In their provocatively titled book “Sustainable Eco-Capitalism” (L’éco-capitalisme durable), energy engineer Philippe Charlez and environmental lawyer Julien Anfruns tackle an essential question: can human development and environmental preservation be reconciled in a lasting way?
The authors begin with a particularly harsh assessment, ten years after COP21. Despite $15 billion invested, global fossil-fuel consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions continue to rise. They attribute this failure to the development of emerging countries and to the weakening of multilateralism, now replaced by a logic of rival blocs.
Left on its own, Europe is meanwhile committing suicide on the “altar of climate virtue”. For lack of sufficient profitability, the projects meant to embody green growth — renewables, the electrification of uses, hydrogen — are stalling, being abandoned or leading to bankruptcies. Despite this reality, the Old Continent persists with a Green Deal that Charlez and Anfruns have renamed the “4i pact”: unrealistic, unjust, unsustainable and, above all, useless in the face of the “Chinese elephant”, responsible for a third of the world’s CO₂ emissions. The authors also highlight the opposition of the working classes to a political ecology perceived as an “elitist paternalism” far removed from their everyday concerns. This social fracture fuels political rejection, even climate denial. Today, one-third of the French — including 50 % of National Rally sympathisers — declare themselves climate sceptics.
Faced with a “carbo-centric religion” that neglects the economic and social consequences of the transition, and with a prevailing degrowthism hostile to the engines of progress, Charlez and Anfruns propose a third way: sustainable eco-capitalism. While denouncing the excesses of consumerism, they reaffirm their attachment to economic growth and technological innovation, which they regard as inseparable from the fundamental values of liberal democracy.
20 years ago, Nicholas Stern wrongly predicted that climate change would cause immense economic losses from extreme weather events
Now, we know he was wrong
Ironically, but not surprisingly, The Guardian celebrates him for being righthttps://t.co/0clU2mXcjc pic.twitter.com/El0r7xqf2R
— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) October 30, 2026
The engine of human development, capitalism is also the environment’s best ally. Without economic prosperity, the authors argue, it is impossible to finance ambitious environmental policies or to strengthen resilience against natural disasters. As they methodically demonstrate, “ecology is not a universal virtue but a rich man’s sport”.
Yet, because material and energy resources are finite, their depletion represents a mechanical limit to the durability of capitalism. To answer this dilemma — the main argument of the degrowthists against the growth society — the authors distinguish between matter and energy. The former can be recycled; the latter, once dissipated, is irrevocably lost. The durability of eco-capitalism therefore requires reducing material consumption and freeing humanity from its “energy gaol” of fossil fuels and fissile uranium.
To extend the lifespan of material resources, Charlez and Anfruns recommend developing the circular economy as well as an “intelligent localism” based on targeted reindustrialisation. On the energy front, opposed to the integration of renewables into the grid, the authors favour the local coupling of renewables with small modular reactors, as well as geothermal energy. According to them, however, only plutonium breeding and nuclear fusion will enable humanity to free itself permanently from this “energy goal”.
As long-time climate believers that however are concerned by the slow pace of the energy transition, the authors anticipate warming of the order of 2.5 °C by 2100. In a context of chronic indebtedness, they call for a rebalancing of funding between mitigation and adaptation. They advocate massive investment in forest protection, soil de-artificialisation, flood prevention, air-conditioning and water management. They also defend the use of genetic engineering to strengthen agricultural resilience.
At a time when climate and energy issues continues to occupy a central place in political debate, this book is key to any policy maker.
