CLIMATE

“No” to a “Green Energy Transition” — “Yes” to an “Energy Reduction Transition”

Sustaining life not lifestyles

Mojave Desert collage from my photo collection: Clockwise from top left, Sphinx Moth. wind farm, solar farm, Desert Tortoise

Once upon a time — but not so long ago — environmentalism was about protecting natural places and the flora and fauna who make those places their homes. But over the last decade, the scope of institutional environmentalism has been reduced to the issue climate change, and in turn the focus of climate change has been narrowed to carbon emissions. (The “other leg” of climate change is land use; see Rob Lewis’ three-part series on Substack, here, here and here.) Only in a world where carbon emissions are the sole environmental issue does the “green energy transition” pitch make any sense.

The pitch makes a big promise: Industrialized civilization can be sustained by swapping out fossil fuels for renewable energies like solar, wind, hydro and geothermal (with some tacking nuclear onto that list). The ubiquitous adjective “sustainable” has quietly shifted from being about sustaining ecosystems to sustaining human systems. We could call this pitch the “green energy transition media narrative.” Like all media narratives, it’s comprised of a mix of information, misinformation and disinformation; in other words: facts, inaccuracies, and lies. Mostly the last two, I daresay, because the narrative is…