Energy transition perspectives Petr Ocelík & Colin Kimbrell ESSn4007/ MEBn4001 Outline • Transition perspectives • Multi-level perspective • Case study Transition perspectives ⚫ Socio-technical systems are involve complex interactions among social actors, technologies, and environmental aspects (Emery & Trist 1960). Socio-technical systems ⚫ Socio-technical systems involve complex interactions among social actors, technologies, and environmental aspects (Emery & Trist 1960). Socio-technical systems ⚫ Socio-technical systems are involve complex interactions among social actors, technologies, and environmental aspects (Emery & Trist 1960). ⚫ Adaptive: STS are able to respond to external environment and pursue goals (e.g., decarbonization). ⚫ Interdependent: STS consist of separate yet co-evolving technical (e.g., energy infrastructure) and social subsystems (e.g., energy governance). ⚫ Equifinal: STS goals (e.g., decarbonization) can be achieved through more than one pathway → STS design choices. Socio-technical systems Baxter & Sommerville 2011 ⚫ Socio-technical systems involve complex interactions among social actors, technologies, and environmental aspects (Emery & Trist 1960). ⚫ Socio-technical transition is a shift from one STS to another. ⚫ Energy transition is a fundamental change in the structure of primary supply to a new energy system (Smil 2010). → transition theories provide insights on how such transition evolve What is (energy) transition? Typology of energy transition perspectives Cherp et al. 2018 ⚫ Technico-economic systems (TES) are defined by energy flows associated with energy extraction, conversion, and use processes coordinated by energy markets. ⚫ TES extract energy from (1) natural resources and (2) deliver energy services to consumers through markets. ⚫ TES respond to supply-demand (in)balance → enabling/preventing development of specific resources and/or technologies ⚫ TES susceptible to long-term cycles of macro-economic and technological development → enabling/preventing transition Technico-economic perspective Cherp et al. 2018 ⚫ Socio-technical systems are defined by networks of knowledge, norms and practices associated with energy technologies. ⚫ STS focus on the emergence and diffusion of new technologies. ⚫ STS defined by conflicting relationship between innovation subsystems (Markard 2012) and socio-technical regimes (Geels 2002). ⚫ Regimes are maintained by existing path-dependencies and technological lock-ins constraining spread of innovation. Socio-technical perspective Cherp et al. 2018 ⚫ Political action systems are defined by networks of actors influencing the political regulation of energy systems (Cherp et al. 2018). ⚫ PAS is not really a coherent perspective → recognition that politics constitute a semi-autonomous sphere of (energy) transition ⚫ Different transition pathways produce different configurations of “winners” and “losers” → who gets what, when, and how (Lasswell 1966) Political perspective Typology of transition perspectives Cherp et al. 2018 Multi-level perspective ⚫ MLP (Geels 2002) assumes that transitions occur through interactions within and across three analytical level: regimes, niches, and landscapes. ⚫ (Socio-technical) regime is a set of embedded rules and practices enabling or constraining actors in relation to the existing energy system (Geels 2014). ⚫ Niche is a protected space for innovative activities. ⚫ Landscape is a wider context influencing niche and regime dynamics including social, spatial, and material structures. → transition is a shift from one regime to another Multi-level perspective ⚫ Regime is reproduced by incumbents – established actors who profit from the existing regime (Smink 2015) ⚫ Key assumption: incumbents and policymakers form coalition oriented towards the maintaining status quo (Geels 2014) → coalition dynamics: the nature and pace of energy transition is contested by policy actors and their coalitions (Markard et al. 2016) → They use various strategies to influence transition pathways (Geels 2014; Johnstone et al. 2017) Regime resistance ⚫ The regime actors rely on various forms of power (Geels 2014). ⚫ Instrumental: using resources in immediate interactions with others (lobbying, subsidies, campaigns, etc.) → policy process control ⚫ Discursive: shaping public debates to control what is being discussed (agenda setting) and how it is being discussed (framing) → dominant discourse ⚫ Material: technological lock-ins through clean fossil technologies (CCS) → delay of renewable infrastructures development ⚫ Institutional: design of formal and informal political institutions more congruent with incumbents’ interests → closed opportunity structures Regime actors’ power resources ⚫ Incumbent actors use various strategies to resist regime change (Johnstone et al. 2017). Incumbents’ strategies ⚫ Incumbent actors use various strategies to resist regime change (Johnstone et al. 2017). ⚫ Securitization: incumbents’ interests framed as a matter of security. Incumbents’ strategies ⚫ Incumbent actors use various strategies to resist regime change (Johnstone et al. 2017). ⚫ Re-invention: regime and/or its components are reframed to appear innovative. Incumbents’ strategies ⚫ Incumbent actors use various strategies to resist regime change (Johnstone et al. 2017). ⚫ Masking: suppression, socialization or externalization of the full costs of the regime Incumbents’ strategies ⚫ Incumbent actors use various strategies to resist regime change (Johnstone et al. 2017). ⚫ Capture: incumbents in a position of political and regulatory power; “revolving-doors”. Incumbents’ strategies Geels et al. 2017 Case study: Incumbent’s discursive strategies ⚫ Policy debate on the limits → rescindment on the Bílina mine in 2015 ⚫ Media discourse analysis of daily newspapers • Discourse coalition: group of actors who share a social construct (Hajer 1993) E1. There are two coalitions with low-compatible beliefs (Ocelík et al. 2019; Weible 2008) • Discourse alignment: similarity-based relationship between specific actor groups E2. There is a discourse alignment between incumbents and governing parties (Geels 2014; Johnston et al. 2017; Smink 2015) Policy debate on mining limits (Černý & Ocelík 2020) „…neexistuje však žádný vědecký konsensus o důvodu tohoto růstu průměrné teploty. Mnozí jsou i nadále přesvědčeni, že je to v podstatě přírodní proces.“ (Václav Klaus st.) „…vědecký konsensus na tom, že skutečně tuto změnu, tuto klimatickou krizi, působí lidská činnost tady existuje. A je jednoznačně doložen…“ (Bedřich Moldan) Klaus sr. Moldan scientific consensus „Stejně tak jako doba ledová neskončila vinou neandrtálců, stejně tak jako mezidoba ledová 1850, kdy bylo trošku chladnější období, no tak logicky přichází teplejší. Ale neexistuje žádný vědecký konsensus na tom, že to způsobuje člověk. “ (Václav Klaus ml.) Klaus jr. Leifeld 2017 27 Stage 1 (Jan-Apr 2015): Incumbents mobilization incumbents governing parties ENGOs residual 28 Stage 2 (May-Aug 2015): Incumbents retreat incumbents governing parties ENGOs residual 28 Stage 3 (Sep-Oct 2015): Incumbents dominance incumbents governing parties ENGOs residual 29 30 ̶ Masking: environmental issues, displacement ̶ Securitization: socioeconomic ̶ Reinvention: cleaner technology, heat supplies ̶ Capture: not articulated, already in place (Černoch & Osička 2018) ̶ Surprisingly, little emphasis on supply dependency Johnston et al. 2017 Incumbents’ discursive strategies 31 • Two competing coalitions: Industry vs. Environmental (E1) • The discourse alignment between incumbents and GPs in the 1st and 3rd stages (E2) ̶ Consistent support of the Social Democrats ̶ Fragmented position of the ENGOs ̶ Absence of countervailing industries • Incumbents mostly relied on securitization, masking, and reinvention strategies ̶ Inability of the Environmental Coalition to formulate efficient counter-narrative Main findings