The green transition is ultimately about people

According to Nordic researchers, this is precisely why energy transitions are often conflict-ridden. Energy is an integral part of daily life, and transitions affect people in profound and almost existential ways.

In the green transition, measures intended to contribute to lower carbon emissions frequently lead to environmental and social conflicts over land use, local environment, and local rights. This is the case in many parts of the Nordic region, including areas where rare minerals are being explored and where wind turbines or power lines are being constructed.

This tension forms the starting point for the research project Energy Lives!, which examines how energy transitions shape—and are shaped by—everyday life, politics, and infrastructure.

“When we talk about energy transitions, the discussion often centres on technology, markets, and emissions reductions. Less visible are the people who live within energy systems and who bear the consequences of these transitions in their daily lives. This is exactly what the Energy Lives! project is about,” says project leader Melina Antonia Buns.

Buns is Associate Professor of History at the University of Stavanger and part of The Greenhouse Centre for Environmental Humanities. Together with researchers from across the Nordic region, she examines energy history from the ground up: through lives, memories, conflicts, and experiences.

The life cycle of energy

The project name Energy Lives! has a double meaning. On the one hand, it refers to energy as part of people’s lives; on the other, it points to the fact that energy has a life of its own—from extraction and production to use and legacy.

“Energy must be produced. It has to be extracted from natural resources such as oil and gas. It is then transported to facilities where it is refined, either into fuel or electricity. From there, it is distributed through infrastructure such as pipelines and power grids, both above and below ground. At the same time, by-products emerge in the form of emissions, waste, and in some cases radioactive material. In the end, what remains are both physical traces and systems—buildings, installations, and networks. All of this constitutes the life cycle of energy, with its different sources and forms,” explains Buns.

She emphasises that the closer this type of infrastructure comes to people, the more personal and contested it becomes. The debate may concern wind power, data centres, or electricity prices, but it also involves more fundamental questions about what energy is used for and who bears the costs—whether economic, cultural, social, or familial.

“At the same time, we must ask what we use energy for. Do we need all the data centres and the energy consumption they require? Can we generate energy in already developed areas rather than opening new land? For us, it is about understanding, communicating, and critically examining the purpose of energy production and infrastructure development.”

The first energy phase-out

As a historian, Buns is interested in the long-term perspective of energy transitions. She believes that the world now faces a unique situation:

“Throughout history, we have added new energy sources to our energy mix, but we have never phased any out. In practice, we have simply kept adding more, making energy systems larger rather than truly transforming them. If we are to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and limit global warming—as all Nordic countries have committed to—we must phase out fossil energy. This represents an energy transition unlike any we have experienced before.”

Nordic differences

The Nordic countries have very different energy resources, creating different conditions for achieving a green transition towards more climate-friendly energy systems.

“Norway is clearly in a unique position because a large share of its national energy production is already based on hydropower, which does not itself require decarbonisation. Iceland is in a similar situation with geothermal energy. At the same time, increasing electrification across society requires greater access to electricity. Here we see differences within the Nordic region, for example in how wind power development is received. Historically, wind turbines in Denmark have often been developed through co-operatives, where local communities have ownership stakes and share in the economic benefits of green energy. Being able to associate wind power with positive outcomes can increase acceptance. By contrast, foreign ownership or limited local economic benefits may reduce acceptance.”

A just green transition

For the green transition to succeed, it must be fair, according to Buns. The first step is recognising that some groups and professions will be more affected than others.

“One of the greatest challenges concerns workers in the oil and gas sector. The key is to create opportunities for transition and skills development so that their experience can continue to contribute to value creation and industrial development. We can also learn from previous transitions in Europe, where deindustrialisation—for example in Germany’s Ruhr region—has led to decline and inequality. These experiences show the importance of being proactive and involving those who are affected. They themselves possess valuable knowledge about how their expertise can be used in new ways.”

When energy prices rise, they provoke strong reactions—as seen in many parts of the world following the increase in energy and fuel prices after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and after the attacks involving Israel and the United States against Iran earlier this year. Measures that reduce energy costs can lessen public resistance, but they may also increase consumption and thereby undermine the transition.

“The debate about electricity and fuel prices shows that our relationship with energy is deeply emotional. When oil prices rose in 1973, politicians chose to limit and reduce consumption among the general population. In 2025 and 2026, that does not appear to be something politicians are willing to do. Instead, they choose to compensate people by making energy cheaper, effectively encouraging greater consumption.”

According to Buns, this is a clear example of how energy consumption is shaped by political priorities, and why a comprehensive energy transition is likely to be marked by conflict.

“It is important to remember that our energy systems are not fixed; they are the result of historical choices, and they do not have to remain as they are today. In the future, we can think differently. It may be possible to introduce more decentralised solutions in which more people generate some of their own energy, while also working to reduce overall energy consumption. Historical documents contain many alternative visions for energy systems and energy societies. Ultimately, this depends on how willing politicians are to make decisions that are long-term and perhaps uncomfortable in the moment, but necessary in the face of the climate crisis confronting the global community.”