Article de Tanguy Larcher (MS EnvIM 2023-24)

In « Sans transition », the energy historian criticizes the notion of energy transition, which would minimize the difficulty of quickly escaping fossil fuels. Even if it means being accused of being a fatalist. On the contrary, some scientists like Hannah Ritchie prefer to stay optimist and spread a message of hope regarding the various crises we face.

Introduction

In the first half of his book “Sans Transition”, the academic Jean-Baptiste Fressoz retraces the history of energy by rejecting, like many researchers before him, a “phasist” representation in which an “age of oil” would have succeeded an “age of coal”, which would have succeeded an “age of wood”.

Far from succeeding one another, these energy sources have actually piled up throughout history: renewable energies have not eliminated oil, which has not eliminated coal, which has not eliminated wood. A reality hidden by representations of relative values of energy consumption: the world has never burned as much coal as today, even if its relative share in the energy mix is declining.

In addition, emerging energies such as coal or oil use and amplify the use of previous energies. They are in “symbiosis”: the wood makes it possible to strengthen the framework of coal mines, to make railway tracks, thus increasing their production tenfold.

The same goes for oil, which requires wood to build the derricks that pump black gold. Whereas with a graph in absolute value of the use of different energies at the global level, we can therefore verify that there has been no “transition” and that the world has continued to consume more and more wood, coal, oil and gas. The “transition” that the governments of the different countries of the world would sell to us has never been done in the past,

The notion of energy transition is recent

According to history, the concept of energy transition emerged at the beginning of the 20th century in the interwar period. It would have been invented by futurists to defend their interests.

Firstly, by US technocrats who thought that hydroelectricity would replace fossil fuels (the water cycle being unlimited unlike fossil resources).
Then, still according to Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, certain pro-nuclear Malthusian engineers made mention of energy transition to praise the merits of the atom, that nuclear energy would succeed in getting rid of coal and oil.

Finally, the various oil crises as well as the question of the climate crisis are bringing this concept into common discourse and the world is starting to talk about the future energy transition. It “becomes trivialized and becomes a discursive layer encompassing all possible futures,” notes Jean-Baptiste Fressoz. It is used and promoted by different movements, whether the defenders of the atom or the supporters of renewable energies, and even by the oil and gas lobbies for “energy sovereignty”.

For the historian, the idea that an exit from fossils could be achieved painlessly in half a century was facilitated by the work of economists who greatly overestimated technical progress, such as William Nordhaus¹. Likewise, according to the author, the IPCC reports
present “increasingly unrealistic scenarios for reducing emissions, with steep slopes” and which mobilize CO₂ capture and storage technologies far from having done so. their evidence.

Some opponents in France

Robin Girard, teacher-researcher at Mines Paris-PSL and also contributor to Alternatives Économiques, formulates some criticism upon Jean-Baptiste Fressoz synthesis about energy transition. On his blog, he salutes “[the] historical work [of Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, who] convincingly demonstrates that for thirty years, the industry has continued to announce a transition without it never actually achieved what we are starting today.”

Robin Girard also believes that the book is too skeptical about the benefits of certain technologies. To decarbonize all steel production using green hydrogen, the equivalent of the electricity production of the United States would be required, writes Jean-Baptiste Fressoz,
for example. It’s true, answers Robin Girard, but he qualifies :

“Steel today represents (…) almost 10% of global emissions and its production requires a quarter of the coal consumed in the world. (…) In contrast, the 4,000 terawatt hours [of electricity] that it would take each year to make steel with hydrogen represent less than 10% of global low-carbon electricity production in 2050.”

It will certainly take recycling and sobriety, he adds, but the objective is not unattainable. A confrontation of semantics, of vision If the debate between Jean-Baptiste Fressoz and his opponents revolves around the relationship between technology and sufficiency, the essential point is probably not there.

The point that opposes them is rather that of the discourse to be given. Faced with progress in decarbonization, real but insufficient to meet the international community’s climate objective, should we see the glass half empty or half full ? Two visions oppose each other : those of the Doomists, and that of the Optimists, among these optimists we find in particular Hannah Ritchie, a Scottish data analyst who recently released her book “Not the end of the world”.

In her work she expressly criticizes the doomists and their way of thinking, it would be damaging and would prevent us from acting.
There would be gross exaggerations in their allegations which – in order to make us think and open our eyes on certain subjects – would simply be factually false. In her book, she takes the time to contradict all the catastrophic headlines that we have heard in recent years, and
combine a message of hope on the different issues that are causing us : Climate, biodiversity, pollution, deforestation, agriculture, etc.

“This optimistic message is more than necessary, nowadays it is normal to tell children that they risk dying because of climate change. And then we are surprised at the anxiety of many young people.”

According to its survey² of 10,000 young people, more than ¾ say they are afraid of the future due to climate change and more than half think that humanity is “doomed”. For Hanna Ritchie, their catastrophic vision of the future is nourished by alarmist reports, for example, on forest fires and floods.

“These events make headlines, while there are also many things that are going well, such as the decline in greenhouse gas emissions in rich countries (24% consumption-based reduction of CO2 emission in France between 1992 and 2001³)”

Furthermore, according to her, these “doomsday activities” make scientists look like idiots by making apocalyptic statements that turn out to be false each time. This causes people to lose faith in science and scientists.

Finally, this would paralyze us and prevent us from acting. If we are condemned, what is the point of acting ? All motivation is thus lost.
Regarding climate change Like Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, Hannah Ritchie explains that the rise of fossil fuels is at the origin of this climate crisis, they have given us electricity, fuel for our means of transport, heating, etc.

“The rise of China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and South Africa has been a human triumph.This has alleviated enormous amounts of poverty and suffering. But it was fueled by fossil fuels and added hundreds of billions of tons of CO₂ to the atmosphere.”

However, rich countries have begun their transition and reduced their CO₂ emissions. Emissions reported per person are converging. Even better : per capita emissions reached their peak in 2012 at 4.5t/person/year. According to her, the total peak emissions should be achieved shortly.

Even if at the global level the transition has not yet taken place, it is nevertheless well underway in rich countries. For example, in the UK which has seen its GDP per capita increased by 50% since 1990 while at the same time reducing its territorial emissions by half. If we take into account imported emissions, it has reduced its emissions by a third.

Decoupling is happening in many rich countries like Germany, France, Sweden, etc. While Jean-Baptiste Fressoz claims that we must cut a large part of our economy to achieve the transition, Hannah Ritchie shows us that it is possible to kill two birds with one stone.

Some experts like Vaclav Smil⁴ -recognized for his work on energy and transitions- and Jean-Baptiste Fressoz are very pessimistic about the next energy transition, because in the past they have all been very slow. Remaking energy systems and shifting from one source to another, whether it was from wood to coal or coal to oil, happened over many decades, if not longer. And coal, oil and gas were just so much cheaper than solar or wind, especially with large fossil fuel subsidies.

But it’s simply different today :

“In just a decade, solar photovoltaic and wind energy have gone from the most to the least expensive. The price of electricity from solar has declined by 89%, and the price of onshore wind has declined by 70%. They are now cheaper than coal.
Leaders no longer have to make the difficult choice between climate action and providing energy for their people. The low-carbon choice has suddenly become the economic one. It’s staggering how quickly this change has happened.”

This would make the energy transition a lot quicker that those who occurred in the past (if they occurred as such).

Conclusion

The future of our planet, as discussed through the lenses of both doomists and optimists, presents a clear contrast. The doomists, represented by figures like Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, emphasize the challenges and historical inertia that complicate transitions away from fossil fuels. Their perspective warns of the risks of overestimating technological progress and overselling the feasibility of rapid change. On the other hand, optimists like Hannah Ritchie focus on progress and potential, advocating for a hopeful narrative to inspire action and counteract despair.

While the doomists highlight the immense complexity of restructuring energy systems and the slow pace of past transitions, optimists point to unprecedented advancements, such as the dramatic drop in costs for solar and wind energy, and the decoupling of economic growth from emissions in wealthy nations. Both views hold valuable truths: history reminds us of the magnitude of the task, while recent technological breakthroughs offer genuine reasons for hope.

The truth may lie between these extremes. Acknowledging the difficulty of achieving a sustainable future can temper unrealistic expectations and avoid complacency. At the same time, celebrating achievements and envisioning realistic pathways forward can inspire collective action. Balancing caution with optimism might be the most pragmatic way to navigate the challenges ahead, fostering both vigilance and hope.

–

Bibliography

¹An Optimal Transition Path for Controlling Greenhouse Gases, William D. Nordhaus, 1992
²How the World Really Works: A Scientist’s Guide to Our Past, Present and Future, Vaclav Smil, 2022
³https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
⁴Not the end of the world, Hannah Ritchie, 2024

Sans transition – Jean-Baptiste Fressoz
Not the end of the world – Hannah Ritchie
How the World Really Works : A Scientist’s Guide to Our Past, Present and Future – Vaclav Smil
“No panic, nous pouvons résoudre la crise climatique” | L’Echo, Hannah Ritchie, data scientist
« La transition énergétique n’aura pas lieu » : pourquoi le livre de Jean-Baptiste Fressoz fait débat | Alternatives Economiques