Beyond Personal Beliefs: The Impact of the Dominant Social Paradigm on Energy Transition Choices

Abstract

Energy transition towards a local resilient energy supply is necessary for energy security. Climate change and the threat of economic collapse are reasons to force society to become less dependent on fossil fuel. Small-scale solutions are expected to be more sustainable, as large-scale integrated networks are featured by complexity and difficult-to-notice vulnerabilities, creating system risks. This paper presents the results of empirical research among a sample of Polish business students (N = 205) on the importance of worldviews for the choice of the energy transition scenario (local solutions vs. large-scale solutions). Worldviews are represented here by the Dominant Social Paradigm (defined for the purpose of this study as the belief that liberal democracy, free markets, and technological development are to solve all type of problems). This study addresses two research questions: (1) Is there a difference in preference for the energy transition scenarios? (2) Does adherence to the Dominant Social Paradigm determine the choice of the scenario for energy transition? The results present a preference for non-cooperative solutions (individual household solutions and large-scale solutions), while no significant relation to the worldviews represented by the Dominant Social Paradigm has been found. The results suggest that preferences for individual and large-scale solutions may be influenced more by institutional factors than by personal worldviews. A policy implication is that a change in the socio-political institutions and strengthening local governance may be a prerequisite for a sustainable energy transition.

Transformation of Energy Resources in the Visegrad Group: Strategies, Results, and Climate Effectiveness

“…In the context of the research cited above, there is no doubt that the V4 countries have problems in implementing the European Union's climate policy, just like most emerging and developing economies [32,33]. Nevertheless, as Zapletalová and Komínková (2020) [34] show, the V4 is unable to develop a common position in the European Parliament that would allow for the development of the so-called alternate speed path in the process of achieving a zero-emission economy.…”