| 1. |
- Cherp, Aleh, et al.
(författare)
-
The three perspectives on energy security: intellectual history, disciplinary roots and the potential for integration
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. - : Elsevier BV. - 1877-3443 .- 1877-3435. ; 3:4, s. 202-212
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Scholarly discourses on energy security have developed in response to initially separate policy agendas such as supply of fuels for armies and transportation, uninterrupted provision of electricity, and ensuring market and investment effectiveness. As a result three distinct perspectives on energy security have emerged: the `sovereignty' perspective with its roots in political science; the `robustness' perspective with its roots in natural science and engineering; and the `resilience' perspective with its roots in economics and complex systems analysis. At present, the energy security challenges are increasingly entangled so that they cannot be analyzed within the boundaries of any single perspective. To respond to these challenges, the energy security studies should not only achieve mastery of the disciplinary knowledge underlying all three perspectives but also weave the theories, methods and knowledge from these different mindsets together in a unified interdisciplinary effort. The key challenges for interdisciplinary energy security studies are drawing the credible boundaries of the field, formulating credible research questions and developing a methodological toolkit acceptable for all three perspectives.
|
|
| 2. |
- Jewell, Jessica, 1982, et al.
(författare)
-
On the political feasibility of climate change mitigation pathways: Is it too late to keep warming below 1.5°C?
- 2020
-
Ingår i: WIREs Climate Change. - : Wiley. - 1757-7780 .- 1757-7799. ; 11:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Keeping global warming below 1.5°C is technically possible but is it politically feasible? Understanding political feasibility requires answering three questions: (a) “Feasibility of what?,” (b) “Feasibility when and where?,” and (c) “Feasibility for whom?.” In relation to the 1.5°C target, these questions translate into (a) identifying specific actions comprising the 1.5°C pathways; (b) assessing the economic and political costs of these actions in different socioeconomic and political contexts; and (c) assessing the economic and institutional capacity of relevant social actors to bear these costs. This view of political feasibility stresses costs and capacities in contrast to the prevailing focus on benefits and motivations which mistakes desirability for feasibility. The evidence on the political feasibility of required climate actions is not systematic, but clearly indicates that the costs of required actions are too high in relation to capacities to bear these costs in relevant contexts. In the future, costs may decline and capacities may increase which would reduce political constraints for at least some solutions. However, this is unlikely to happen in time to avoid a temperature overshoot. Further research should focus on exploring the “dynamic political feasibility space” constrained by costs and capacities in order to find more feasible pathways to climate stabilization. This article is categorized under: The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Decarbonizing Energy and/or Reducing Demand.
|
|
| 3. |
- Jewell, Jessica, 1982, et al.
(författare)
-
The feasibility of climate action: Bridging the inside and the outside view through feasibility spaces
- 2023
-
Ingår i: WIREs Climate Change. - 1757-7780 .- 1757-7799. ; 14:5
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The feasibility of different options to reduce the risks of climate change has engaged scholars for decades. Yet there is no agreement on how to define and assess feasibility. We define feasible as “do-able under realistic assumptions.” A sound feasibility assessment is based on causal reasoning; enables comparison of feasibility across climate options, contexts, and implementation levels; and reflexively considers the agency of its audience. Global climate scenarios are a good starting point for assessing the feasibility of climate options since they represent causal pathways, quantify implementation levels, and consider policy choices. Yet, scenario developers face difficulties to represent all relevant causalities, assess the realism of assumptions, assign likelihood to potential outcomes, and evaluate the agency of their users, which calls for external feasibility assessments. Existing approaches to feasibility assessment mirror the “inside” and the “outside” view coined by Kahneman and co-authors. The inside view considers climate change as a unique challenge and seeks to identify barriers that should be overcome by political choice, commitment, and skill. The outside view assesses feasibility through examining historical analogies (reference cases) to the given climate option. Recent studies seek to bridge the inside and the outside views through “feasibility spaces,” by identifying reference cases for a climate option, measuring their outcomes and relevant characteristics, and mapping them together with the expected outcomes and characteristics of the climate option. Feasibility spaces are a promising method to prioritize climate options, realistically assess the achievability of climate goals, and construct scenarios with empirically-grounded assumptions. This article is categorized under: Climate, History, Society, Culture > Disciplinary Perspectives Assessing Impacts of Climate Change > Representing Uncertainty The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Decarbonizing Energy and/or Reducing Demand.
|
|
| 4. |
- Nacke, Lola, 1994, et al.
(författare)
-
Phases of fossil fuel decline : Diagnostic framework for policy sequencing and feasible transition pathways in resource dependent regions
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Oxford Open Energy. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2752-5082. ; 1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Phasing out fossil fuels requires destabilizing incumbent regimes while protecting vulnerable groups negatively affected by fossil fuel decline. We argue that sequencing destabilization and just transition policies addresses three policy problems: phasing out fossil fuels, transforming affected industries, and ensuring socio-economic recovery in fossil resource-dependent regions. We identify the key mechanisms shaping the evolution of the three systems associated with these policy problems: (i) transformations of technological systems addressed by the socio-technical transitions literature, (ii) responses of firms and industries addressed by the management and business literature and (iii) regional strategies for socio-economic recovery addressed by the regional geography and economics literatures. We then draw on Elinor Ostrom’s approach to synthesize these different bodies of knowledge into a diagnostic tool that enables scholars to identify the phase of decline for each system, within which the nature and importance of different risks to sustained fossil fuel decline varies. The main risk in the first phase is lock-in or persistence of status quo. In the second phase, the main risk is backlash from affected companies and workers. In the third phase, the main risk is regional despondence. We illustrate our diagnostic tool with three empirical cases of phases of coal decline: South Africa (Phase 1), the USA (Phase 2) and the Netherlands (Phase 3). Our review contributes to developing effective policy sequencing for phasing out fossil fuels.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Trutnevyte, Evelina, et al.
(författare)
-
Societal Transformations in Models for Energy and Climate Policy : The Ambitious Next Step
- 2019
-
Ingår i: One Earth. - : Elsevier BV. - 2590-3330 .- 2590-3322. ; 1:4, s. 423-433
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Whether and how long-term energy and climate targets can be reached depend on a range of interlinked factors: technology, economy, environment, policy, and society at large. Integrated assessment models of climate change or energy-system models have limited representations of societal transformations, such as behavior of various actors, transformation dynamics in time, and heterogeneity across and within societies. After reviewing the state of the art, we propose a research agenda to guide experiments to integrate more insights from social sciences into models: (1) map and assess societal assumptions in existing models, (2) conduct empirical research on generalizable and quantifiable patterns to be integrated into models, and (3) build and extensively validate modified or new models. Our proposed agenda offers three benefits: interdisciplinary learning between modelers and social scientists, improved models with a more complete representation of multifaceted reality, and identification of new and more effective solutions to energy and climate challenges.
|
|
