Professor Verena Winiwarter MAE discusses historical shifts in energy use, and the lessons they offer for modern energy policy and transition.
#BuildingBridges2024SpotlightSeries
About Verena Winiwarter
Verena Winiwarter is an esteemed Austrian environmental historian. She served as Dean of the Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies at Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt from 2010 to 2016. Professor Winiwarter has a background in technical chemistry and a PhD in environmental history from the University of Vienna. Since her retirement in 2022, her research primarily focuses on the environmental legacies of the Cold War. Recognised for her outreach and public communication efforts, she was named “Austrian Scientist of the Year” in 2013.
At Academia Europaea’s Building Bridges 2024 conference, she will present on Energy transitions of the past: is there something to learn from history? offering insights into how historical changes in energy supply and use can inform today’s shift towards renewable energy sources.
Read the interview
What are the key messages you are aiming to convey in your presentation Energy transitions of the past: is there something to learn from history and its main points?
“Firstly, let’s define “energy transition” as a major structural change in energy supply and energy use. Such a transition brings about dramatic changes in policy, the economy, materials and infrastructure, and daily life, including work, food and mobility.
By looking at past transitions, from hunter-gatherer societies to small agriculture, then to complex agriculture (including colonial empires), followed by coal-based and later oil-and gas-based industrialisation, and then hopefully, to a renewable energy society, historians can trace how much societies change when their energy basis changes, and how long such a change actually takes. I aim to tell a cautionary tale.”
How did past societies adapt to new energy sources, and what can we learn from their successes and failures?
“New energy sources were usually added to the mix, rather than immediately substituting older ones, often when existing sources were depleted. For instance, in late 18th century England, the scarcity of wood made lignite (soft brown coal) an attractive alternative, despite its unpleasant odour and the cost of procuring it. The English adapted to the pollution caused by burning lignite, until ‘smog’ (a combination of smoke and fog) became impossible to ignore due to its lethal effects. Interestingly, early industrialisation actually increased wood demand rather than reducing it – just think of railway sleepers or telegraph poles. My key take-away point is that scarcity drives innovation. This offers some hope, as the current scarcity of atmospheric ‘parking space’ for carbon dioxide is spurring innovation in renewable energy sources.”
Are there any past technologies or methods that you think could be reintroduced today to help with our current energy challenges?
“What humanity can and should reintroduce is the common goal of frugality and long-term-thinking. I am advocating to change to a solar-based, steady-state economy rather than one reliant on growth. History offers a valuable lesson here: Simon Kuznets developed GDP as a measure of a nation’s performance in 1937, but it was not widely used before the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944. The historian’s message is clear: GDP is not essential for survival – we can develop better tools to help us transition to renewable energy. One such indicator is YOGL (Years of Good Life), which measures a country’s performance by the quality of life it provides rather than by its GDP. This could be a game changer. And what a “good life” means is pretty clear: once basic needs are met, more wealth does not increase happiness. People report contentment when they have a sense of belonging and strong personal connections, more so than when they accumulate material wealth. Global inequality is at catastrophic levels, and those suffering most from climate change are the least responsible for it. Without creating a more just society, we won’t achieve the stability needed for a successful energy transition. In fact, peace and equality are more important to the transition than any particular technology.”
How did different cultures around the world approach energy use and transition, historically? Were there any that were particularly ahead of their time?
“I do not think that you can understand cultures as being in a race, with some ahead and others lagging behind. Cultures are so diverse because human minds can construct a myriad of different cultural systems, with different beliefs, tastes, languages, customs, rituals, and material bases. What they all share is the need to ensure the survival of their members. Since human ecosystems operate under the same energy constraints as all ecosystems, they must produce a net energy gain to survive. For example, solar energy alone powered the temples of ancient India, Greece and the Andean civilisations, but at the cost of slavery. Before fossils fuels became available, cultures were local and regional, with procurement systems fine-tuned to their environments. In areas with water scarcity, cultures conserved water; they built with adobe where the sun allowed for drying, with stone where it was abundant, or with wood where fire risk was lower and forests were plentiful. Each culture created its own niche, based on its surroundings. These local adaptations hold valuable lessons for us today, a point Roger W. Sant emphasised in 1979 with his “least-cost energy strategy.” Personally, I admire cultures that thrived in particularly challenging environments, such as the Inuit or the desert-dwelling Tuareg.”
What can modern policymakers learn from historical energy transitions when planning for future energy needs?
“A world powered by renewables will be an entirely different world, and it will not be similar to the pre-industrial world. History is a one-way road; humanity will most likely transition to a renewables-based solar-techno-civilisation and not into a new Stone Age, as some might suggest. I wish politicians would see the age of fossils as one of unprecedented energy abundance, where we tapped into solar energy stored in fossil biomass (fossils fuels were once living organisms). This abundance enabled technological advances that wouldn’t have been possible under earlier energy constraints. This gift of the planet could have been used more wisely, but we didn’t waste it entirely. We’ve developed the technology to harvest solar energy directly through technical systems, rather than relying on biomass.
The new solar-electric age offers the potential for a new kind of unpolluted prosperity. Politicians should also understand that every invention usually has unintended side-effects. Therefore, the new energy regime should be based on the precautionary principle, rather than a culture of unfettered innovation and growth. History shows us that energy demand is elastic, and policies should be based on lower demand levels – ones that will still allow humanity to thrive.”
Published 27th November 2024. For more information please contact AECardiffHub@cardiff.ac.uk
