Monday, June 26, 2023

Renewables: the Reverse French Revolution

 

The French Revolution came when coal replaced agriculture as the main source of wealth in society. Today, we face a repetition of those events with renewable energy replacing fossil fuels. Several details are returning, including the three estates (nobles, clergy, and commoners) who fought for power at the time of the revolution. The modern nobility is the fossil fuel lobby, the bourgeoisie is the growing renewable-based economy, and the clergy is represented by the "catastrophist" movement. 
(Image of Robespierre and wind towers made with Dezgo.com)


The best way to interpret the French Revolution is by using the lens of Biophysical Economics. All systems, including social ones, are dissipative structures that generate complexity by processing energy and creating entropy. No energy, no complex society. Then, when an energy source runs out, it is collapse. When it is replaced by another source, it is a transition to a different structure which may be larger and more complex. 

This is what happened with the French Revolution, which took place when coal replaced agriculture. Coal was extracted and burned in Europe already during the Middle Ages, but production started becoming important only during the 18th century. Up to then, European society relied on agriculture to provide metabolic energy ("food"). Coal couldn't directly provide metabolic energy, but it could be transformed into food by a process that included smelting steel, using it to make weapons, conquering large swats of land overseas, enslaving the local population, and setting them to work in plantations that provided food for Europeans. 

The transition led the landed nobles and the new mercantile bourgeoisie to be set on a collision course for dominance. The fight went on for about two centuries. In some cases, the transition was smooth, as in England; in others, it involved much bloodshed, as in France in 1789, in the US in 1861, and in Russia in 1917. In all cases, the final result was the same. It is not surprising that the term "King Coal" became commonplace. 

The switch from farming to coal deeply changed the structure of European society. The power was not anymore in the hand of regional nobles, but came to be concentrated in the hands of powerful national elites who could control coal production and, with it, everything else. Lenin understood the reasons for the process when he claimed that the Bolshevik revolution was all about the control of the means of production. He didn't say that there could be no production without coal, but it was implicit in the concept. 

The power of the new elites was immense, but they still needed commoners as soldiers and workers. So, the structure of the new national states was managed in such a way as to give the illusion that "the people" were in charge. In practice, the power was in the hand of entrenched lobbies in Western Europe and bureaucratic structures such as the communist party in the Soviet Union. Moving from coal to oil changed little to the power structure; the main difference was that oil could be more easily transformed into food by chemical processes that produce fertilizers. It led to a further step onward in dominance, with the elites becoming global. 

Today, renewables in the form of photovoltaics and wind have the capability of changing everything. Their low cost makes them able to break the grip of the global elites on production and bring back an economy that looks close to the old agricultural world, where land was the main source of wealth. A true "reverse French Revolution," bringing back the means of production into the hands of regional centers instead of global ones. Don't expect Capitalism to vanish in a puff of smoke as the result of renewable energy, but the capability of global elites to control energy production, yes, that will vanish or, at least, it will be much diminished.  

No wonder, then, that the rapid growth of renewable energy production is generating a strong negative backlash from the sections of society that see themselves threatened. Here, we see parallels with the historical French Revolution. You may remember that before the attack on the Bastille in 1789, King Louis XVI convened the three "États Généraux," the general estates, to manage the response to growing financial and political crises in France in the late 1700s. They were formed of the nobles, the clergy, and the commoners. It was a clash from the very beginning between the two entrenched estates; the nobles and clergy representing agriculture, and the third state; the commoners representing coal. The commoners decided to create their own National Assembly, and then, as they say, it was history. 

Today, we don't have a king convening the three estates of society in an assembly, but the presence of similar entities is detectable. The modern nobles are the oil lobbies that control the functioning of the state by means of their financial power. Their adversary is the "renewable-based bourgeoisie" (*), a new social class that derives its wealth from the growing power of renewables. And who are the modern equivalent of the clergy? At the time of the French Revolution, their role was to provide ideological support for the nobles by scaring the commoners into submission. The method used was the threat of eternal punishment if they dared to try to raise their status to something more than mere survival. 

There is now an equivalent of the old religious clergy in the "catastrophist" movement. They share an apocalyptic vision of divine punishment for human sins, and their current role is to keep the fossil economy alive by convincing the commoners that renewables are a pipe dream, that becoming poor and destitute is a virtue, and that they should be happy with "de-growing." That will allow the fossil lobbies to maintain their grip on fossil energy production while they try to switch to nuclear energy, another centralized source that can be controlled at the global level. In the process, commoners will be left in the cold to fend for themselves the best they can. If they can.  

The new clergy of the catastrophist movement is having some success. Western propaganda is a powerful weapon, and the new, Web-based social networks are being used in full to denigrate renewable energy. But renewables are growing fast, they are creating wealth, and they are racing upward at such speed that it is hard to think they can be stopped. The battle for energy is being fought. There will be no need to behead anyone, but the next few years will decide the destiny of humankind. 



(*) I discovered the concept of "renewable-based bourgeoise" in a recent book by Mauro Romanelli, "The Answer." A good book that explains the basics of renewable energy. Alas, it is available only in Italian.   







11 comments:

  1. A nice tale. However, if I take a look to the major companies that are installing renewables in my country, some of them are the same as the old legacy oil companies: Endesa, Iberdrola, Repsol ... Even in photovoltaics, you may still see a BP electrics park.
    In PV parks there is more diversity: Eranovum is quite new and leads the biggest park, Renovalia was a fund venture from a group that makes cheese (now acquired by an italian infrastructure company, F2i) together with FRV are the biggest investors in the country. All of them belong to the same global bourgeoisie, the capitalists that rule the world, they are only driving a different car. And behind them all, there's the borrower bankers.

    I don't expect to see a bloodbath here. If one kind of enterprise becomes less profitable, the investors will just swap their shares and follow the money, the CEO will just swap seats and the employees will find another job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No need of a bloodbath, fortunately. The structure of society will change in its innards. The old elite will try to take over, of course. But they can only control renewable PLANT production, not energy production!

      Delete
  2. Another good tale, but I personally sense you're trying too hard to make today's context and players fit into the boxes of the previous shift. For instance the degrowth movement is not all about scaring the population away from renewables.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just to make sure it is not. :-)

      Delete
    2. Of course, you're spot on that the wolves will use all possible ways to dress as the shepherds or the sheep to "divide, confuse and conquer".
      But de-globalization is still going to happen as society can't run the same level of global tourism, global trade, global agriculture (fertilizers) and likely many others on renewable electricity

      Delete
  3. "Renewable-based bourgeoise" - would you say that Elon Musk fits this? (Not that he is always pleasant or right of course). If that is future, then socialists who hoped for equality caused by the crisis would be... very disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hard to say. Surely, Musk is a very different person compared to oil barons such as the Koch brothers. Or Pharma Barons such as Bill Gates. Personally, I never thought that the crisis would bring socialism. If we take the Roman Empire as a guide, we see that the worse the economy got, the harsher the dictatorship became.

      Delete

      Delete
  4. Similarly as some other commenters, I question the analogy.
    Also, looking into the food system there is little cause for optimism that land based solar or wind energy production would lead to a less hegemonic market or some kind of democracy. (Those claims were abound in the early days of the internet as well, but in the end the "winner takes it all" even more in the virtual world than in the real world (there is no physically based entity having the kind of market dominance as facebook or Google have)). Some decades ago, erecting wind mills and wind cooperatives were grassroots movement, but today most of those windmills are decommissioned as the big players outcompete the pioneers. The same seems to happen with pv. The electrification in many countries (e.g. in my home country Sweden) started as local grids which gradually were merged into national grids.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, of course. But, as I said in another comment, renewables will NOT bring us socialism. Just like the French revolution did not bring the French liberté, egalité, fraternité. It is just a question of scale: coal is best controlled at the national level and oil at the global level. Renewables are best controlled at the regional level. That's especially true for wind towers, which yield a lot more when they have a nameplate power in the MW range. Going renewables just means that the global powers cannot blackmail regional centers so easily as they do with oil. Which is exactly the opposite as "the winner takes all" as it happens on the Web. In other words, the owners of windmills in Washington cannot blackmail the owners of windmills in Ankara. I think it is a good thing. But we have to see how it will evolve, exactly.

      Delete
  5. the renewable energy transition is now unstoppable according to nafeez mosaddeq ahmed you can read the article on age of transformation. org

    ReplyDelete
  6. [They share an apocalyptic vision of divine punishment for human sins, and their current role is to keep the fossil economy alive by convincing the commoners that renewables are a pipe dream, that becoming poor and destitute is a virtue, and that they should be happy with "de-growing."]

    That interpretation would have more legs were it not for the total absence of a coherent vision that renewables are supposedly destined to [...] ehh ... [grow into ?] ... [steady state into ?] ... [mildly yet elegantly atrophy into ?]
    Another rebalancing of state and free enterprise. To achieve what and in what order ?
    If the western legal system is the starting point of the property and therefore resource and political power allocation system; with its trademark mix of hereditary wealth, meritocracy, land & financial rents, a pinch [cough] of corruption for good measure; and if that starting point can be considered an algorithm to achieve an outcome, wouldn't a different algorithm be necessary to adjust the system for a ... revised outcome ?
    What was that desired outcome suppose to be anyway ? "Freedom and the pursuit of happiness" ... right, right. I forgot.
    What tweaks will the algo need if the outcome has to be...how shall I say this ... qualitatively transformed ?
    Transformed into a system that [ultimately] should have less material throughput, and would from now on only produce tools and appliances that can be totally repaired or recycled efficiently near the point of consumption. Will the model selection have to be ... streamlined ... ? Heaven forbid ! ;-]

    Resources being scattered around the globe, how would one sell it to all other geopolitical entities ?
    Would it still be win-win progress all the way ? [cough]
    It better be because some hiccups can be pretty debilitating ... for everyone.

    So Ugo ... if honor is satisfied, will every "commoners" be guaranteed a roof over their head, free of economic blackmail ?
    What kind of roof ?
    A decent well apportioned one or an animal stall shithole with electricity & plumbing haphazardly thrown in. Will the community assist in need of repair and maintenance ?
    And then ... will collapsing fertility rates come to reverse just in time for the Brave New World ?

    ReplyDelete