I wonder if wouldn’t be more accurate to say that the debates in the arts, sciences and humanities are a result of material and economic realities? It seems to me the new fossil fuel renaissance is driven by sheer demand, not by academic arguments being won or lost.

By far the weight of academic opinion is against the desirability of a new age of fossil fuels. But that may not matter much. Academic debate will certainly influence the way the new era is managed. But the real drive s something much more forceful and primeval.

Much of the specific technology behind fracking & other methods has been supplied by university research, of course. So it wouldn’t be right to say that the academy hasn’t played an essential role. But it seems to me that in the final analysis, economics shapes ideas more than vice-versa.