Green energy alone won’t save the earth - social change is also needed

The most popular techno-fix for global warming is green energy. If energy companies would only deploy wind, hydro, solar, geothermal or nuclear, then emission-intensive fossil fuels will eventually disappear. But will that actually work?

A new study by Richard York of the University of Oregon shows that it isn’t that simple. Rather than displacing fossil fuels, green energy sources have proven to be mostly additive.

“Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels?” published last month in Nature Climate Change, discusses what happened when alternative energy sources were introduced in countries around the world, over the past fifty years.

Contrary to the accepted wisdom that new green energy replaces fossil-fuel use, York found that on average each unit of energy use from non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than a quarter of a unit of energy use from fossil-fuel sources.

The picture is worse with electricity, where each new unit generated from green sources displaced less than one-tenth of a unit of fossil-fuel-generated electricity.

York writes:

“Based on all of the results presented above, the answer to the question presented in the title of this paper – do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels? – is yes, but only very modestly. The common assumption that the expansion of production of alternative energy will suppress fossil-fuel energy production in equal proportion is clearly wrong.”

Why don’t the new sources replace the old? York identifies two key reasons: the inertia of a huge existing fossil-fuel infrastructure, and the power and influence of the coal and oil corporations.

“The failure of non-fossil energy sources to displace fossil ones is probably in part attributable to the established energy system where there is a lock-in to using fossil fuels as the base energy source because of their long-standing prevalence and existing infrastructure and to the political and economic power of the fossil-fuel industry.”

In other words, eliminating fossil-fuel as an energy source is at least as much a social and political problem as a technical one.

“Of course all societies need energy. So, obviously, if societies are to stop using fossil fuels they must have other energy sources. However, the results from the analyses presented here indicate that the shift away from fossil fuel does not happen inevitably with the expansion of non-fossil-fuel sources, or at least in the political and economic contexts that have been dominant over the past fifty years around the world….

“The most effective strategy for curbing carbon emissions is likely to be one that aims to not only develop non-fossil energy sources, but also to find ways to alter political and economic contexts so that fossil-fuel energy is more easily displaced and to curtail the growth in energy consumption as much as possible.

“A general implication of these findings is that polices aimed at addressing global climate change should not focus principally on developing technological fixes, but should also take into account human behaviour in the context of political, economic and social systems.”

The evidence shows that simply introducing green energy isn’t enough: the introduction must be accompanied by “explicit policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions.”

The article is published in a scientific journal, where political and social conclusions can only be expressed in muted form. But Richard York’s research and conclusions reinforce the argument that he and his co-authors (John Bellamy Foster and Brett Clark) made more explicitly in their recent book, The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Planet.

“We are confronting the question of a terminal crisis, threatening most life on the planet, civilization, and the very existence of future generations. … attempts to solve this through technological fixes, market magic, and the idea of a ‘sustainable capitalism’ are mere forms of ecological denial, since they ignore the inherent destructiveness of the current system of unsustainable development – capitalism.”


Report Article

Article Details

Ian Angus
  • Published:

Share This Story

Follow Green Blog

Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay updated with out latest posts and articles. You can also subscribe to our newsletter and get weekly updates. Follow us on Twitter, Google+ or Facebook.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

User Feedback


Guest JoyPIll

Posted · Report

So true! In my blog entry from last year I criticized the Finnish legislators for dragging their heels with laws that would make it possible for ordinary households to feed any excess electicity, created from the energy they produce by green means (solar, wind, excess heat collection) for the needs of their own homes, to the national network and to get fairly compensated for doing this. In my view the effect of such legislation would be two-fold; (1) we would have more energy independent households, who after an initial investment into green energy solutions would get the investment written off by earnings from energy sales to the national network and (2) for a nation of car-lovers, the ratio of electric cars to fossil fuel powered ones would see a rapid shift in favour of the electric ones. We might even see the electric companies setting up their own 'filling stations' where electric cars could get speed-charged for the price of the electricity used. And all of this need not be just a Finnish development, what we really need is a similar change on a global scale!

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Winn Taylor

Posted · Report

your article brings to mind a recent read on Electric Vehicles. Best case scenario they lead to 35-60% less carbon dioxide pollution. But in some areas where coal plants supply the majority of the power mix in a given area, electric vehicles may emit more CO2 and SO2 pollution than hybrid electric vehicles. It really is an equation with multiple variables.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lpcleo

Posted · Report

The infrastructure is set up to burn fossil fuels, and as I see it, it will take years to change over. More investment is needed for green energy but seems as if investors shy away from this investment opportunity http://solarpowerenergy1.com/blog/

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest KatePaine

Posted · Report

"...green energy sources have proven to be mostly additive..." Wow, thanks for this post. Having spent hours discussing green energy with friends and families (and imploring them to do more), this is a shocker. I'd be interested what you think about a company like EcoSmart Fire where they sell the green dream.  http://www.ecosmartfire.com.au/about I want to see the green dream available to more people, I want our leaders to make green a priority.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hydrogen power is the ultimate "Good Idea" when it come to the car problem. Electric has fundamental issues. Ethanol seems to be a tax dollar boondoggle. Yet, the U.S. and othe countries haven't made this even a secondary pursuit. http://www.greencleaninstituteforum.com

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites


Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now