In the subsequent pages (in slide format), I will present baseline macro-data about global energy consumption. If examined with an open and critical mindset, these data show that there is currently no room for debate: when considered at a comprehensive and global scale, the active processes in no way indicate a transition underway (I reiterate: at a comprehensive and global scale. Within subsystems, there are undoubtedly divergent indications, but the global scale is inevitably paramount). In the near future, we will face strategic decisions of fundamental importance for the medium-term destiny of humanity: nuclear power and the automotive sector, to name but two. Such decisions must be made within a highly dynamic and mutable context (e.g., emerging AIs and associated energy demands). This dynamism is a factor that the general public finds exceedingly difficult to navigate. Typically, regarding these major issues, polarized positions emerge which subsequently remain rigidly rooted in individuals. These individuals fail to account for the shifting scenarios that should, conversely, significantly influence the cost-benefit analysis of any strategic matter. Compounding this is the inherent human cognitive difficulty in comprehending and processing large-scale and abundant numerical figures. At this juncture, scientists ought to intervene with a strategic mandate not for simplification, but for clarification and synthesis; however, the "publish or perish" paradigm unfortunately fulfills the exact opposite function. Instead of reducing cognitive entropy, it exponentially increases it.
Antonio Piersanti (Tue,) studied this question.