Jean-Baptist Fresso was also recently the focus of a Wallace-Wells piece (April 30th).
He wrote:
"Each year, it seems, we get predictions of an imminent emissions peak, and each year we watch emissions grow higher. Particular countries continue their downward slopes, but not globally. In the absence of concerted climate-focused policy.
"Cheap renewable energy and booming demand IS a recipe for adding green energy without retiring the dirty stuff, letting emissions climb as the rollout of renewables continues."
"It is, not a project of energy transition but, one of energy addition."
"This is the central contention of “More and More and More: An All-Consuming History of Energy,” by the French historian Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, forthcoming this fall in the United States. For all the hopeful talk of an energy transition, Fressoz argues, the world has never really experienced one, and certainly isn’t now."
“After two centuries of ‘energy transitions,’ humanity has never burned so much oil and gas, so much coal and so much wood. It’s not just that we haven’t moved on from oil, we haven’t even moved on from trees."
“Today, around two billion cubic meters of wood are felled each year to be burned, three times more than a century ago.”
Fressoz writes:
"Faced with the climate crisis, we can no longer be satisfied with a transition to renewable energy sources. A ‘transition’ toward renewables that would see fossil fuels diminish in relative terms but stagnate in terms of tons would solve nothing.”
"Instead of a transition, we need an energy “amputation"."
“To get rid, in four decades, of the proportion of the world’s energy — more than three-quarters — derived from fossil fuels. To think that we can draw some useful analogies from history dramatically underestimates the novelty and scale of the climate challenge.”
-----------
To NOT see the NECESSITY of this, is to NOT UNDERSTAND the Climate Crisis.
How about green H2? Given the state of development there, I doubt stating renewables implicitly requiring fossil fuels due to them consisting of steel feels like a shortsighted lie to me. But let‘s wait for more studies opposing those studies mentioned here so that others can present studies opposing those rather than focusing on the transition itself which we could control in a way that is considering all those insights and observations made here so that degrowth becomes a part of it as well as attempts to artificially make consumption of CO2 emitting energy sources more expensive every year. I heard lf people even opposing to the statement that there isn‘t enough minerals in the world to build up all the new energy sources as rare earth elements for example aren‘t in fact that rare. So now what? Eventually presenting a simple solution - degrowth - to a problem that has been described as covertly complex feels odd in a rhetoric sense, too.
Green hydrogen has been failing globally. Projects are decreasing not increasing.
Its bizarre that degrowth is seen with scepticism. We are facing an incredible crisis. Rather than just slowing down and being responsible adults, drastically reducing our activity and focussing on fixing agricultural emissions while consuming far less - things, travel etc, we are choosing to go full speed ahead. BUT DEGROWTH is the thing you are meeting with scepticism? The thing we should be sceptical about is continuing our actions which we KNOW are pushing us over the cliff.
I doubt green hydrogen is a thing that has failed already. It might nnot be something we trade globally, but given all the wind turbines surrounding my home place H2 can be a solution to locally store overproductions in the summer for the winter when there is a lot less sunshine and wind combined.
Apart from that, I don‘t reject degrowth as vital part of any solution. Quite the opposite, as I was pointing out that actually starting to honour or even enforce degrowth as well as making CO2 emissions for each and every one more expensive is more beneficial than staying in the phase of discussing if we trick ourselves into believing that transitioning towards renewable energies does not require more fossil energy just because it has happened the last time when Great Britain with a much smaller population has moved from wood to coal as its primary source of energy.
I just happen to be reading Alice Friedemann's "68 Reasons why wind turbines cannot replace fossil fuels." Anyone who still thinks large scale industrial wind is a viable energy option for powering this civilization after reading this incredibly exhaustive piece needs to get professional help for their hopium addiction.
Jean-Baptist Fresso was also recently the focus of a Wallace-Wells piece (April 30th).
He wrote:
"Each year, it seems, we get predictions of an imminent emissions peak, and each year we watch emissions grow higher. Particular countries continue their downward slopes, but not globally. In the absence of concerted climate-focused policy.
"Cheap renewable energy and booming demand IS a recipe for adding green energy without retiring the dirty stuff, letting emissions climb as the rollout of renewables continues."
"It is, not a project of energy transition but, one of energy addition."
"This is the central contention of “More and More and More: An All-Consuming History of Energy,” by the French historian Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, forthcoming this fall in the United States. For all the hopeful talk of an energy transition, Fressoz argues, the world has never really experienced one, and certainly isn’t now."
“After two centuries of ‘energy transitions,’ humanity has never burned so much oil and gas, so much coal and so much wood. It’s not just that we haven’t moved on from oil, we haven’t even moved on from trees."
“Today, around two billion cubic meters of wood are felled each year to be burned, three times more than a century ago.”
Fressoz writes:
"Faced with the climate crisis, we can no longer be satisfied with a transition to renewable energy sources. A ‘transition’ toward renewables that would see fossil fuels diminish in relative terms but stagnate in terms of tons would solve nothing.”
"Instead of a transition, we need an energy “amputation"."
“To get rid, in four decades, of the proportion of the world’s energy — more than three-quarters — derived from fossil fuels. To think that we can draw some useful analogies from history dramatically underestimates the novelty and scale of the climate challenge.”
-----------
To NOT see the NECESSITY of this, is to NOT UNDERSTAND the Climate Crisis.
How about green H2? Given the state of development there, I doubt stating renewables implicitly requiring fossil fuels due to them consisting of steel feels like a shortsighted lie to me. But let‘s wait for more studies opposing those studies mentioned here so that others can present studies opposing those rather than focusing on the transition itself which we could control in a way that is considering all those insights and observations made here so that degrowth becomes a part of it as well as attempts to artificially make consumption of CO2 emitting energy sources more expensive every year. I heard lf people even opposing to the statement that there isn‘t enough minerals in the world to build up all the new energy sources as rare earth elements for example aren‘t in fact that rare. So now what? Eventually presenting a simple solution - degrowth - to a problem that has been described as covertly complex feels odd in a rhetoric sense, too.
Green hydrogen has been failing globally. Projects are decreasing not increasing.
Its bizarre that degrowth is seen with scepticism. We are facing an incredible crisis. Rather than just slowing down and being responsible adults, drastically reducing our activity and focussing on fixing agricultural emissions while consuming far less - things, travel etc, we are choosing to go full speed ahead. BUT DEGROWTH is the thing you are meeting with scepticism? The thing we should be sceptical about is continuing our actions which we KNOW are pushing us over the cliff.
I doubt green hydrogen is a thing that has failed already. It might nnot be something we trade globally, but given all the wind turbines surrounding my home place H2 can be a solution to locally store overproductions in the summer for the winter when there is a lot less sunshine and wind combined.
Apart from that, I don‘t reject degrowth as vital part of any solution. Quite the opposite, as I was pointing out that actually starting to honour or even enforce degrowth as well as making CO2 emissions for each and every one more expensive is more beneficial than staying in the phase of discussing if we trick ourselves into believing that transitioning towards renewable energies does not require more fossil energy just because it has happened the last time when Great Britain with a much smaller population has moved from wood to coal as its primary source of energy.
I just happen to be reading Alice Friedemann's "68 Reasons why wind turbines cannot replace fossil fuels." Anyone who still thinks large scale industrial wind is a viable energy option for powering this civilization after reading this incredibly exhaustive piece needs to get professional help for their hopium addiction.
https://energyskeptic.com/2024/wind/