Search

We are in the midst of a global energy system transformation (GEST) which is rewiring the world economy, opening new axes of political contestation, and revolutionising the energetic basis of human civilisation. Energy geopolitics has not yet reconciled itself to this challenge. The field has traditionally been preoccupied with the dependence of Western states on cross-border flows of fossil fuels. More recently, efforts have been made to prospectively map out what the geopolitics of a fully renewable world might look like. What both literatures miss, however, is the very fact of the GEST: that we are living through a changing and contested process of global transformation, across interacting high- and low-emissions systems, whose contours are open and actively constructed over time. In this paper, we start to develop a provisional framework to make sense of the GEST, that is able to capture the full scale of the transformation, and its dynamic, contingent, constructed nature. We attend to three areas of geopolitical economy: the wide-ranging material dimensions of the transformation, its geographical space-making, and its conflict-ridden political economy. We then apply this framework to two case studies, one looking at the fraught role of fossil gas as a 'transition fuel', the other at lithium-ion batteries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent years have seen unprecedented shifts in global natural gas trade, precipitated in large part by Russia's war on Ukraine. How this regional conflict impacts the future of natural gas markets is subject to three interconnected factors: (i) Russia's strategy to regain markets for its gas exports; (ii) Europe's push towards increased liquified natural gas (LNG) and the pace of its low carbon transition; and (iii) China's gas demand and how it balances its climate and energy security objectives. A scenario modelling approach is applied to explore the potential implications of this geopolitical crisis. We find that Russia struggles to regain pre-crisis gas export levels, with the degrees of its success contingent on China's strategy. Compared to 2020, Russia's gas exports are down by 31–47% in 2040 where new markets are limited and by 13–38% under a pivot to Asia strategy. We demonstrate how integrating energy geopolitics and modelling enhances our understanding of energy futures. The war on Ukraine has reduced Russia's ability to export its natural gas, notably to the European market. Under any future strategy, Russia struggles to regain pre-crisis gas export levels, with its success partly contingent on China's gas supply strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article shines a light on the act of social construction of climate change mitigation as a policy issue at the hands of expert bodies enjoying epistemic power, notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), using Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) as key tools. This is crucial to the politics of tackling climate change as IPCC models and scenarios profoundly shape what are seen as viable futures and mitigation policy options. Analysing how technocratic governance bodies broach climate change, its mitigation, and the associated economic costs and implications, reveals contestations within the technocratic politics of climate change. The particular social construction of mitigation as a policy issue through IAMs and IPCC scenarios has important and real socio-ecological consequences. This engagement with the technocratic politics of mitigation problematises five key assumptions that are fed into modelling, and reveals why and how they matter politically. We also highlight ways in which contestable assumptions built into IPCC IAMs undermine their credibility and usefulness for planning mitigation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union (EU) began developing climate policy in the 1990s. Since then, it has built up a broad portfolio of mitigation policy measures and governance tools, including legally binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and policy measures addressing emissions trading, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and more. In 2019, the European Commission—the EU's executive arm—published the European Green Deal (EGD), an overarching policy framework to achieve the goal of climate neutrality by 2050. The EGD aims to push EU climate policy and governance far beyond incremental policy development. In this article, we ask: does the EGD represent a break from past patterns of EU climate governance? We argue that it maintains several past patterns, but nevertheless breaks from other established policy and governance trends. We review insights from politicization and new institutionalist theoretical lenses to help us understand these findings. We reveal certain tensions and challenges inherent in the EU's climate governance approach—around speed and coherence, effectiveness and just transition—that highlight future research needs, and raise questions about the EU's ability to implement its climate policy goals. This article is categorized under:Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]