Addressing a Counterproductive Dichotomy in the Energy Transition Debate

Abstract

There appears to be growing polarization in a large swath of the recent scientific literature on the renewable energy transition, where two opposed “camps” may be identified, i.e. that of the “systemic pessimists”, who champion the broad concepts of carrying capacity and the limits to growth, but often harbour what appears to be pre-conceived scepticism towards renewable energies, and that of the “technological optimists”, who instead typically focus more narrowly on the immediate goal of phasing out fossil fuels, and see great potential for renewable energies to achieve that, but often fail to address other issues of ultimate planetary limits. It is argued here that this is a false dichotomy that is damaging to the reputation of both “camps”, and which risks devaluing and trivializing the most important question of all, namely how to achieve long-term sustainability. This paper calls for the rekindling of a more constructive debate that starts from the recognition that both sets of core arguments (respectively, those centred on the limits to growth and those pointing to the viability of renewable energies) are often simultaneously true, and which moves the goalposts further, to establish to which extent a more sustainable future is indeed possible, and which systemic changes (including, but not limited to, phasing out fossil fuels) will be required to achieve it.