![]() ![]() Natural scientists have suggested the accumulated consequences of fossil-fuelled industrialism are so great the very distinction between human and natural history has blurred and requires revision. 9 And it is not solely historians who think in such terms. 8 Such thinking is not confined to eco-Marxists such as Malm Angela Merkel’s favourite historian Jürgen Osterhammel has also cast coal as a central determinant of the industrial transformations which spread from Europe to encompass the world. 7 Accordingly, as the historian Andreas Malm points out, the well-worn subject of the British Industrial Revolution must be reconsidered as energy historical event of planetary consequence. With growing awareness of the implications of anthropogenic climate change, the belief that ‘energy might fundamentally drive history’ has returned. 5 Amid a more general energy turn across the humanities and social sciences, we are witnessing the growth of a subfield of energy history. 4 Alongside which, an emerging field of ‘energy transition studies’ considers past changes in patterns of fuel use as potential guides to a more sustainable future. We are told we need a ‘low carbon industrial revolution’. 3 Necessary corrective action is also cast in historical terms. 2 History, they argue, demonstrates that past energy systems were determined by culture as much as science and engineering. ![]() 1 Historians have entered this uncharted territory, positioning themselves as ‘important allies’ to legislators, thanks to their ability to enrich ‘prepackaged policy proposals’ with the realities of prior experience. We are in a crisis of energy abundance in which limits to growth appear climatic rather than material.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |