What If Fossil Fuels Were Abandoned Earlier?

The Actual History

Fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—have powered humanity's industrial and technological development for over two centuries. The widespread use of coal began during the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century, when it fueled steam engines and later electricity generation. Oil emerged as a dominant energy source in the early 20th century, revolutionizing transportation through internal combustion engines and eventually becoming the lifeblood of global economies.

The first warnings about fossil fuels' environmental impact came earlier than many realize. In 1896, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius calculated that doubling atmospheric CO2 would raise global temperatures by 5-6°C, though he viewed this as potentially beneficial. By the 1950s, scientists began systematically measuring atmospheric CO2 levels, with Charles David Keeling establishing the famous Keeling Curve in 1958, showing steadily rising concentrations.

The 1970s marked the first serious consideration of climate change as a global threat. In 1972, the United Nations held its first environmental conference in Stockholm. The 1973 and 1979 oil crises temporarily increased interest in alternatives, with President Jimmy Carter even installing solar panels on the White House in 1979 (later removed by President Reagan). However, when oil prices fell in the 1980s, momentum toward alternatives largely dissipated.

Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change strengthened throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988, and by its Second Assessment Report in 1995, it concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), leading to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which set binding emissions targets for developed nations. However, the United States—then the world's largest emitter—never ratified it.

The early 21st century saw growing public awareness of climate change, but political and economic action remained limited. The 2015 Paris Agreement marked a significant step forward, with nearly all nations committing to limit warming to "well below 2°C" above pre-industrial levels. However, implementation has been inconsistent. Renewable energy costs have fallen dramatically, with solar photovoltaic costs dropping by approximately 90% between 2009 and 2021, making renewables increasingly competitive with fossil fuels.

Despite these developments, fossil fuels still provided approximately 80% of global primary energy in 2023. Global carbon emissions have continued to rise, with temporary drops during economic downturns like the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, but quickly rebounding afterward. Atmospheric CO2 has reached levels not seen in millions of years—over 420 parts per million by 2023—and global temperatures have already increased by approximately 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels.

The consequences of this delayed action have become increasingly apparent, with more frequent extreme weather events, rising sea levels, biodiversity loss, and ocean acidification. While the transition to renewable energy has accelerated in recent years, with electric vehicles gaining market share and renewable energy capacity growing exponentially, the pace remains insufficient to meet climate targets established under international agreements.

The Point of Divergence

What if humanity had abandoned fossil fuels decades earlier? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where a combination of scientific foresight, political will, and economic incentives led to a decisive shift away from fossil fuels beginning in the late 1970s.

The point of divergence centers on the oil crises of the 1970s, which in our timeline temporarily increased interest in alternative energy. In this alternate timeline, rather than reverting to business as usual when oil prices dropped in the 1980s, the momentum toward renewable energy continued and accelerated. Several plausible mechanisms could have created this divergence:

First, the scientific consensus on climate change might have coalesced more rapidly. Charles David Keeling's CO2 measurements began in 1958, and various scientific reports in the 1960s and early 1970s warned of potential global warming. In this timeline, perhaps these early warnings received greater attention, with major scientific bodies issuing more definitive statements about climate risks by the mid-1970s, creating greater urgency.

Second, the geopolitical response to the oil crises might have been more strategic and forward-thinking. Instead of merely seeking to secure more reliable fossil fuel supplies, major economies could have viewed the crises as exposing a fundamental vulnerability in their energy systems. President Carter's administration, which already showed interest in renewable energy, might have implemented more durable policies that survived the Reagan transition.

Third, technological developments in renewable energy might have progressed more rapidly. Early investments in solar, wind, and battery technology could have been prioritized, perhaps through a program analogous to the Apollo space mission or Manhattan Project. Silicon Valley entrepreneurs might have turned their attention to clean energy rather than exclusively focusing on computing and the internet.

Finally, public opinion might have shifted more decisively against fossil fuels due to more visible environmental disasters or more effective environmental movements. The 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident already heightened environmental concerns; perhaps additional events or more effective communication of climate science created a tipping point in public consciousness.

In this alternate timeline, these factors converge at the 1979 World Climate Conference in Geneva, where instead of merely calling for further research, world leaders commit to concrete action on reducing fossil fuel consumption. This moment—rather than the much later 2015 Paris Agreement—becomes the watershed moment for global climate action.

Immediate Aftermath

Political and Policy Changes

The immediate aftermath of the 1979 World Climate Conference in Geneva saw unprecedented political momentum toward reducing fossil fuel dependence. In the United States, President Carter capitalized on this international consensus to push through his comprehensive energy policy. The National Energy Act of 1980 (expanded beyond its actual historical version) included aggressive tax incentives for renewable energy development, higher fuel economy standards for vehicles, and significant funding for research into solar, wind, and geothermal technologies. Most significantly, when Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the bipartisan support for energy transition was strong enough that, while he scaled back some initiatives, the core of the policy remained intact.

In Western Europe, countries moved even more aggressively. Germany launched its "Energiewende" (energy transition) decades earlier than in our timeline. France, already pursuing nuclear power after the 1973 oil crisis, expanded its program while also beginning investments in renewable technologies. The European Economic Community (EEC) established binding targets for member states to reduce oil consumption by 30% by 1990.

Japan, highly vulnerable to oil supply disruptions, embarked on an intensive national effort to develop energy-efficient technologies and alternative energy sources. The Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) coordinated massive investments in solar photovoltaics research, positioning Japan as an early leader in the technology.

The Soviet Union, despite its vast oil and gas resources, also recognized the strategic importance of diversifying energy sources. Soviet scientists, who had already been researching solar and wind technologies, received increased funding. This created an unexpected area of cooperation during the Cold War, with Soviet and American scientists sharing research on renewable energy technologies at international conferences.

Economic Adjustments

The transition created significant economic disruption but also spurred innovation. Oil-producing nations, foreseeing declining demand, began diversifying their economies earlier. Saudi Arabia established its sovereign wealth fund in 1981 (rather than 2016 in our timeline) to invest oil profits in developing non-oil sectors. Similarly, Norway's Oil Fund was created in 1981 instead of 1990, allowing for earlier diversification.

Traditional energy companies faced a stark choice: adapt or decline. Several major oil companies, including Exxon and Shell, pivoted earlier toward becoming broader "energy companies" rather than just petroleum producers. Exxon maintained its solar energy division (which it actually abandoned in our timeline in the 1980s) and expanded it throughout the decade.

Initial economic costs were substantial. Energy prices remained higher through the 1980s than in our timeline, as the newer technologies had not yet achieved economies of scale. However, this price signal accelerated innovation and efficiency improvements. By 1985, the first mass-market solar-powered consumer products began appearing, and by 1988, the first commercially viable wind farms were operating at grid scale in California, Denmark, and Germany.

The higher energy costs prompted a wave of efficiency improvements across industries. Japanese automakers, already focused on fuel efficiency, gained larger market shares in the United States. American manufacturers responded with their own more efficient models, accelerating technological improvements in vehicle design that might otherwise have waited decades.

Technological Developments

The most visible early technological changes came in transportation and electricity generation. By 1985, every major automaker had at least one electric vehicle prototype in development. General Motors' EV program, which in our timeline produced only the limited EV1 in the 1990s before being canceled, received sustained investment. The first commercially available electric vehicles reached markets by 1990, limited in range but viable for urban commuting.

Solar photovoltaic technology, still expensive in the early 1980s, benefited from coordinated international research efforts. The price per watt dropped by approximately 25% every three years through the 1980s, faster than in our timeline. Wind turbine technology also advanced rapidly, with turbine sizes and efficiency improving steadily.

Energy storage, recognized as crucial for managing intermittent renewable sources, became a research priority. The Advanced Battery Consortium was formed in 1983 (rather than 1991 in our timeline), pooling resources from automakers, energy companies, and government research labs to develop improved battery technologies.

In building technology, passive solar design principles became mainstream in architecture. New building codes in many countries required improved insulation and energy efficiency measures. Smart home systems, capable of optimizing energy use, began development in the late 1980s, decades ahead of their widespread adoption in our timeline.

Cultural and Social Shifts

The energy transition reshaped cultural norms and social expectations. Conservation and efficiency became virtue signals across political divides. The conspicuous consumption that characterized portions of the 1980s in our timeline was tempered by a stronger ethic of resource consciousness.

Environmental organizations grew in membership and influence, with groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace evolving from protest movements to partners in policy development. Earth Day celebrations became major cultural events, with corporate sponsors and mainstream political participation.

Education systems worldwide incorporated environmental science and sustainable development into curricula earlier. By the late 1980s, a generation of students was graduating with awareness of climate science and renewable energy technologies that, in our timeline, would take decades longer to become mainstream knowledge.

Media coverage shifted as well. Films like "The Day After Tomorrow" depicting climate catastrophes appeared in the late 1980s rather than the 2000s. Television programs featuring renewable energy innovations became popular, creating celebrities of scientists and engineers working on clean technology solutions.

Long-term Impact

Climate and Environmental Outcomes

By 2025 in this alternate timeline, the environmental outcomes of earlier action on fossil fuels are profound. Global CO2 emissions peaked around 1995—approximately 25 years earlier than projected in our timeline—and have since declined by over 60%. Atmospheric CO2 concentration stabilized below 380 parts per million (compared to over 420 ppm in our actual 2025), keeping global warming limited to approximately 0.8°C above pre-industrial levels, rather than the 1.2°C increase we've experienced.

This more modest temperature increase has resulted in significantly less extreme weather. While some climate impacts still occur, their severity and frequency are notably reduced:

Sea level rise has been limited to approximately 15 centimeters since 1900, rather than 25 centimeters.
Arctic sea ice maintains much of its historical summer extent, with the Northwest Passage remaining ice-bound most years.
Coral reef systems, while stressed, have largely avoided the mass bleaching events that have devastated reefs in our timeline.
Biodiversity loss, though still occurring due to habitat destruction and other pressures, has not been as severely compounded by climate impacts.

The earlier transition has also reduced other forms of pollution. With electric vehicles becoming mainstream by the early 2000s, urban air quality in major cities improved decades earlier. Beijing, which in our timeline suffered notorious air quality problems through the 2010s, implemented strict emissions controls in the 1990s, resulting in significantly cleaner air.

Ocean acidification, a direct result of increased atmospheric CO2, has been substantially mitigated. Marine ecosystems remain healthier, with commercial fisheries more stable than in our timeline.

Energy System Transformation

By 2025, the global energy system in this alternate timeline bears little resemblance to our current reality. Renewable energy sources provide approximately 75% of global electricity, with the remainder coming primarily from nuclear power and a small percentage of remaining natural gas plants equipped with carbon capture technology.

Solar photovoltaics evolved more rapidly, with commercial efficiency rates reaching 40% by 2020 (compared to around 22% for top commercial panels in our timeline). Building-integrated solar materials—including windows, roofing, and facades that generate electricity—became standard in construction by the 2010s.

Wind power evolved beyond traditional turbines to include more diverse technologies. High-altitude wind generation, capturing the stronger and more consistent winds found at higher elevations, became commercially viable by 2015. Offshore floating wind farms, deployed in deep waters, provide significant power to coastal regions worldwide.

The electrical grid underwent a complete transformation, becoming more distributed and resilient. Smart grid technologies, which in our timeline are still being gradually implemented, became standard by the early 2000s. Microgrids serving communities and industrial facilities increased resilience against disruptions.

Energy storage technologies diversified beyond lithium-ion batteries. Flow batteries for grid-scale storage, compressed air energy storage, hydrogen production for seasonal storage, and advanced flywheels all found commercial niches. The "storage problem" that has limited renewable adoption in our timeline was largely solved by the 2010s.

Nuclear power followed a different trajectory as well. The accidents at Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986) still occurred, creating public concern. However, with climate change more firmly established as an urgent threat, there was greater acceptance of nuclear as a low-carbon bridging technology. Fourth-generation nuclear designs, including small modular reactors and thorium-based systems, were commercialized by the 2010s rather than remaining largely experimental.

Economic and Industrial Transformation

The accelerated transition created winners and losers in the global economy. Traditional fossil fuel companies that failed to diversify largely disappeared by the 2010s. However, those that pivoted successfully became leaders in renewable energy and related technologies. ExxonMobil, which continued its solar research program from the 1970s, became one of the world's largest solar manufacturing companies by the 2000s.

New industrial centers emerged around renewable technologies. China still became a manufacturing powerhouse, but focused on solar panels, batteries, and wind turbines from the beginning rather than coal-powered heavy industry. This reduced the environmental impact of China's economic rise while still allowing for rapid development.

The faster transition to clean energy created a different pattern of economic development in the Global South. Without cheap fossil fuels as the default option for development, countries in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia implemented distributed renewable systems earlier. The "leapfrogging" phenomenon—skipping older, dirtier technologies—became widespread by the early 2000s, with rural electrification often coming from solar microgrids rather than centralized coal plants.

Employment patterns shifted earlier as well. The "green jobs" transition that is still ongoing in our timeline was largely completed by 2015 in this alternate timeline. New industries emerged, including large-scale carbon sequestration (removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it), ecological restoration, and a circular economy infrastructure that minimizes resource extraction and waste.

Economic growth patterns changed substantially. While the transition imposed short-term costs in the 1980s and early 1990s, the resulting innovation wave created new productivity improvements. By the 2000s, most major economies had decoupled economic growth from both carbon emissions and resource consumption, achieving forms of sustainable growth earlier than seemed possible.

Geopolitical Realignment

The geopolitical map was dramatically redrawn. Oil-producing nations that failed to diversify their economies, such as Venezuela and Russia, faced earlier economic and political crises as oil revenues declined in the 1990s rather than maintaining high value into the 21st century. The Middle East's strategic importance shifted, with fewer military interventions related to securing oil supplies.

Energy independence took on a different meaning. Rather than seeking to control fossil fuel resources, nations competed on renewable technology development and manufacturing capacity. The "OPEC" of this timeline became less relevant by the 2000s, while new alliances formed around critical minerals needed for renewable technologies—lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements, and others.

These resource dependencies created new geopolitical tensions, but with more distributed sources and greater recycling of materials, the vulnerabilities were less acute than fossil fuel dependencies had been. International governance around these resources developed earlier and more effectively.

Climate change diplomacy evolved differently as well. Without the decades of delayed action and broken promises that characterized our timeline's climate negotiations, international cooperation on environmental issues strengthened other diplomatic ties. By the 2010s, climate cooperation provided a foundation for addressing other global challenges, from pandemic preparation to artificial intelligence governance.

Social and Cultural Shifts

Perhaps the most profound long-term impacts came in social values and cultural norms. The earlier confrontation with environmental limits fostered greater awareness of planetary boundaries across other domains. Consumerism, while still present, evolved to emphasize quality, durability, and repairability over disposability.

Urban design transformed more rapidly. The car-centric development that dominated the 20th century gave way earlier to transit-oriented, walkable communities. Major cities like Los Angeles and Houston, archetypal sprawling car cities in our timeline, began comprehensive public transportation development in the 1990s. By 2025, most major global cities have extensive car-free zones, integrated networks of public transportation, and ubiquitous infrastructure for walking and cycling.

Food systems transformed as well, with greater emphasis on local production, reduced meat consumption, and sustainable agricultural practices. Vertical farming and urban agriculture became mainstream by the 2010s rather than remaining niche technologies.

The concept of a circular economy—where products are designed for disassembly and materials are continuously recycled—moved from theory to standard practice decades earlier. "Waste" as a concept began disappearing from industrial processes by the 2010s, with manufacturers taking responsibility for the entire lifecycle of their products.

Most significantly, the relationship between humanity and the natural world evolved differently. Without the accelerating climate disasters of our timeline reinforcing a sense of environmental doom, a more balanced view emerged—one that recognized human impacts while believing in the capacity to create positive change.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Daniel Schrag, Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, offers this perspective: "The accelerated transition from fossil fuels in this alternate timeline demonstrates that the technological barriers were never the primary obstacle to addressing climate change. The technologies existed in nascent form in the 1970s and could have been developed more rapidly with sufficient investment and policy support. What our actual history shows is that the main barriers were political and psychological—the ability to coordinate action on a long-term, invisible threat against powerful incumbent industries. This alternate scenario isn't a technological fantasy; it's a political road not taken."

Dr. Naomi Oreskes, historian of science and author of "Merchants of Doubt," provides this analysis: "What's particularly interesting about this alternate timeline is how it disrupts the narrative that environmental protection and economic prosperity are in opposition. The short-term economic dislocations of the 1980s energy transition were real, but they spurred an innovation boom that created entirely new industries and forms of prosperity. Our actual history involved what economists call 'path dependency'—as we continued investing in fossil fuel infrastructure, each step made it harder to change direction. The alternate timeline broke that path dependency earlier, when the sunk costs were lower and the transition more manageable."

Dr. Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency in our timeline, might have observed in this alternate world: "The earlier energy transition revealed something profound about technological change—it can happen much faster than linear projections suggest. In the 1970s, experts predicted solar would never provide more than a fraction of a percent of global energy. They failed to anticipate how dramatically costs would fall with scale and learning. In this alternate 2025, we've seen how S-curves of technology adoption can accelerate with the right policy frameworks. The lesson for any timeline is that technological pessimism often reflects a failure of imagination rather than physical limits."