Post

Using more renewable energies does not lower emissions or pollution. A thread:

Historian Jean-Baptiste Fressoz shows that there has never been and there is not an energy transition, since energies accumulate and stack on top of each other.

mliebreich.substack.com/p/more-and-m... shows the opposite

We agree that renewables are growing faster than energy demand but what follows is fallacy: "As long as this goes on for a decade or two more, then fossil fuels will, by simple arithmetic, be forced into retreat". Graph is in %s, which hides that energy keeps growing, energy sources keep being added

The more we can deliver, the more resources we consume. Rather than transitioning, "what we are doing with renewables, to a lesser extent with electric cars, is that we are reducing the carbon intensity of the economy." — Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, historian

As the primary energy fallacy continued to be ignored, humanity failed to see the transition that was underway. Improvements in efficiency with both active and passive technologies indicate viable paths to decarbonization, and leads to reduced resource use per person. bsky.app/profile/xoii...

Indeed "total primary energy demand can actually go down" and we have viable paths to decarbonization. We can do it! Will we head to reduced resource use per person is another, unsettled, matter.