Why slowing down might be required to win the net zero race
Festina lente - more haste, less speed. Why slowing down might be required to win the net zero race.

On a warm evening in July 2013, the peaceful pilgrimage city of Santiago de Compostela was shattered by the horrific sound of metal on metal as a high-speed train, hurtling at 199 km/h (more than twice the allowed speed), derailed on a curve in the track and never made it to its intended destination. The investigation revealed that the tragic accident was entirely foreseeable and preventable.

Regarding climate policy, Europe is currently speeding towards a similar curve, but still wants to maintain its pace to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The ambitious goals for implementing climate policies and renewable technologies may seem necessary given the urgency of the climate crisis; however, just like the ill-fated train, Europe risks derailment if it keeps up the current pace without carefully considering the growing political and social challenges ahead.

Seeing a rise of right-wing and populist parties, Europe might be wise to consider the paradoxical concept of Festina lente - Latin for “make haste slowly” - as a potentially practical approach to strengthening net zero policies. Balancing speed and caution may be vital in reconciling the need for urgent climate action with maintaining public consent and political stability.

In this article, we will critically assess the unfashionable idea that a measured slowing down of the race to net zero might be the required strategy to actually deliver net zero on time and at least cost.

 

Political shifts and their impact on energy policy

Reducing carbon emissions and achieving net zero by 2050 has led to ambitious policies and rapid deployment of renewable technologies in Europe. The pace of this change, often perceived by voters as driven by elites without adequate public consultation and responsible for rising energy prices, has led to declining support for aggressive climate policies and has been a factor in the rise of populist, right-wing movements. Europe’s rapid push for net zero by 2050 appears to face significant voter backlash.

The liberal-conservative newspaper Kathimerini observes the situation closely: “Emergent populist and authoritarian-leaning parties are gaining strength and power in long-time centrists EU countries like Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden that for decades helped lead European climate efforts.”

The energy transition is at risk of being increasingly shaped by off-center political forces, particularly by surging right-wing and populist parties. These shifts are symptomatic of deeper societal concerns about the pace and fairness of the transition. Right-wing parties argue that rapid decarbonization imposes undue economic burdens on those least able to carry them and threatens jobs, leading to substantial gains in recent elections.

High energy prices and job losses have only fueled this populist backlash, with voters increasingly wary of policies they view as elitist and out of touch. This is why the right-wing parties advocate for a more cautious approach, including re-evaluating policies like the European Green Deal to gain votes of a broader public dissatisfaction with the perceived disconnect between environmental policies and economic realities. 

These implications can’t be simply scoffed at. The energy transition, requiring long-term commitment and public buy-in, now faces risks of policy reversals or watered-down regulations. Political parties, under pressure from populists, are increasingly proposing amendments that weaken key elements of the Green Deal, making the legislative environment for climate action increasingly hostile. Chatham House, a renowned think tank, notes that “mainstream parties are already backpedaling on climate policy to accommodate far right views,” which could undermine the EU’s ability to meet its climate goals.

 

The risks of moving too fast

One visible sign of this is the opposition to electric vehicle (EV) mandates. The planned phase-out of internal combustion engines by 2035 has been met with skepticism, particularly in rural and economically disadvantaged areas as well as urban dwellers without off-street parking where EVs can be charged, leading to frustration with a perceived top-down approach that disregards everyday realities.

The decline in EV sales in some regions is an unfortunate outcome of this growing disenchantment. Mandates, while theoretically effective, often fail to consider practical challenges such as charging infrastructure and higher upfront costs. As a result, the political sustainability of these mandates is in question, with some voters supporting parties that promise to slow down or overturn these policies.

Democratic legitimacy is vital for long-term policy success, and the multi-decade energy transition is no exception. Moving too fast could risk losing public consent. Policies perceived as being imposed without sufficient input risk alienating large segments of the population, leading to political instability and further resistance to rapid change, or even reversal.

 

The case for a slower pace

In the race to achieve net-zero carbon emissions, the instinct to act fast is driven by the clear and present danger of the climate crisis. However, both history and current developments suggest that a slower, more deliberate pace may be the key to not only achieving but sustaining these ambitious goals. 

The concept of Festina lente - " make haste slowly” - could help us reassess the speed of the energy transition. By embracing a more measured approach, Europe could not only meet its climate objectives more effectively but also maximize economic efficiency, use technological advancements' potential, and work towards greater social cohesion.

Let’s think about what would happen if we chose to take it slower:

 

One of the strongest arguments for slowing down the energy transition is that it would provide an opportunity for technological refinement

The early adoption of renewable energy technologies, while necessary to initiate the transition, often resulted in the deployment of less efficient and more costly solutions. For instance, the first generation of photovoltaic (PV) solar panels and wind turbines, widely deployed over the past two decades, are now considered inefficient compared to current technologies. Costs per kW of solar panels have fallen by 90% and are still falling! As noted in discussions about the economic implications of rapid deployment, these early investments locked in billions in subsidies that could have been more effectively utilized if deployment had been better timed with technological advancements.

The economic logic here is clear: as technologies mature, they tend to become cheaper and more efficient. This is driven by economies of scale, learning curves, and incremental innovations. It is possible to argue that there is a first mover disadvantage. By pacing the energy transition more gradually, Europe could capitalize on these advances, ultimately achieving more significant emission reductions at a lower cost. Such an approach not only alleviates the financial burden on governments and taxpayers but also makes clean energy more accessible and attractive to consumers, thereby accelerating voluntary adoption. Particularly, in the poorer second and third world, only by making the green choice the cheapest choice are we likely to see widespread adoption.  Moving too quickly could lead to premature investments in technologies that may soon be outdated.

 

A slower pace would also mitigate the risks of economic disruption. 

The energy sector is not just a technical system but a complex socio-economic network involving millions of jobs, from traditional energy industries to emerging clean technologies. A too-rapid shift away from fossil fuels could lead to significant job losses and economic instability, particularly in regions heavily dependent on these industries. By slowing the pace, policymakers can ensure a just transition, providing time for retraining programs, economic diversification, and social support measures that help workers and communities adapt to the new reality. This approach would honor the principle of “the transition not just being green, but also just”.

 

This could also help to broaden public support for the energy transition. 

Rapid changes, particularly those perceived as top-down mandates, often lead to public resistance and political backlash, as evidenced by the rise of populist movements across Europe. A more gradual approach, by contrast, allows for broader public engagement and ensures that policies are aligned with the needs and concerns of all stakeholders, including those in economically vulnerable communities.

 

By adopting a more measured pace, Europe can avoid the dangers of a so-called “eco-dictatorship.” 

This refers to a scenario where environmental policies are enforced to undermine democratic processes, bypassing the necessary public dialogue and consensus-building in the name of urgency. While potentially effective in the short term, such an approach is unlikely to sustain the broad public support necessary for the decades-long effort required to combat climate change. By moving too quickly, there is a real risk of winning immediate battles but losing the war for long-term climate action. A slower transition, by contrast, allows for the necessary political dialogue and consensus-building, ensuring that a broad cross-section of society supports climate action.

 

A balanced approach to the energy transition

Opposition to rapid climate policies often stems not from a rejection of climate goals but from concerns about the pace, method and most importantly costs of implementation. A more inclusive and gradual approach can address these concerns by offering a clearer, longer-term roadmap for the transition and providing support for those affected by the shift.

The EU has long been a leader in climate action, and its approach is closely watched by other nations. Demonstrating that ambitious climate goals can be achieved, while maintaining social cohesion and economic stability could set the example the rest of the world would want to choose to follow.

The debate over how fast Europe should transition to a low-carbon future reveals that the path forward is not simply a choice between rapid action and inaction, but a question of the most effective speed. By incorporating the principle of festina lente, we could deliver the best chances of ultimate success. This way, we are not only able to address immediate challenges but also build the foundation for a resilient and inclusive future, ensuring that the transition to a low-carbon economy is effective and supported by all segments of society, both here and across the world.