Given the ‘outcomes’ of various recent fiascos, the knock-on effects of re-centering global power point to less nationalism and more skepticism about tentative efforts to affect an energy transition.
The transition required is not one of energy but of consumption:
The energy transition is a slogan but no scientific concept. It derives its legitimacy from a false representation of history. Industrial revolutions are certainly not energy transitions, they are a massive expansion of all kinds of raw materials and energy sources.
Moreover, the word energy transition has its main origins in political debates in the 1970s following the oil crisis. But in these, it was not about the environment or climate, but only about energy autonomy or independence from other countries.
Scientifically, it is a scandal to then apply this concept to the much more complex climate problem. So when we seek solutions to the climate crisis and want to reduce CO2 emissions, it is better not to talk about a transition. It is better to look at the development of raw materials in absolute terms and to understand their intertwinedness. This will also restrain us from overestimating the importance of technology and innovation .
Informative thinking from historian Jean-Baptiste Fressoz. In a technologically-obsessed culture, of course we focus on tech solutions. But there is no end-run around our consumptive habits and pre-supposing how we maintain those and reduce anything is simply scientism vs science. Unpacking useful vs. useless CO2 emissions, for example, opens a breach in the dimensional barrier between wishful thinking and effective action. Absolute reductions in material and energy use are inevitable; better that we unite around joys and common interests than shared crises. Consumption junction, what’s your function?
Difficult political messaging inquiries welcome.