The Energy Transition That Couldn T

---

Ideas, and the words we use to frame them, matter. For example, as the Cold War wound down, “the end of history” suggested that the disintegration of Soviet communism would leave liberal democracy and market economies unchallengeable.
That idea took hold among Western policymakers, leading them to believe they could afford to relax. Three decades later, “the end of history,” and the policies that followed from it, appear woefully misguided.
Today, it is “energy transition” that has gained a hold over policymakers. While the term suggests the necessity of shifting from fossil fuels to renewables – a seemingly compelling idea that aligns with climate goals and technological innovation – it inaccurately describes what is happening (and will happen) and has led some governments to adopt costly, counterproductive policies. And it has pitted goals that should be complementary – addressing climate change and promoting energy security – against each other.
To be clear, energy transitions – a move away from one form of energy to another – have occurred throughout history, coinciding with economic changes that created demand for the new energy source.
After the Industrial Revolution began, the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, and the rise of manufacturing economies impelled societies to shift from wood to coal and later to oil and gas.
Support for a transition away from fossil fuels reflects concerns about the actual and predicted costs of climate change and the evidence linking the warming of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans with the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (especially methane) emitted by burning coal, oil, and natural gas.
The goal of the transition is to achieve “net zero” emissions (ideally by 2050) by phasing out fossil fuels and replacing them with renewables, including solar, wind, and nuclear power.
This is not occurring. Nor is “de-fossilisation.” Fossil fuels – oil, gas, and coal – still supply over 80% of global energy. Since 2013, global oil and gas consumption has risen by 14%, owing to a 25% increase in developing economies.
Coal consumption remains indispensable in powering China, India, and other developing countries, and reached record highs in 2023. Renewables, while growing rapidly, are not displacing hydrocarbons, at least for now.
The reason is straightforward: energy demand is increasing at an annual rate of 2-3%, and technological advances like hydraulic fracturing (fracking) have made hydrocarbons cheaper and more abundant.
The US, already the world’s biggest oil producer, will produce even more during Donald Trump’s coming presidency, and growing populations and economies in the Global South will sustain robust demand.
Emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, electrified transport, and hyperscale data centres, are also driving energy demand – which renewables alone cannot reliably meet, reinforcing the role of fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels likewise remain indispensable for energy-intensive industries like aviation, shipping, and heavy manufacturing. Renewables, while effective for electricity generation, struggle to meet these sectors’ needs.
Regulatory considerations and politics have also contributed to foiling the energy transition by slowing the permitting process for both nuclear power and wind. And many countries have not overhauled their tax systems to steer consumers and businesses away from fossil fuels.
With the factors undermining the energy transition unlikely to disappear anytime soon, one option is to ignore the evidence and press ahead. This seems to be the preferred approach of many who gather at the annual United Nations climate-change conferences.
In Dubai in late 2023, attendees issued a final agreement (signed by close to 200 governments) explicitly calling for “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly, and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade”.
Europe has committed to do just that, setting ambitious targets for renewable energy and pricing carbon at levels that made energy and doing business more expensive. The European Green Deal, intended to decouple economic growth from resource use and make Europe the world’s first carbon-neutral continent by 2050, instead contributed to a fall in growth.
The lack of investment in energy also left much of the continent dangerously dependent on Russian gas. In short, the premature embrace of the energy transition weakened economic performance and energy security alike.
As Thomas Kuhn famously argued in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, dominant intellectual frameworks persist until their limitations become undeniable, paving the way for a new paradigm.
The “energy transition” has reached that point. Its absence from the final draft of this year’s global climate conference in Baku is telling. A new paradigm is needed: energy coexistence.
Such a paradigm would accept that energy consumption will continue to rise for the foreseeable future, with fossil fuels and renewables both playing a larger role. It is a question not of either/or, but rather both/and – all of the above and more of all – in order to achieve increased security, resilience, and affordability.
The paradigm of energy coexistence requires targeted investments and policy reforms. Modernising energy grids to accommodate diverse energy sources and increase efficiency is critical, as is scaling carbon-capture and storage technologies to mitigate emissions.
Encouraging the development of renewables through fostering public-private partnerships and easing site restrictions would help. Switching from coal, which causes the highest emissions, to lower-emission gas and renewables should be a high priority as well.
Some will object that energy coexistence is a rejection of much-needed policies to address climate change. But addressing climate change cannot come at the cost of energy sufficiency or security. Nor will it, given the politics.
Building necessary support for tackling climate change is more likely to succeed if the policies are not viewed as hostile to all fossil fuels. A transition from the energy transition would be a good first step. - FMT
Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, is a senior counselor at Centerview Partners and a distinguished university scholar at New York University. Carolyn Kissane is associate dean and clinical professor at the New York University School of Professional Studies, Center for Global Affairs and founding director of the Energy, Climate, and Sustainability Lab at NYU.
The views expressed are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT

---