Are we being too pessimistic about climate change? According to the international think tank Ember, we are. In their recent publication The Age of Power, the researchers outline a green energy revolution: the combination of the information revolution driven by ICT and AI and the unstoppable rise of renewable energy will soon sweep fossil fuels aside, as lead researcher Daan Walter explains in *De Volkskrant*. The message: we are in the midst of a transformation, but – partly due to our climate defeatism – we have not fully realised this.

Who wouldn’t want to believe that? Yet a crucial caveat is missing: in our growth-based system, we must think in terms of ‘both-and’, not ‘either-or’. Clean energy can complement fossil fuels, but cannot replace them. Researchers at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) published an insightful report on this subject last summer. In it, they question the idea that technological progress automatically leads to reduced fossil fuel consumption.

A smaller share does not necessarily mean a reduction

In ‘The Generalised Jevons Paradox and the Future of Energy’, the researchers challenge the notion that new energy sources and materials will automatically displace their predecessors. A one-sided focus on market shares can give that impression. However, a declining share says little about absolute consumption if total demand is growing. For example, the share of oil in global energy consumption may fall, whilst the quantity of oil consumed increases. The relevant question is therefore not only how much ground clean energy is gaining, but also how much fossil fuel is actually being phased out.

The researchers identify a broader pattern: over the period they studied, total consumption of all the energy sources and materials examined increased, with the exception of sheep’s wool, asbestos and mercury. This occurred despite countless technological innovations. Technological progress does not, therefore, automatically mean that we are moving away from existing energy sources and materials. The researchers point to the interdependencies between these energy sources and materials.

Why efficiency is not enough

Take the electric car, for example. Its production requires steel, aluminium, lithium, copper and plastics. The extraction and processing of these materials still rely heavily on fossil fuels. Consequently, the growth of a clean technology can also generate demand for fossil fuels. This does not render electric cars useless, but it does illustrate why electrification does not immediately break all dependencies on fossil fuels.

The researchers link this interdependence to the classic Jevons paradox, named after the nineteenth-century British economist William Stanley Jevons. More efficient use of energy and raw materials makes production cheaper and can thus trigger additional demand. As a result, part of the saving may be lost, or even completely negated. The researchers do indeed find a strong positive correlation between efficiency and total raw material consumption. In their ‘Generalised Jevons Paradox’, they combine this mechanism with the interdependencies between energy sources and materials. Together, these help explain why fossil fuel consumption can remain so persistent.

Moreover, these interdependencies are not merely technical. According to the IMF researchers, market power, geo-economic relationships, trade agreements and financial considerations also play a role. Consider the global AI race, the drive towards autonomy, and the US import tariffs and full commitment to fossil fuels. Such priorities drive investment decisions and may further entrench fossil fuels in the global production structure. It is therefore not only the availability of clean technology, but also the (historical) choices regarding production and investment that determine how quickly we can phase out fossil fuels.

Look at what is disappearing

More clean energy does not, therefore, automatically mean less fossil fuel. That caveat should be at the forefront of optimistic narratives about the energy transition, not buried in the small print. Optimism can help drive the transition forward, but the belief that fossil fuels will automatically be outcompeted could, in fact, lull us into a false sense of security. We need more binding climate measures, not fewer. The recent watering down of European climate policy runs completely counter to this. The EU and national governments must dare to look beyond the optimism. This means not only promoting clean energy, but also actively steering the phase-out of fossil fuels, with binding targets and deadlines for reducing the use of coal, oil and gas.

More columns by Joeri de Wilde