This analysis demonstrates the importance of societal priorities in energy transition, suggesting bottom-up models could achieve global net zero effectively.
Academic researchers in technical and policy fields tend to pay little attention to the metaphysical and ontological ‘priors’ that nevertheless structure and determine scientific strategies and results. Green political agendas rooted in ecological modernization (EM) are distinguished from antecedent visions predicated on biophysical limits. Net zero is shown to be rooted in a project of global EM. Ecomodernism is analyzed in relation to its principal actors, geopolitical context and underlying metaphysics and anthropology. It is driven by non-negotiable societal priorities (‘ends’), which themselves derive from a particular set of technical ‘means’. The top-down version of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (IR4.0) and new paradigm of global net zero constitute an integrated agenda of eco-modernism. Global net zero cannot hope to achieve its own metabolic goals in respect of either energy flows or the circular economy. A competing, bottom-up and distributed model of the IR4.0 could potentially achieve these targets without falling prey to the Jevons paradox. This potential turns on the greater capacity of low-overhead, prosumer models to nurture less materialist cultural priorities that are more communitarian and family-oriented. A smart energy system that emerges in the context of distributed, domestic and informal production is much more likely to mirror the complex, infinitely gradated and granular pattern of oscillating energy transfers that are characteristic of biological systems. From an ecological economic perspective, such a bottom-up approach to the IR4.0 is much more likely to see the orders of magnitude reduction in the unit energetic cost of social complexity envisaged, in principle, by net zero. Through this comprehensive review of the metaphysical and ontological priors of mainstream IR4.0, researchers in the linked fields of energy and circular economy are presented with a wider range of potential options less constrained by preconceived assumptions about the ‘ends’ of societal development and progress.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stephen Quilley (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: