RICHARD HAASS and CAROLYN KISSANE
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, appears 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment