The language we use to discuss energy and climate change shapes our understanding of what’s possible. But what if one of our most fundamental assumptions—the “transition” from fossil fuels to renewables—is historically and practically flawed?

French historian Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, author of “More and More and More: An All-Consuming History of Energy,” joined Power Struggle host Stewart Muir to challenge the very concept of energy transition. His perspective offers a sobering look at why modern societies continue growing their energy consumption rather than replacing it.

The Myth of Historical Energy Transitions

The Coal-to-Oil Illusion

When we think about industrialization, we often imagine neat progressions: wood gave way to coal, coal gave way to oil, and now renewables will replace fossil fuels. Fressoz argues this narrative is fundamentally wrong.

“There is no shift from coal to oil,” Fressoz explains. “Actually, when oil is expanding in the 20th century, it is a very strong stimulus for the consumption of coal.”

The reason? Building automobiles—oil’s primary use case—required massive amounts of coal. In the 1930s, producing a single car needed seven tons of coal. Even today in China, it takes approximately three tons of coal per vehicle.

Wood Didn’t Disappear Either

The same pattern holds for earlier energy sources. While Britain shifted to coal during industrialization, the country actually consumed more wood in the 20th century for mining operations than it had burned as fuel in the 18th century. Coal extraction required enormous quantities of timber for pit props and mining infrastructure.

“The more you extract coal, the more you need timber actually,” Fressoz notes. “They are not in competition, they are in symbiosis.”

Energy Symbiosis, Not Transition

Fressoz introduces a crucial distinction: rather than energy “transition” or even “addition,” we should think in terms of energy symbiosis—different energy sources becoming increasingly interdependent rather than replacing each other.

This symbiosis extends beyond energy to raw materials generally. An American forester’s 1928 prediction proves prescient: despite technological innovation, “raw materials are never obsolete.” Throughout the 20th century, we consumed both a wider array of materials and greater quantities of each.

The Technology vs. Materials Confusion

One key insight from Fressoz’s work is distinguishing between the history of technology and the history of materials:

• Technology history: Features shifts, transformations, and obsolescence
• Materials history: Shows consistent expansion across all categories

“When you think about our conversation about technology nowadays, it is always focused on innovation,” Fressoz observes. But innovations represent only a tiny fraction of our material world, while climate change results from “all the accumulation of old techniques and old ways of doing.”

Why Current Climate Solutions Miss the Mark

The Political History Problem

Much recent energy historiography frames fossil fuel adoption as capitalist strategy—oil replaced coal to weaken miners’ unions, for instance. Fressoz argues this misses the symbiotic reality where oil expansion actually increased coal demand.

More fundamentally, “getting out of fossil fuels is a much deeper change than just changing the ownership of private property.” Even in socialist systems, feeding 8 billion people requires massive fossil fuel inputs for fertilizers, packaging, and transportation.

Technological False Promises

Fressoz is particularly critical of hydrogen aircraft proposals, which he calls technological fantasy. Hydrogen is three times less energy-dense than jet fuel, requiring complete redesign of planes and airports. For France alone, producing enough green hydrogen to replace aviation fuel would require the country’s entire nuclear fleet.

“What is the use of all this blah blah about hydrogen airplane?” he asks. “It’s just to keep planes flying and people taking the plane without worrying too much.”

The Carbon Capture Scam

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) receives especially harsh criticism. Fressoz describes it as energy-intensive, requiring massive new infrastructure equivalent to current oil systems, but without producing value.

Historically, CCS was considered “rubbish” by experts until around 2005, when fossil fuel industry influence helped legitimize it through IPCC reports. “We won’t be investing trillions of dollars into an infrastructure that does not create value,” Fressoz argues.

What Real Climate Action Looks Like

Sufficiency Over Technology

Rather than betting on future innovations, Fressoz advocates for sufficiency—reducing energy demand through conscious choices about what we really need. France’s 2019 Climate Citizens’ Assembly exemplifies this approach, proposing practical measures like vegetarian school meals, bicycle lanes, and home insulation.

The Inequality Question

Climate change represents a massive North-South inequality: industrialized countries created the problem, but the poorest populations face the worst consequences. Addressing this requires honest discussions about degrowth in wealthy nations and differential usefulness of CO2 emissions.

Material Reality Check

The most important takeaway from Fressoz’s work: “Do not expect the material world to change radically in the next 20 or 30 years. Technology will change, but the material basis of civilization will remain similar.”

Implications for Energy Policy

Understanding energy symbiosis rather than transition has profound policy implications:

• Realistic Timelines: Genuine decarbonization will take centuries, not decades
• Demand-Side Focus: Technology alone cannot solve climate change without addressing consumption
• Democratic Discussion: Climate solutions require public engagement about useful vs. wasteful activities
• International Justice: Wealthy nations must lead on degrowth while supporting development elsewhere

The Path Forward

Fressoz doesn’t offer easy optimism, but his historical analysis provides crucial clarity. By abandoning the comforting myth of energy transition, we can focus on what actually works: expanding renewable electricity where possible, while honestly confronting the need to reduce material consumption.

The conversation around modern energy needs this kind of unflinching historical perspective. As Stewart Muir’s Power Struggle podcast demonstrates, understanding our energy reality—however uncomfortable—is essential for crafting effective climate responses.