Luis Garduas and Vicente Guedero
May 23, 2025
Transition (RAE): action and effect of passing from one state or mode of being to another.
“Energy transition” is a term from nuclear physics, where it describes the passage of an electron from one energy state to another. It was then adopted by advocates of nuclear energy, particularly supporters of fast reactors. These reactors, capable of converting all uranium isotopes into fuel, offered a vision of unlimited energy and a solution to the depletion of fossil fuels. From this vision arose the language of “transition”—a gradual evolution from finite energy to infinite energy[1].
“Transitions” have historically been a device widely used by those in power to give the impression that something is changing, while maintaining the essential structures without substantial change. Thus, when the dictator died, while the most dynamic sectors struggled to maintain the struggles that had gathered in universities and workplaces and the mobilizations in the streets, the ‘democratic’ left, obeying both German multinationals and the Soviet Politburo, maneuvered to impose the narrative of a wonderful “democratic transition” that, like a balm, calmed the masses. democratic“ left, obeying both German multinationals and the Soviet Politburo, maneuvered to impose the narrative of a wonderful ”democratic transition” which, like Fierabrás’ balm, would take us from a decades-long dictatorship to a social and democratic state, without touching a single iota of the fascist apparatus that the regime had put in place after the civil war. Today, fifty years later, there is no need to dwell on the subject; we are reaping the fruits of this exemplary “democratic transition.” It was a pure and simple betrayal by the same sectors that, during the civil war, had opted for counterrevolution in the face of the aspiration for freedom.
Today, in order to address the serious situation of exceeding six of the nine environmental limits, the most dangerous in human history, since for the first time we are on the brink of global collapse—understood as a significant reduction in levels of social complexity—proposals for an inevitable “energy transition” are emerging that would allow us tomitigate the damage we are inflicting on the planet and ourselves by halving emissions by 2030. This is not without irony, as this urgent need to burn less fossil fuels is presented to us as an ethical imperative when in reality it is a response to the depletion of accessible oil reserves and fossil resources in general. In any case, this would mean abandoning fossil fuels and adopting “renewable energies,” but within a centralized model controlled by the same actors who have managed the much-maligned fossil fuels over the past decades. As for energy communities and energy decentralization, which would democratize access to energy, they are purely symbolic: everyone talks about them, but no one benefits from them. However, renewable energies are not purely renewable, as their production, commissioning, operation, and dismantling depend on huge quantities of fossil fuels, which are not in the process of being phased out. Furthermore, the so-called renewable energy industry could be seen as an extension of the current energy model, which, far from replacing it, profitably prolongs the combustion of remaining fossil fuels. And this does not substantially alter the structural dependence on these resources. History and data confirm that there has never been an energy transition and that we are once again faced with the umpteenth addition of new energy systems/vectors to traditional systems, as Fressoz rightly explains. This strategy allows (once again) huge amounts of our tax money to be spent (while dismantling the “welfare state,” which in our case never made it past the first floor) to fuel a new phase of accumulation, this time in the form of green capitalism, which is ravaging areas that have already been devastated by capitalism. welfare state,” which in our case never made it past the first floor) to fuel a new phase of accumulation, this time in the form of green capitalism, which is ravaging the already depleted areas of the peninsula and the outskirts of the most industrialized territories, which believed themselves to be safe.
It is undeniable that the “energy transition” is just a new business niche for the same old players, a new gamble, similar to those that have taken place in recent decades, and more recently after Covid. Energy companies and banks themselves already recognize this: there is no valid energy transition. Once the tax incentives and public funds have been pocketed, it’s back to business as usual. Business is business. Even the “Global Banking Alliance for Net Zero,” created in 2021, in the midst of the Covid pandemic, to bring together the world’s largest banks “to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement and accelerate the energy transition,” is dissolving like a piece of sugar (JP Morgan, Citi, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs have already left), while a new struggle is underway to obtain new concessions on oil fields, even at the cost of destroying the world’s largest terrestrial carbon sink. Transaction, pure business.
Alongside this illusory “energy transition,” the “capitalist left” is once again proposing another transition, this time “eco-social,” as a way out of the global crisis. To achieve this “transition” that would save us from the bleak future predicted by the most sensible scientists, there is no question of challenging the system that produced the disaster, capitalism, but rather of making cosmetic changes in order to create a marketable narrative. To do this, its advocates propose taking control of the state and then, from there, leading a process of “just degrowth” that would leave no one behind. This would involve forcing the world’s largest emitters (the oil industry, the war industry, etc.) to take measures to drastically reduce their emissions, i.e., from Parliament, to bring the capitalist industrial complex to its knees. Does that sound familiar?
This is how initiatives such as the Beyond Growth Alliance[2] came about, whose objectives are: “to save and clean up a state that is currently parasitized by lobbies and dominant power networks, so that it truly represents its citizens”; “ to reorient the current model of the state“; ”a state where decisions are more shared and which promotes an economy based more on care and rights than on profits and gains, which supports initiatives with a lower ecological footprint.”
Other proposals, such as the one led by Sumar, propose the creation of a “climate shield” to protect us, without explaining how a global problem can be circumvented by a national umbrella. Are we going to stop the climate and social effects that are looming in the Pyrenees?
Others advocate the creation of a “permanent climate parliament” with a popular jury that would make decisions and set climate priorities (sic). Still others are calling for an alliance called “public-community collaboration” between the state apparatus and movements working for a just eco-social transition. Others advocate a Green New Deal that mobilizes public funds for “socially and ecologically necessary production,” so that it is the government that “reorganizes production.” Invariably, trust in the state is advocated and those who do not trust it are criticized: “eco-socialism continues the struggle for the transformation of the state. It is striking to note the coincidence between this proposal for survival on the margins, which is highly functional to the established disorder, and the temptation of a considerable part of the indignant alternative movements: let’s organize ourselves on the margins of the state (if they destroy public health, let’s create self-managed health cooperatives, etc.). Faced with this temptation, ecosocialism affirms: we will not give up on transforming the state so that it may one day become truly social, democratic, and based on the rule of law. To achieve these goals, we must force reforms within the framework of the state: “A struggle for reforms that aim to weaken the balance of the system, exacerbate its contradictions, intensify its crises, and raise the class struggle to increasingly intense levels.” Others, more daring, perhaps because they currently hold ministerial positions, have moved from “deviation from the established order” to proposing “a stronger state to discipline markets, finance, and techno-oligarchs. A smarter state to deal with the uncertainties of decarbonization and the ecological crisis.”
In short, it is a question of imagining the state as “a kind of good green policeman who regulates the economy so that it serves both human beings and nature.” In other words, “taking the state” or “turning the state around” towards degrowth proposals that expropriate the powers that be (multinationals, armies, repressive apparatuses, etc.) and lead a just eco-social transition. By voting, exclusively.
No matter how it disguises itself, whether it is “green,” “eco-social,” or any other adjective, the state is the guarantor of the smooth functioning of capitalism. To believe in the “neutrality” of states is to believe in fairy tales. States (of all stripes) are part of the problem and are not the solution to ecological degradation.
It is true that the problem is complex, that time is against us (we could reach two degrees in the next decade), that capitalism occupies every nook and cranny of this imperial consumer society (which virtually no one in the global North wants to give up), and that cognitive dissonance reigns. We lack many answers, but we know that some proposals have already been exhausted and that we must not stumble over the same stones. If we start from the premise that those responsible for the problem cannot be part of the solution, if we accept that, in times of crisis, self-organization from the bottom up has been the best remedy, we must recognize that only decentralized structures will allow us to address the issue of mitigation. If, as Bockchin argued, the state is part of the ecological problem, the answer should lie in a “radical and anti-capitalist decentralization of society and the economy based on direct democracy and municipal autonomy.” We should give ourselves a chance to prepare for all kinds of unfavorable scenarios, but with one fundamental idea in mind: to reclaim the spaces of autonomy that our parents and grandparents cultivated.
[1]https://www.dezeen.com/2025/04/22/energy-transition-jean-baptiste-fressoz-opinion/
[2] These include: Ecologistas en Acción, Greenpeace, Rebelión Científica, CCOO, UGT, ATTAC, Fundación Alternativas, Espacio Público…
Source: https://diario16plus.com/opinion/transiciones-transacciones-traiciones_508672_102.html
Rebound: