The Sustainable End of History?
Why California’s 100% renewable energy plan is not a blueprint for our sustainable future.
The Sustainable End of History?
Recently, I was a panelist at a forum titled “Tough Talks” which was to eliminate the cozy complacency and tiptoeing of panelists and instead talk die-hard solutions. The topic: Ecological Destruction and strategies for a sustainable future. I was hot. I was excited. I was prepared. And I ended up rather puzzled. I’ll tell you why:
Midway through the discussion — after one panelist had made an amusingly sarcastic allusion to the Beatles’ song “Let it be” by saying that we should simply let all efforts be and accept whichever faith we have brought upon ourselves — the host asked me about my views on the Californian 100% renewable energy plan. She asked whether I agree, with so many others, that the plan serves as a role model for communities around the world and a blueprint for transitioning into a sustainable future (not even energy system; no, FUTURE).
At first, I was shocked. Was this an equally sarcastic allusion as the Beatles’ song? If so, then to what? Fukuyama’s ancient End of History piece? I didn’t get it. Also, this was the host. Would she really ask a question in this sarcastic spirit? I gambled that it was a serious question which demanded a serious answer. However, I believe my face and body language were expressing my sheer disbelief to the audience, and the fact that I had to gather my thoughts for a moment amplified this effect. At last, I made my point:
The Myth of Magical Energy
For some reason, renewable energy sources (usually solar, wind, water, and biomass) have achieved a sacred status among sustainability enthusiasts as green energy. Green energy equals clean energy. Green energy, that is energy stemming from renewable energy sources, they argue, is in perfect harmony with planetary boundaries, human energy needs, market, and job expansion and is the ultimate, infallible fuel to power our hyper-modern, futuristic economies in our sustainable futures. In short, green energy is magical energy.
Except that it isn’t…I’ve been digging for a while and — nothing new, nothing scientifically controversial — green energy is not magical energy without negative consequences for the ecological, economic, and social pillars of our societies. Rather, it creates disastrous ecological consequences, economic winners and losers, and fails to address matters of social justice. In short, magical energy is what Jacques Rourtier calls “eGologics“. This ‘logic’ occurs when marketing processes or human behaviors rely solely on one significant benefit while regarding all other costs, including environmental impacts, as both perfectly identified and safely managed by other players. Hence, labeling renewable energy green or even clean energy is an expression of tremendous positive bias, ignoring the shadows of renewable energy sources.
For my discussion, this meant that I, without too much detail, raised the point that renewable energy plants indeed have monstrous ecological implications. Their provision still requires mining, extraction, and transport at every step of the value chain. These mines often do not operate sustainably (e.g. the caterpillars are diesel-fueled and the use of freshwater is ginormous) and fuel ecological destruction in and of their very existence. Moreover, the resources necessary for the production of ‘renewable energy plants’ — rare earth, minerals and highly demanded industrial metals like Copper and Lithium — are being mined at a rate which (a) exceeds natural supply, (b) exceeds their recycling span and (c) poses great damage to the surrounding ecosystems.
This is the very definition of a non-renewable energy source! It is the very definition of an unsustainable way of being or conducting ourselves. So, the idea that we can simply build solar farms, wind parks, and biomass plants and thereby rid ourselves from the ecological destruction is ignorant at best; manipulative at worst. By extension, the idea that we are sustainability pioneers because we drive an electric car is nothing but a fake green consciousness.
Mainstream Critique
Believe it or not, this line of reasoning is mainstream critique within the sustainability discourse. “Yes, solar panels and wind turbines are energy-intensive infrastructures, we get it. But how else should we power our current economies and societies? We are a rapidly increasing global population at currently 7.8 billion human beings, and all of us want to live the ‘good life’ which means that energy demand will increase as well”.
This reasoning is the trickier one because it touches upon the global distribution of resources, conceptions of development, progress, and the ‘good life’, and fundamental questions about how we want to and should co-exist in the future. So, the answer cannot be easy. It cannot be as easy as “Simply use wind and solar energy and keep going!”
Whenever the answer is not easy you may try to reformulate the difficult, multi-layered answer into straightforward questions. For example, “What is that conception of the ‘good life’ you are talking about?” or “Isn’t the debate about the unsustainable nature of our current ways of living and how to create alternative ones?”. These questions address the underlying assumptions of your opposite. In this case, one assumption is that there is a clear and universal conception of the ‘good life’. Probably, a life of material wealth, professional responsibility, social recognition, and leisure…enough leisure. Equally, the assumption that the 7.8 billion human beings and their rapid expansion are the main problems; the well-known overpopulation problem.
Avoiding Inconvenient Truths
So, is the situation really that we “simply” have to replace a dirty source of energy with a presumably clean source, or is that only the tip of the iceberg? I, and many others, argue the latter. Namely, renewable energy sources have a vital role to play in the transformative process towards a more sustainable future, but they are a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. There are two reasons for this. First, this is because sustainability is not a fixed end. It is not a goal or set of goals to be achieved. Rather, it is a continuous process. A project that our global community, at every level, has subscribed to and made promises to live up to its responsibility towards future generations. So, I am truly sorry if you thought that we would at some point ‘get there’…
Secondly, this is because renewable energy sources do not, in ANY way, address the level and legitimacy of current energy demand. Why the hell do we need this much energy?? Is it really to bring light to some poor favelas and banlieues, to refugee camps and gigantic slums around the world? Is it really to implement just food distribution systems, to provide access to high-quality healthcare, to enable primary and secondary education around the globe, and to facilitate intercultural exchange in our multi-cultural world?
Sure, part of the energy demand is needed and used to realize such aspirations. However, most of our energy is used to fuel a conception of development, of progress, of success, that our insatiable consumer society has given rise to. Whether it is the food or fashion industry, the transport or telecommunication, the energy or mobility, the pharmaceutical or agricultural, the entertainment or financial industry. They all run on one principle and one principle only: Growth. Unlimited Growth. And unlimited growth requires an unlimited energy supply. As long as we do not question the reasons for why we ‘need’ the energy that we ‘need’, why we want the energy that we want, nothing is going to change. As long as we do not inquire about ways to more adequately distribute the energy we are already using, these noble and humanitarian aspirations from above only serve as concealer for the real existence of energy demand increase.
New Forms of Social Co-Existence
So, what to do? The picture seems rather dull. When politicians and business leaders speak about clean energy, about technology that will fuel our futuristic societies, I hope you will be more skeptic and dig a little deeper. The motivation for that digging should come from at least two sources: (1) You know that renewable energy is not magical energy and (2) there are more promising ways to address the interrelated cluster of ecological, social, and economic sustainability.
Erik Olin Wright wrote a book that I wholeheartedly recommend titled: Envisioning Real Utopias. In this book, he partly talks about so-called transformation strategies. Transformation strategies are those consciously crafted game plans to layout which actors should maneuver in which ways to mobilize which resources for which outcome. Sounds more complicated than it is: Who should do how much of what and why?
One of the strategies he calls ‘interstitial strategy’ which I like to call ‘niche strategy’. The niche strategy focuses on all the initiatives which operate outside of the dominant logic, external to the ‘business-as-usual’ practices. So, think of something radical in any given sector. Housing: niches are squatting or housing collectives who cap rental prices. Food: urban gardening projects, regenerative agricultural farms, or food cooperatives. Mobility: cargo bikes and bike-sharing opportunities. Finances: local currencies who use the resources to introduce localized plans for a Universal Basic Income.
Believe me, there are more than enough pioneering efforts out there. However, they are less visible than TESLA, our self-proclaimed post-modern heroes. Moreover, these initiatives demand active participation and collective engagement. YOU have to shove up your sleeves, invest valuable hours during your weekends or weekly leisure hours to create real and impactful alternatives in your local environment. Because real change only comes from real people creating real solutions in the real world.
Now, what does this mean for the California Renewable Energy Plan? Well, it is certainly better than not having a Renewable Energy Plan. However, political communication must explicitly emphasize that this cannot be the final answer. This cannot serve as a blueprint for transitioning into a sustainable future. This is NOT the sustainable end of history. It is a necessary means that will have to be supplemented by a load of other initiatives and these initiatives need your active engagement!
