Search

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the possibility of reducing Europe’s energy dependence on Russian resources has been hotly debated. The fossil fuel industries received most attention as European Union leaders first introduced gradual sanctions on Russian coal and later on oil and gas, while Russia responded with supply cuts. However, Russia’s role as a major player in the global nuclear power sector has remained largely below the sanctions radar, despite dependencies on Russian nuclear technology, uranium supplies and handling of spent nuclear fuel. Here we analyse the state nuclear company Rosatom and its subsidiaries as tools of Russian energy statecraft. We map the company’s global portfolio, then categorize countries where Russia is active according to the degree and intensity of dependence. We offer a taxonomy of long-term energy dependencies, highlighting specific security risks associated with each of them. We conclude that the war and Russia’s actions in the energy sector will undermine Rosatom’s position in Europe and damage its reputation as a reliable supplier, but its global standing may remain strong.

The energy transition is progressing slowly in the ten member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). To achieve ASEAN’s target of 23% renewables in the primary energy supply by 2025, the region would need to invest USD 27 billion in renewable energy every year. However, the ASEAN countries attracted no more than USD 8 billion annually from 2016 to 2021. Through a comparative review of three key factors for attracting investment—renewable energy legislation, energy governance reform, and general conditions for investors—this study examines why the region’s renewable energy sector has not attracted more capital. The contribution of the article is threefold. First, it develops a new review model for assessing the business climate for renewable energy in any country. Second, it offers an update on the state of renewable energy deployment in the ASEAN countries. Third, taking into account international best practices, it identifies the obstacles and solutions to attracting investment in renewable energy in Southeast Asia. The article finds that carbon lock-in is pervasive, regulatory practices have been copy-pasted from the fossil-fuel sector to the renewables sector, and, except for Malaysia and Vietnam, no ASEAN country has implemented a major pro-renewable energy governance reform. Certain advanced renewable energy measures, such as auctions and feed-in tariffs, have been adopted in some member states, but the institutional capacity to implement them is limited. The share of renewables in the energy governance system needs to be increased. ASEAN’s energy transition: how to attract more investment in renewable energy

The energy transition literature assumes that renewable energy sources are more evenly distributed globally than fossil fuels. This assumption implies that the shift from fossil fuels to renewables will enable more countries to pursue energy self-sufficiency and end their dependence on imported energy. However, if the assumption is wrong, the energy transition will depend on transboundary electricity or hydrogen trade, creating new international relationships and opportunities for both cooperation and conflict. The contribution of this study is to test the assumption of the even distribution of renewable energy resources on a quantitative empirical basis. Lorenz curves are compared and Gini coefficients calculated for three types of fossil fuels and three types of renewable energy in 161 countries. The study concludes that renewable energy is indeed more evenly distributed than fossil fuels. This finding lends support to claims that energy transition will bring about a more decentralized global energy system centered on prosumer countries with few long-distance energy relationships. However, the difference between the evenness of the distribution of renewable energy resources and that of fossil fuel reserves is not as great as the literature assumes. International trade in energy, and by extension international energy politics, will not disappear entirely. Are renewable energy sources more evenly distributed than fossil fuels?

This chapter provides a broad introduction to the impact of climate change in Central Asia, a region that has been experiencing a greater rise in temperatures than other parts of the world. The chapter shows how climate change represents a significant threat to Central Asia, exacerbating existing economic and environmental challenges and fueling regional tensions over resource management. Inefficient water resource management at the national level and limited regional collaboration on the management of water resources, coupled with state capacities that remain insufficient to tackle climate change impacts, compound water-related tensions between the countries in the region. The chapter also shows how decarbonisation efforts in Central Asia are still in their early stages, with coal remaining a primary source of energy. Although the Central Asian countries have announced decarbonisation targets and adopted green economy strategies and programmes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a large-scale clean energy transition remains unlikely in the short term. The chapter concludes by identifying a lack of scholarship on climate change in Central Asia, which limits the development of a coherent approach to climate change mitigation and adaptation and evidence-based decision-making in the region. The chapter argues that a more coordinated approach to tackling climate change across the region is needed, requiring closer collaboration and more effective joint management of natural resources by the five Central Asian states. Finally, the chapter presents the chapters in the rest of the book.

While there is abundant research on the expansion of renewable energy in developed countries, little attention has been paid to the decarbonisation of energy systems in Central Asia, despite the region’s vulnerability to climate change, its rapidly growing domestic energy demand and the abundance of natural resources essential for the energy transition. Based on a systematic review of the literature, this chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the profile and trajectory of research on energy in Central Asia between 1991 and 2022. It finds that there was a shift from focusing on fossil fuels to clean energy around 2019–2020. However, despite recent growth, research on renewables and their significance in Central Asia is still sparse. This review indicates that while American and European researchers took the lead in this field in 2012, China, Japan, Kazakhstan and Russia have emerged as the leading contributors since 2016.

Carbon border levies have been suggested as an important tool for ramping up climate action. Such a levy is being negotiated as part of the EU’s Green Deal, with input from public consultations. The success of the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) will depend on its design and acceptance. While most analyses focus on resistance from the EU’s major external trade partners, this article analyses the views of non-state actors within the EU. Their views will be decisive for the cohesion and determination of the EU as the CBAM proposal encounters external resistance. Examining the views of European business and civil society organizations expressed by 276 respondents in the EU’s public consultation, we show that there is general support for CBAM but divergent views on its purpose and on what to do about the allocation of free allowances in the EU Emissions Trading System, sectoral coverage, exemptions for third countries, export rebates and emissions scope. The success and strength of CBAM will depend on whether the EU is able to resolve these design issues and reach compromises between the opposing views of business and civil society. Graphical Abstract

The power sector is one of the major contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions while also being vulnerable to climate change in its own right. Accordingly, the global power sector needs to accelerate decarbonization. This paper assesses power sector pathways to net-zero emissions by 2050 for the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN) using the Low Emissions Analysis Platform (LEAP). In addition to simulating a net-zero emissions scenario, the paper builds reference and renewable policy scenarios, enabling an analysis of additional measures required beyond the business as usual and current policy trajectories to achieve net-zero emissions. The LEAP simulation results indicate that under the net-zero emissions scenario, ASEAN member states need to swiftly capitalize on their currently underutilized renewable energy potential to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. By then, there will have to be a substantial transformation of the technological portfolio with variable renewable energy and energy storage coming to play central roles. The LEAP simulations also indicate that renewable and energy storage technologies are more cost-competitive than carbon capture and storage for achieving the long-term net-zero emissions goal. In the LEAP modeling, GHG emissions rise until they peak in 2029, then gradually decline until reaching zero by 2050. Meanwhile, the emission abatement cost is 16 USD/ton CO2e in the renewable policy scenario and 12 USD/CO2e in the net-zero emissions scenario.

This article assesses the extent to which the academic community engaged with climate change in Central Asia between 1991 and 2021. The article finds that climate change has been neglected in the field of Central Asia area studies. Out of a total 13,488 journal articles in eight key journals for Central Asia research, only 33 articles (0.24%) were on climate change or a related topic. Climate change has been similarly neglected at the events of 17 Central Asia area studies associations. Out of 1305 conference panels, none was focused on climate change. Out of 10,249 individual presentations, only two (0.02%) were focused on climate change. The very same scholars who have been most active in the securitization of Central Asia have ignored the severe security threats that climate change poses to the region. The article contributes to the field of Central Asian studies by drawing attention to severe knowledge gaps that hinder the Central Asian countries from adapting to climate change. It concludes with six recommendations.

This article seeks to nip in the bud four emerging myths about the geopolitics of the rise of renewable energy and the concomitant increase in electricity usage. The article presents alternative perspectives, arguing that (1) the risk of geopolitical competition over critical materials for renewable energy is limited; (2) the resource curse as we know it from the petroleum sector will not necessarily reappear in many countries in connection with renewable energy; (3) transboundary electricity cut-offs will mostly be unsuitable as a geopolitical weapon; and (4) it is not clear that growing use of renewable energy will exacerbate cyber-security risks. In all four areas, the evolving literature could place more emphasis on uncertainty and risks and less on one-sided scenarios and maximization of threats.

The energy transition is causing a surge in demand for minerals for clean energy technologies, giving rise to concerns about the sources and security of supplies of critical materials. Although Central Asia was one of the Soviet Union's main sources of metals and industrial minerals, it has been forgotten in contemporary global critical materials analyses. Here we review the Central Asian mineral resource base and assess its current and potential contributions to global supply chains. We find that the importance of Central Asia lies mainly in the diversity of its mineral base, which includes mineable reserves of most critical materials for clean energy applications. This renders the region important in mineral economics, security of supply, and geopolitical perspectives alike. In sum, Central Asia is likely to become a new hotspot for mineral extraction and a major global supplier of selected critical materials for clean energy technologies.

Along with financing hard infrastructure projects, Beijing also promotes soft power projects in the form of peopleto-people initiatives. However, such projects are low priority within the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Central Asia. The Confucius Institutes, which appear to be an important vehicle for Chinese soft power in the region, are not directly linked to BRI and was launched before and independently of BRI.

This study analyzes the factors that have facilitated Vietnam's recent rapid solar and wind power expansion and draws policy insights for other member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). A policy-mix analysis focusing on targets, incentive instruments, enabling regulations, and policy implementation is carried out, informed by semi-structured interviews with 20 Vietnamese experts during the period January–March 2021. A comparative analysis between Vietnam and the other ASEAN countries provides policy insights. Generous feed-in tariffs are found to have been a key driver, with income tax and land lease payment exemptions also being important. The main barriers include a high level of policy uncertainty and an underprepared transmission grid. Vietnam's case indicates that a strong price signal and a supportive investment environment can pave the way for rapid solar and wind power uptake. Another key lesson is that early preparation of transmission systems for solar and wind electricity is needed to maximize the potential for expanding the use of these technologies.

The Arctic Environmental Responsibility Index (AERI) covers 120 oil, gas, and mining companies involved in resource extraction north of the Arctic Circle in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Finland, Norway, Russia, and Sweden. It is based on an international expert perception survey among 173 members of the International Panel on Arctic Environmental Responsibility (IPAER), whose input is processed using segmented string relative ranking (SSRR) methodology. Equinor, Total, Aker BP, ConocoPhillips, and BP are seen as the most environmentally responsible companies, whereas Dalmorneftegeophysica, Zarubejneft, ERIELL, First Ore‐Mining Company, and Stroygaz Consulting are seen as the least environmentally responsible. Companies operating in Alaska have the highest average rank, whereas those operating in Russia have the lowest average rank. Larger companies tend to rank higher than smaller companies, state‐controlled companies rank higher than privately controlled companies, and oil and gas companies higher than mining companies. The creation of AERI demonstrates that SSRR is a low‐cost way to overcome the challenge of indexing environmental performance and contributing to environmental governance across disparate industrial sectors and states with divergent environmental standards and legal and political systems.

This article carries out a multisectoral qualitative analysis (MSQA) and policy integration analysis of six sectors important for climate mitigation in Southeast Asia in order to assess the status of the climate-energy nexus in the region. It concludes that Southeast Asia will be heavily affected by climate change but the mitigation efforts of the member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are incommensurate with the threat they face. Their nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement are modest, they have a low proportion of renewable energy in their energy mixes, a modest target for raising the share of renewable energy and they are not likely to reach this target. The ASEAN countries have also been slow to adopt electric vehicles and to accede to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), while continuing to burn their forests, channel subsidies to fossil fuels and invest in new coal power plants. If ASEAN accelerated decarbonization, it could seize business opportunities, secure its standing in the international political system and climate justice discussions, and increase its chances of reaching the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Africa has only contributed a small fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions yet faces disproportionate risks from climate change. This imbalance is one of many inequities associated with climat...

In this perspectives piece, an interdisciplinary team of social science researchers considers the implications of Covid-19 for the politics of sustainable energy transitions. The emergency measures adopted by states, firms, and individuals in response to this global health crisis have driven a series of political, economic and social changes with potential to influence sustainable energy transitions. We identify some of the initial impacts of the ‘great lockdown’ on sustainable and fossil sources of energy, and consider how economic stimulus packages and social practices in the wake of the pandemic are likely to shape energy demand, the carbon-intensity of the energy system, and the speed of transitions. Adopting a broad multi-scalar and multi-actor approach to the analysis of energy system change, we highlight continuities and discontinuities with pre-pandemic trends. Discussion focuses on four key themes that shape the politics of sustainable energy transitions: (i) the short, medium and long-term temporalities of energy system change; (ii) practices of investment around clean-tech and divestment from fossil fuels; (iii) structures and scales of energy governance; and (iv) social practices around mobility, work and public health. While the effects of the pandemic continue to unfold, some of its sectoral and geographically differentiated impacts are already emerging. We conclude that the politics of sustainable energy transitions are now at a critical juncture, in which the form and direction of state support for post-pandemic economic recovery will be key.\ud \ud

To ensure sufficient power generation capacity and minimize the risk of blackouts, many countries have introduced capacity mechanisms that provide payments for power plants according to their installed generation capacity. Capacity mechanisms can have different designs, but all have the same purpose—to incentivize sufficient infrastructure investment to meet future electricity demand and, thus, assure mid- and long-term electricity system reliability. Some countries allow renewable energy generators to participate in such capacity mechanisms. Thus, policymakers must choose how to combine capacity mechanisms and renewable energy support. This paper reviews the international experience of combining the two policy types. This is the first review that considers all countries that had some kind of capacity mechanism in place as of 2021. The review reveals a variety of policy mixes. The decision to permit renewable energy producers to participate in a capacity mechanism largely depends on the type of capacity mechanism and the type of renewables support in place. As capacity mechanisms become more widespread and the share of renewable energy in the electricity mix grows, this is one of the largest and most difficult choices that policymakers face. If left unharmonized, the two policies might work against each other, leading to an inefficient and unsustainable scenario, where a rising share of renewables creates a need to increase conventional power generation capacity, undermining cost-efficient decarbonization.

‘Energy democracy’ has evolved from a slogan used by activists demanding a greater say in energy-related decision-making to a term used in policy documents and scholarly literature on energy governance and energy transitions. This article reviews the academic literature using a combination of three methodological elements: (1) keyword searches of major bibliographical databases for quantification purposes; (2) an innovative method referred to as ‘circulation tracing’ to assess impact; and (3) in-depth discussion of the theoretical underpinnings, implications and interconnections of different parts of the literature. A conceptual framework is developed around three divergent understandings of the term ‘energy democracy’: (1) a process driven forwards by a popular movement; (2) an outcome of decarbonisation; and (3) a goal or ideal to which stakeholders aspire. The review also highlights some weaknesses of the literature: fragmentation between its European and American branches, which barely relate to each other; implicit or absent linkages between ‘energy democracy’ and broader theories of democracy; a tendency to idealise societal grassroots; confusion about the roles of the state, private capital and communities; and lack of attention to the threat posed by energy populism. Proponents should not assume that more energy democracy will inherently mean faster decarbonisation, improved energy access or social wellbeing. Finally, more emphasis should be placed on the role of research in providing evidence to ground energy democracy-related analyses and discussions.