Combustion is an infrastructural regime that reorganises political power, social practice, spatial form and the conditions under which life becomes possible. Timothy Mitchell’s “Carbon Democracy” demonstrates this with exceptional precision by following coal and oil through the technical networks that extract, transport and convert energy. Fossil fuels do not simply supply an external resource to political systems; their material properties and logistical arrangements shape the forms of collective leverage, interruption and democratic possibility available to workers and states. Coal’s concentrated labour networks enabled particular forms of political mobilisation, while oil’s differently engineered circulation reorganised power through pipelines, shipping, finance and geopolitical control.
Energy becomes political because flows have architectures. Stephen Pyne pushes this argument back into deep environmental history. His work on anthropogenic fire treats human control of combustion as a decisive transformation in the natural history of the Earth. Fire is simultaneously cause, consequence and catalyst: it modifies landscapes, enables technologies, structures agriculture and metallurgy, and provides an index of human relations with the biosphere. His historical method is necessarily interdisciplinary because fire leaves records distributed across ecology, archaeology, sediment, forestry, historical narrative and cultural practice. The point is not simply that humans use fire, but that fire mediates the transition from biological capacity to planetary agency. Pyne and Goldammer’s account of the culture of fire further distinguishes anthropogenic burning from both natural ignition and industrial fossil combustion, producing a history in which different fire regimes reveal different relations among society, landscape and technology. Jason W. Moore generalises this relational materialism through the “web of life”. Capitalism, in his account, is not an economic system acting upon an external nature but a world-ecology in which power, profit and life are co-produced across human and extra-human processes. Metabolism here is historical and geopolitical. Nature is not a background resource but constitutive of accumulation, labour and social organisation. Moore’s insistence on reciprocal codetermination provides a conceptual bridge between Pyne’s fire history and Mitchell’s carbon politics: energy regimes work through webs of relation that bind bodies, landscapes, infrastructures and institutions. Harold Wilhite and Elizabeth Shove move the analysis into everyday consumption. Their critique of technical and economic models of household energy demand shows that energy use cannot be explained by efficiency, price or individual preference alone. Lighting, heating and cooling practices emerge from socio-technical histories involving standards, industries, media, domestic routines and aesthetic conventions. Japanese and Norwegian lighting cultures demonstrate that apparently universal services such as “adequate illumination” are culturally produced, while the spread of air conditioning reveals how technologies construct the demand they are later invoked to satisfy. The indoor climate becomes a combustion regime in miniature: energy-intensive expectations are stabilised through buildings, appliances, dress codes, work schedules and comfort conventions. Ana Horta, Wilhite, Luísa Schmidt and Françoise Bartiaux extend this perspective by treating energy consumption as a bridge between nature and culture. Energy-intensive modernity is made through extraction, technological systems and social conventions that normalise specific forms of consumption. Their account of energy sociology shows how research moved away from individualist models toward cultural, institutional and practice-based explanations. Stefan Bouzarovski introduces distributive inequality through energy poverty. Access to warmth, cooling and domestic energy is shaped by housing quality, infrastructure, tariffs, institutions and geography, revealing that energy capacity is never evenly distributed. The home is where planetary energy systems become bodily conditions. Samar Thapa and Giovanni Pernigotto add a comparative climatic register by showing that thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings differs across high-latitude Europe and Himalayan India even under broadly comparable temperate classifications. Clothing, building practice, adaptation and indoor-outdoor coupling alter what counts as comfortable. Comfort therefore cannot be separated from culture, geography and energy. Across these works, combustion regimes describe more than burning fuel. They name the assemblages through which energy is captured, converted, normalised, distributed and contested, from the controlled flame to the fossil infrastructure, from world-ecology to the domestic thermostat. Socioplastics can operationalise combustion regimes by tracing energy as a sequence of conversions rather than a stable thematic category. A field organised in this way follows how material power becomes infrastructural capacity, how infrastructure becomes social expectation, and how expectation becomes a recurrent demand that reshapes material systems in return. Mitchell’s method suggests that political analysis should begin with the physical routes of circulation: mine, rail, pipeline, port, refinery, grid, building and device. Each route is also a route of power because it establishes points of dependence, interruption and visibility. Pyne adds a longer temporal scale in which the archive of fire is distributed across heterogeneous traces. Sediment, charcoal, tree rings, landscape morphology, texts and technologies can all become evidence, but no single disciplinary method can exhaust the phenomenon. This is a direct model for a transdisciplinary corpus: the object is held together by relations among traces rather than by a uniform medium. Moore’s world-ecology expands the spatial field further. A local urban energy system cannot be understood only at the city boundary because its material conditions are produced through distant extraction zones, labour regimes, ecological transformations and financial circuits. The archive should therefore be capable of following urban evidence outward into its planetary dependencies. Wilhite and Shove provide the complementary inward movement. Energy demand must also be followed into habits, aesthetics, schedules, standards and domestic practices. A photograph of an air-conditioned glass building is not merely architectural evidence; it can be connected to comfort norms, electricity systems, climatic assumptions, building codes and cultural expectations. Horta and colleagues make this plurality explicit by locating energy consumption between nature and culture rather than inside one disciplinary domain. Bouzarovski then forces the field to register uneven capacity. The same grid, climate or tariff does not produce the same energetic condition across households. Infrastructure must be indexed through differential access, housing quality and vulnerability if its political reality is to remain legible. Thapa and Pernigotto add a warning against universal performance standards: similar climates can support different comfort practices, and the numerical threshold is meaningful only when situated within bodily and cultural adaptation. Socioplastics can therefore treat energetic data as relational evidence whose context must travel with it. Kilowatt-hours, temperatures, emissions and material flows acquire theoretical force when connected to the practices and infrastructures that produce them. This also reframes archival persistence. Energy systems are path-dependent: once technologies, standards and habits stabilise one another, alternatives become harder to imagine and implement. The archive can make that path dependence visible by linking earlier states, infrastructural decisions and later behavioural consequences. A longitudinal chain of documents can reveal how a temporary technical choice becomes a durable social convention. Conversely, moments of interruption—blackouts, shortages, fuel crises, heatwaves, policy shifts—can be read as epistemic openings because they expose dependencies normally hidden by smooth provision. Combustion regimes thus provide a grammar for connecting environmental history, political economy, architecture, domestic life and urban infrastructure without reducing them to a single scale. The field becomes capable of seeing fire in the building, the mine in the thermostat, the landscape in the grid and the political institution in the apparently private act of cooling a room. Such relations matter because energy is one of the principal mechanisms through which modern environments maintain continuity while concealing the external territories and historical transformations that make that continuity possible. Socioplastics gains an infrastructural ecology of capacity: a way to map how flows become norms and how norms reproduce flows. The archival consequence is equally material. Combustion leaves residues: soot, ash, altered landscapes, infrastructures, debts, habits, emissions inventories and political institutions. These residues can be read as afterlives of energetic decisions, connecting past conversions to present capacities. A field attentive to such afterlives can identify how seemingly obsolete energy systems continue to structure contemporary buildings, territorial inequalities and expectations of comfort. This temporal depth prevents transition narratives from presenting new technologies as clean breaks. Energetic change is better understood as layered substitution, where old regimes persist inside new ones through inherited networks, standards and spatial dependencies. Within Socioplastics, this condition condenses as ClimateTranslation.
Anto Lloveras is an architect and urban researcher working across energy, infrastructure, urban ecology, archives and spatial epistemology through LAPIEZA LAB and Socioplastics.
Bibliography
Bouzarovski, S. (2018) Energy Poverty: (Dis)Assembling Europe’s Infrastructural Divide. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69299-9.
Horta, A., Wilhite, H., Schmidt, L. and Bartiaux, F. (2014) ‘Socio-Technical and Cultural Approaches to Energy Consumption: An Introduction’, Nature and Culture, 9(2), pp. 115–121. https://doi.org/10.3167/nc.2014.090201.
Mitchell, T. (2009) ‘Carbon Democracy’, Economy and Society, 38(3), pp. 399–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140903020598.
Moore, J.W. (2022) ‘How to Read Capitalism in the Web of Life: Towards a World-Historical Materialism in the Web of Life’, Journal of World-Systems Research, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.5195/JWSR.2022.1127.
Pyne, S.J. (1994) ‘Maintaining Focus: An Essay on Anthropogenic Fire’, Chemosphere, 29(5), pp. 889–911.
Pyne, S.J. and Goldammer, J.G. (1997) ‘The Culture of Fire: An Introduction to Anthropogenic Fire History’, in Clark, J.S., Cachier, H., Goldammer, J.G. and Stocks, B. (eds.) Sediment Records of Biomass Burning and Global Change. Berlin: Springer.
Thapa, S. and Pernigotto, G. (2025) ‘Adaptive Thermal Comfort in the Different Buildings of Temperate Climates—Comparison Between High-Latitude Europe and Mountainous Himalayas in India’, Sustainability, 17(2), 404. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020404.
Wilhite, H. and Shove, E. (1998) ‘Understanding Energy Consumption: Beyond Technology and Economics’, in Proceedings of the ACEEE 1998 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
