The drive for an energy transition must not come at a cost to fragile societies

Although the whole world now appears to be talking about “energy transitions”, the phrase is hardly news. It was first coined in 1977 when US President Jimmy Carter declared that the world needed “permanent renewable energy sources”. Yet, more than 40 years later, and despite investments of $300 billion or so every year over the last decade into renewables, we are concluding critical Cop26 meetings and entering the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference (Adipec) as global greenhouse gas emissions reach an alltime high (at the first Cop in 1995 emissions were 40 per cent lower than today).

The first problem is that in all this time, policymakers have not fully recognised what the phrase truly means. A transition suggests that things are in motion, where we move from one state to another. Yet most policy today seems to be concerned with the starting point and the end goal. When we think about problems in this reductionist way, we fall victim to what is known as our “gap instincts”, a tendency to think about issues as two distinct or even conflicting groups. This imaginary gap makes our problems impossible to overcome. When policymakers consider renewables and fossil fuels as warring factions, rather than part of our combined energy arsenal, it creates an impossible choice for emerging nations who often feel bullied into choosing between climate goals or growth. As a result, such gap instincts have moved the world further away from previously set climate goals.

Secondly, by focusing solely on energy markets, mainstream discourse has applied the concept of transitions much too narrowly. Instead, the term relates to the much broader changes in technology and processes that can improve society. In the industrial age, the rise of coal-burning was not an “energy transition” but a much more comprehensive societal shift where we moved from sailboat to steamship, horse to automobile, rural fieldworker to urban consumer.

So rather than being strait-jacketed by the term “energy transition”, our discussions should focus on the evolution of our energy systems in tandem with the environment and society at large. In doing so, we can stop dividing problems into zero-sum camps and can consider solutions on their merits, for example those that are easiest to implement, such as coal to gas switching.

By thinking about society and energy as two sides of the same coin, countries can fully evaluate smart energy policies as enablers of development, especially in the developing world where supporting a fair and just energy evolution must also facilitate economic growth. On a related note, we mustn’t ignore the fact that well over 40 per cent of cumulative global emissions from the beginning of the industrial age were generated to fuel the economic prosperity of the US and western Europe, even though both account for less than seven per cent of the global population today. Stunting economic development is not an option. Instead, national energy and climate policies can look towards pursuing a balanced greener energy evolution to achieve the best development outcomes. Fit-for-purpose renewables, R&D and large-scale storage solutions should be supported. However, this also demands pragmatism.

As the world is becoming increasingly urban, cities now account for nearly 60 per cent of our population but less than three percent of our landmass. This matters, because when managed well, urbanisation contributes to economic growth and poverty alleviation, as well to sustainability and climate change mitigation, by helping curb emissions. For example, dense living can reduce per capita energy consumption, as it increases the use of public transport.

Therefore, policies that incentivise growth and urbanisation should be promoted. In this context, rising incomes and protecting the planet are no longer mutually exclusive policy goals.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, focusing on these broader issues allows us to recognise the power of our natural ecosystems to help slow the effects of climate change. Trees and grasslands can be especially valuable in this regard, due to their ability to prevent catastrophic flooding and protect the natural habitats of countless species of wildlife. In the UAE for example, mangroves are renowned for their ability to absorb carbon.

Unfortunately, mangrove habitats are being decimated at an alarming rate by communities that simply do not have access to other sources of energy and are therefore burning these natural carbon capturers as fuel. Around 2.5bn people still cook using wood, charcoal, or dung. This shows that we need to embrace an energy evolution that also incentivises the adoption of less destructive methods everywhere. Similarly, we always need to be honest with ourselves about the total environmental costs of seemingly attractive solutions such as biofuels, the production of which can lead to the clearing of large swathes of land and forests and the inherently massive carbon release of such actions. As an illustration, it is estimated that the release of just 0.1 per cent of the carbon currently stored in European soils would equal the annual emissions from as much as 100m cars. Today, we are losing forests around the world over three times the size of the UAE every single year. The Cop26 pledge to reverse deforestation committed to by over 100 world leaders is a step in the right direction.

Making the wrong energy policy decisions, even with good intentions, can do irreversible damage to fragile ecosystems and societies around the world. We should therefore move away from a narrow interpretation of the so-called energy transition. Instead, the focus must be on how broader energy frameworks can help billions of people around the world live happier and more prosperous lives, while respecting and protecting the climate and environment that their communities depend on.

Making the wrong energy decisions, even with good intentions, can do irreversible damage to fragile ecosystems