In a provocative Earth Day commentary, science historian Jean-Baptiste Fressoz challenges the popular notion of an “energy transition,” arguing that global energy history is less about replacement and more about accumulation. Despite decades of optimism and increasing renewable deployment, fossil fuels remain firmly entrenched—powering everything from global transport to the materials behind our buildings and digital lives.

Fressoz highlights that wood still outproduced nuclear energy in 2024, and even with record investment in wind and solar, global electricity emissions continued to rise. The real story, he says, is one of symbiosis—each new energy source reinforcing rather than replacing the old. Coal enabled the growth of timber usage, oil accelerated coal production, and concrete’s explosive rise fueled further demand for steel, brick, and glass.

Even in advanced economies, fossil fuels still dominate: 80% of U.S. energy, 75% in the UK, and around 50% in France and Denmark came from fossil sources last year. Renewables, he argues, are additive, not transformative.

The modern idea of “energy transition” only took hold in the 1970s, adapted from nuclear physics and repurposed during the oil crisis. Its origins lie in promises of boundless nuclear energy and fears of scarcity—not climate change. Today, the term offers a reassuring narrative of future transformation that risks delaying real action, Fressoz warns. There is no historical precedent for rapidly phasing out fossil fuels—and without acknowledging this, we may be indulging in ideological comfort over climate urgency.