Podcast Summary: New Books Network

Episode: Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, “More and More and More: An All-Consuming History of Energy”

Date: September 23, 2025
Host: Sydney (D)
Guest: Jean-Baptiste Fressoz (E), historian of energy at CNRS/EHESS, Paris

Overview

This episode features a deep-dive conversation with historian Jean-Baptiste Fressoz about his book "More and More and More: An All-Consuming History of Energy." The discussion challenges mainstream narratives about energy "transitions," debunking the common myth that industrial societies have shifted neatly from one form of energy to another. Instead, Fressoz presents a story of accumulating, intertwined energy and material consumption—what he terms "energy symbiosis." The conversation also delves into how these historical myths shape today’s climate and policy discourse, emphasizing the need for realism in charting routes to decarbonization.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Motivation for Writing the Book

• Challenging the “Stages” Model: Fressoz was struck by the outdated way energy history was structured around "transitions"—e.g., wood and water (18th c.), coal (19th c.), oil and electricity (20th c.) ([02:17]).
• Insight from Material Flows: Researching the vast amounts of wood used in 20th-century coal mining, Fressoz realized, "There is more wood in British coal mines in the 20th century than fuel wood in the 18th century in the British economy" ([03:48]).
• Key Concept – Energy Symbiosis: Instead of “energy transition,” Fressoz argues for understanding “energy and material symbiosis”—the way different energy systems grow together, not in succession but in accumulation and mutual dependence ([04:26]).

"The key topic... should not be simply energy transition. It shouldn't be just energy accumulation, which is too easy and too simple. It is energy symbiosis. Energy and material symbiosis... should be at the core of the history of energy." – Fressoz ([04:33])

2. Explaining the "Anti-Stagist" History of Energy

• Seduction and Problems of Stage Theories: Fressoz critiques "lazy" reliance on concepts like the “organic economy” vs. “mineral economy,” or Lewis Mumford's chronology of ages ([05:57]).
• Misleading Visions: Even influential reports like those of the IPCC confuse technological change with actual energy/material consumption, leading to false impressions about past and future transitions ([07:20]).
• Political Stakes: The stagist narrative isn’t just academic—it underpins political messaging suggesting that energy transitions are routine and readily repeatable.

"This historiography has fueled a false ideology of 'we have done energy transition and we will be doing a new energy transition to solve the energy crisis.' ... The Industrial revolution is certainly not a good example for what we have to do now. It's precisely a counterexample." – Fressoz ([07:01])

3. Accumulation vs. Substitution—The True Nature of Energy Change

• Empirical Evidence from Data: While common graphs show declining “shares” of certain energy sources (wood, coal, etc.), absolute consumption of all energy types has kept rising ([09:12]).
• Deep Interdependence: Coal relies heavily on wood for extraction (mines, rail ties, packaging); fossil fuels actually underwrite ongoing wood consumption ([10:37]).
• Case Study – Lighting: The arrival of electric light didn’t abolish oil—today’s car headlamps alone consume more oil than the entire world’s economy did for light in 1900!

"Today, just the headlamps of the automobiles consume twice more oil than the world economy in 1900s, when most of the people used oil to produce light." – Fressoz ([11:45])

• Key Takeaway: True "disappearance" of energy/material commodities is extremely rare.

4. The Whales-and-Oil Myth: Why Transition Stories Mislead

• Debunking "Oil Saved the Whales": The notion that kerosene lamps spared whales is marketing from the oil industry and economists like William Nordhaus ([14:04]).
• Reality: More whales were killed in the oil age (20th c.) than before, their oil used in lubricants for petroleum and jet engines; real change only came from prohibitions and alternatives like jojoba oil ([15:27], [16:34]).
• Innovation Alone Won’t Cut It: Genuine reductions in resource use often depend on bans, not simply substitution or innovation ([17:25]).
• Policy Implication: Relying solely on technological innovation to make fossil fuels obsolete is unrealistic.

"If you want to reduce the consumption of material... prohibition is really the only way." – Fressoz ([16:19])

5. Critique of Timothy Mitchell’s "Carbon Democracy"

• Context: Mitchell argued that coal’s labor-intensive system supported social democracy, while oil’s capital intensity enabled authoritarianism ([19:36]).
• Flaws in Comparison:
  • He compared coal and oil at different technological moments; both could be labor- or capital-intensive, and their transport/logistics realities blur Mitchell’s dichotomy ([20:39]).
  • Open-pit coal mining is highly capital- and machine-intensive; oil extraction used to employ more workers than coal ([21:49]).
  • Political implications are not so clear-cut—social movements emerged in oil economies as well ([22:48]).
• Academic Reception: Fressoz notes Mitchell’s popularity reflects hunger for materialist explanations, but criticizes historians' ignorance of actual production processes ([25:26]).

"It really shows like a kind of very shallow materialism where you don't really look at production." – Fressoz ([25:49])

6. The Intellectual History of "Energy Transition"

• Origins of "Energy Transition" Rhetoric: The "stages" vision matured in the late 19th century and was popularized further by US atomic scientists after WWII ([26:51]).
• Phrase's True Origin: "Energy transition" in fact comes from atomic physics, describing the shifting of electrons, then was co-opted as metaphor for technological progress ([27:47]).
• Nuclear Propaganda: 1950s-60s nuclear promoters used the term to argue that fossil fuel scarcity would force a shift to nuclear; such transitions were imagined over centuries, not decades ([28:16]).
• Shift in the 1970s: Amidst the oil crisis, "energy transition" became a catch-all solution, embraced by policymakers (notably Jimmy Carter) for everything from more coal to pipelines to solar—its vagueness was political gold ([30:24]).

"A key character here... is Jimmy Carter. In 1977 made a famous speech... he said that in the past the US had made two energy transitions... and now we had to make a third energy transition. And after this speech... everybody started to talk about energy transition in the US and abroad." – Fressoz ([31:25])

7. How the Energy Transition Model Was Applied to Climate Change

• Recycled Economic Thinking: Economists approached climate change with the same logic as the 1970s energy crisis—banking on future innovation and gradual price mechanisms like carbon taxes ([34:52]).
• Problematic Delay: This framework enabled procrastination: "Do not take measures that would harm the economy, because in the future it would be easier to make an energy transition" ([36:37]).
• False Comfort: Even with early knowledge of climate risk, leading scientists (Roger Revelle, World Climate Conference 1979) argued for delayed action due to the supposed time available for transition ([38:25]).

8. The Political Uses and Limits of "Energy Transition" Today

• Double-edged Word: Some activists now use "energy transition" to advocate for urgent action, but Fressoz warns it remains an imprecise, technocentric idea that obscures harder truths ([41:05]).
• What We Should Say Instead: Deployment of renewables, windmills, or electric cars is more accurately described as “reducing the carbon intensity of the economy,” not a true “transition” ([41:43]).
• Structural Challenges: Energy transition talk distracts from the need to address the absolute size of the economy and the material basis of society.

"When you put solar panels or windmills or electric cars, you don't make an energy transition, you reduce the carbon intensity of the economy." – Fressoz ([41:24])

• Real Limits of Renewables: Renewables excel in electricity, but not in the production of steel, cement, plastics, fertilizers – the foundations of modern civilization ([42:56]).

9. What an “Adult Conversation” on Climate Means

• No Quick Technofixes: Fressoz urges an end to naïve techno-optimism or belief in rapid, painless decarbonization ([44:22]).
• Diffusion Timelines: Innovation in technology today will have limited effect before 2050 due to infrastructure lags and systemic inertia ([44:41]).
• No Magic Bullets: Ideas like hydrogen are technological illusions for the next decades ([45:44]).
• Prioritization and Reduction: By mid-century, some sectors will still emit CO₂; societies must choose what is vital (e.g., agriculture) and what luxury sectors must shrink (cement, steel, aviation) ([46:39]).

"We need to have this discussion about differentiating luxury emissions and more... vital emissions. We have to be able to have models... without impacting too much the well being of societies." – Fressoz ([47:42])

10. Current and Future Work

• Upcoming Project: Fressoz is working on a book about the continuing importance and growth of human muscle as an energy source, arguing it has synergized with, not been displaced by, fossil fuels ([48:03]).
• Investigating Expertise: Also focused on the disarray in scientific and policy advice on mitigation ([48:47]).

11. Book Recommendations

• The Shock of the Old by David Edgerton – a critical history of technology ([49:14]).
• Fin du Monde et Petit Fort by Edouard Morena – an ethnography of the climate elite (in French) ([49:36]).
• Book by Lilo Magalhaes – on the history of concrete in 20th-century France (in French) ([50:04]).

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• On energy systems:

  • "The general truth about energy and materials is that they all grow." ([16:06])

• On technological fixes:

  • "Honestly, as a historian of tech, I think it's a doomed project... The idea that through renewables and batteries, you will make fossil fuels obsolete in 20 or 30 years is incredibly... improbable." ([17:00])

• On adult conversations:

  • "Before 2050, hydrogen will remain marginal. So do not dream about decarbonizing the industry with green hydrogen. That won't happen." ([45:44])

• Host’s summary of the book’s impact:

  • "You begin the book by saying we need to have a, quote, adult conversation about climate action... dealing quite directly with the fact that we have... a substantially bigger problem than has been discursively represented." ([43:43])

Chapter Timestamps

• Book rationale & anti-stagist thinking: 02:17–08:10
• Material and energy accumulation: 09:12–13:29
• Whales & oil myth, innovation limits: 14:04–18:08
• Mitchell/Carbon Democracy critique: 19:36–26:22
• Intellectual history of energy transition: 26:22–33:08
• Energy transition & climate policy: 34:11–39:47
• Contemporary uses/misuses of 'transition': 41:05–43:43
• “Adult conversation” on climate: 44:22–47:53
• Upcoming research/projects: 48:03–49:04
• Book recommendations: 49:14–50:34

Final Thoughts

Jean-Baptiste Fressoz convincingly dismantles the myth of seamless energy transitions and urges a far more realistic reckoning with the scale, persistence, and political challenge of decarbonizing modern societies—one that cannot simply rely on new technologies or easy narratives, but demands difficult societal choices and honest acknowledgment of limits.

For listeners seeking perspective beyond the dominant narrative of “clean transitions,” this episode is essential.