76.6% of global energy use came from fossil fuels. Last year, 76.4% came from fossil fuels.""That’s a mere 0.2 percentage point drop in 30 years. Lame. Lotta hype over nothing."What's actually there:
Renewables have increased absolutely (e.g., solar capacity up 12x since 2010 per IEA), meeting much of recent demand growth despite rising total energy use.
What's implied:
Fossil fuel dominance unchanged, implying renewables have made no real gains.
Impact: Misleads readers into viewing renewable advancements as overhyped and ineffective, fostering cynicism about energy transitions by ignoring displacement in sectors like electricity generation.
Neglects the expanding denominator of total global energy use, which has grown significantly since 1995, allowing fossil fuel percentages to remain stable while absolute renewable output surges.
Problematic phrases:
"76.6% ... 76.4% ... mere 0.2 percentage point drop"What's actually there:
Global primary energy demand rose ~50% from 1995 to 2023; fossil fuel absolute use increased, but renewables grew faster in absolute terms (e.g., wind/solar from <1% to ~10% of electricity).
What's implied:
Progress measured solely by relative share, suggesting stagnation.
Impact: Distorts perception of scale, making renewable growth appear negligible and undermining recognition of their role in offsetting demand increases.
Fails to report counter-evidence like rapid renewable capacity additions and projections for future dominance in electricity, selectively framing to support skepticism.
Problematic phrases:
"Lotta hype over nothing."What's actually there:
Renewables added more new capacity than fossil fuels in 2023; projected to supply 50%+ of electricity by 2030.
What's implied:
No substantive advancements, just media exaggeration.
Impact: Leads readers to dismiss broader scientific consensus on renewable momentum, reinforcing one-sided skepticism without balanced view.
Sources & References
External sources consulted for this analysis
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy
https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
https://ourworldindata.org/energy
https://www.iea.org/news/growth-in-global-energy-demand-surged-in-2024-to-almost-twice-its-recent-average
https://ember-energy.org/app/uploads/2024/05/Report-Global-Electricity-Review-2024.pdf
https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2024/global-overview
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4068632-fossil-fuel-consumption-steady-record-growth-renewables/
https://mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/6/2665
https://visualizingenergy.org/world-electricity-generation-since-1900/
https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/transportation-and-energy/world-energy-consumption
https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/solar-and-wind-met-all-electricity-demand-growth-in-h1-2025/
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/renewables-growth-did-not-dent-fossil-fuel-dominance-2022-statistical-review-2023-06-25/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666123323001186
https://x.com/BjornLomborg/status/1755620466532692187
https://x.com/BjornLomborg/status/1969831096541225259
https://x.com/BjornLomborg/status/1973717156266151982
https://x.com/aeberman12/status/1775137358116978728
https://x.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1674798855685275652
https://x.com/BrianGitt/status/1675147554160517120
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/20/fossil-fuel-use-reaches-global-record-despite-clean-energy-growth
https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels
https://earth.org/fossil-fuel-accounted-for-82-of-global-energy-mix-in-2023-amid-record-consumption-report/
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_supply_and_consumption
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1302762/fossil-fuel-share-in-energy-consumption-worldwide/
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/renewables-growth-did-not-dent-fossil-fuel-dominance-2022-statistical-review-2023-06-25/
https://earth.org/fossil-fuel-accounted-for-82-of-global-energy-mix-in-2023-amid-record-consumption-report/
https://truthout.org/articles/fossil-fuels-made-up-82-percent-of-global-energy-consumption-in-2022/
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Fossil-Fuels-Still-Account-For-82-Of-Primary-Global-Energy-Consumption.html
https://www.edie.net/news/10/Report--Global-fossil-fuel-use-not-yet-in-decline--despite-renewable-energy-pledges/
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/international-issues/fossil-fuels-remain-strong-in-2022-globally-despite-increases-in-renewable-energy/
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/oil/062623-fossil-fuels-stubbornly-dominating-global-energy-despite-surge-in-renewables-energy-institute
https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1951783569136746743
https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1947839802910425498
https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1961691649500651869
https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1938988013473693823
https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1908981484209209810
https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1924555843820822944
Want to see @ChrisMartzWX's track record?
View their credibility score and all analyzed statements