Perspectives on energy, governance and change -- Conceptualising change and the pro-market energy policy paradigm -- Historical context, ideas and policy practice -- The pro-market energy policy paradigm 2000-3 : resistance to change -- The energy security crisis 2004-7 : Russia and the politicisation of energy -- Unravelling the ties that bind, 2008-10 -- The energy security-climate nexus UK and beyond conclusions and possible futures
Energy in Europe and Russia is in flux. The authors address key issues in this context and seek to analyze contemporary transition processes in the region's energy sector. They look at whether and how transnational policy mechanisms can generate sufficient steering capacity to address pressing energy policy issues, including environmental concerns, energy transit or rapidly changing natural gas markets. Moreover, they explore the impact climate change concerns have on policy making in the energy sector and to what extent market mechanisms provide for answers to these issues. Instead of taking a geopolitical or neoliberal approach, this energy policy debate acknowledges the strong interdependence of global, regional and domestic influences on the processes.
AbstractThe UK government is responsible for meeting legally binding decarbonisation objectives, but it is not on track to meet its next Climate Change Act targets or the goal of Net Zero by 2050. The IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report is a stark reminder of the importance of all countries, particularly those historically responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, devising and implementing the innovative and just policy solutions required to lower emissions. Within this context, this article explores the UK's sustainable energy policy making, and why it is not on course to meet targets, through the lens of government‐business relations. It analyses government policy capacity, incumbent energy company influence, and how complex relations and dependencies have affected sustainable policy (non‐)decisions and outcomes. It reveals that an over‐reliance on incumbent energy companies in UK energy politics, although understandable given the need to provide affordable and secure energy, has contributed towards insufficient space for cheaper and more just clean energy solutions.
AbstractThis article analyses discourses on climate change and mitigation through the deconstruction of European Union (EU) rhetoric and practices on climate benchmarking. It critically examines the motivations behind climate benchmarking, the methods used to construct international benchmarks, and the reasons for variety in domestic compliance. Germany and the United Kingdom are analysed as cases where domestic politics drive very different reactions to the practice of climate mitigation, differences that have been largely hidden by the type of quantification that EU benchmarking involves. Through an exploration of the methods used to formulate climate benchmarks, the article demonstrates that these commitments have privileged certain responses over others, and thus helped to paint a picture of EU benchmarks as 'reformist' but not 'radical'. EU climate benchmarks often end up concealing more than they reveal, making it difficult to fully engage with the scale and complexity of the far-reaching domestic changes that are required in order to comply with agreed international benchmarks. The deficiencies of benchmarks as a mechanism for driving long-term sustainable change, and importantly discouraging harmful policies, may ultimately undermine their credibility as a means for governing climate change at a distance in the EU.
Provides new insights into depoliticisation literatures by applying depoliticisation beyond economic and monetary policy to energy and climate change policy. Demonstrates ways in which forms of depoliticisation can affect political capacity to respond to new policy challenges. Challenges climate change and energy transition literatures by explaining how and why UK energy policy institutions have constrained innovation and sustainable change.Depoliticisation, as a concept, has been utilised to explain specific aspects of economic governance as it has developed over the past thirty years, particularly in certain OECD countries. This article focuses on the outcomes of three forms of depoliticisation, marketised, technocratic and non-deliberative, for political capacity. Political capacity is defined in relation to a notion of politics as social interaction, deliberation, choice and agency. Using UK energy governance as a case study it claims that the depoliticisation of energy policy has resulted in embedded corporate power, a widening disjuncture between experts and majoritarian institutions and limited knowledge structures. As a result the state's role is still confined to giver of market signals and to temporary interventions in the face of complex and unprecedented commitments to transition the UK towards a low carbon future.
This article explores one set of conditions under which a policy area, energy, became politicised. It also explores the relationship between concepts of 'speaking security', which claim that the language of security is politically potent, and notions of (de-) politicisation. It argues that the framing of energy supply as a security issue influenced an opening up of UK energy, which had been subject to processes of depoliticisation since the late 1980s, to greater political interest and deliberation. Speaking security about energy had a high degree of cognitive authority and was instrumental in revealing a lack of policy-making capacity in energy.
This article explores the European Union's (EU) energy relations with Russia through new institutionalist concepts that understand ideas to be powerful within policymaking processes, in conferring credibility on certain governance norms as well as in contesting existing institutions. Explanations of the deterioration in EU-Russia energy relations have emphasized divergence in perspectives on energy, and how it should be governed, between these actors. Here it is argued that the proliferation of different ideas about energy within EU institutions has significant implications for this relationship. The paper analyses EU energy policy as a whole, including climate policy, and outlines what ideas have been influential over policymaking processes and with what consequences. Internal ideological differences challenge the dominance and credibility of market liberal ideas and policies, the EU's ability to speak with one voice in energy and attest to an increasingly complex and contradictory EU energy policy. Adapted from the source document.
Brexit has potentially wide-ranging implications for UK policy, although little is known about what these are yet. Now, post the transition period, is a good time to consider its actual impacts as opposed to what was expected by academics, and by proponents of Brexit. In the absence of any established theory of EU-exit, and drawing on insights from (de-)Europeanisation, Brexit energy and climate policy studies, and political economy, this article develops a framework to identify the impact of EU-exit on UK energy policy. This is applied to sustainable energy, an area in urgent need of policy development to meet legally binding national targets. We conclude that, so far, despite leaving various EU bodies there has been relatively little divergence from Europeanised policy; that new UK energy and climate policies, required to replace EU membership benefits, are relatively less effective; and that hard-pressed civil servants have been drawn away from other important policymaking tasks.
