Imagining sustainable energy and mobility transitions: Valence, temporality, and radicalism in 38 visions of a low-carbon future

Abstract

Based on an extensive synthesis of semi-structured interviews, media content analysis, and reviews, this article conducts a qualitative meta-analysis of more than 560 sources of evidence to identify 38 visions associated with seven different low-carbon innovations – automated mobility, electric vehicles, smart meters, nuclear power, shale gas, hydrogen, and the fossil fuel divestment movement – playing a key role in current deliberations about mobility or low-carbon energy supply and use. From this material, it analyzes such visions based on rhetorical features such as common problems and functions, storylines, discursive struggles, and rhetorical effectiveness. It also analyzes visions based on typologies or degrees of valence (utopian vs. dystopian), temporality (proximal vs. distant), and radicalism (incremental vs. transformative). The article is motivated by the premise that tackling climate change via low-carbon energy systems (and practices) is one of the most significant challenges of the twenty-first century, and that effective decarbonization will require not only new energy technologies, but also new ways of understanding language, visions, and discursive politics surrounding emerging innovations and transitions.

Between Education and Opinion-Making

“…What is not unique with this situation is the trait of the pandemic as a liminal phase, the fact the we do not know how the world looks on the other side of COVID-19. After all, likewise when it comes to global warming, we can only imagine, or fantasise, what a modern world in climatic balance would be like (Sovacool et al 2020;Wals and Jickling 2002). Comparing these two SSIs is thus enlightening.…”

Competing Transport Futures: Tensions between Imaginaries of Electrification and Biogas Fuel in Sweden

“…Increasingly, the concept of sociotechnical imaginaries is applied to study energy transitions (Ponte and Birch 2014;Eaton, Gasteyer, and Busch 2014;Smith and Tidwell 2016;Jasanoff and Kim 2013;Sovacool et al 2020). One problem sometimes encountered in these studies is the emphasis of sociotechnical imaginaries on the national level where "powerful instruments of meaning-making and goal-setting" exist (Jasanoff and Kim 2009, 123).…”

“…Such a process is often driven by its successful connection with popular interests and identities, linkage with material structures, and alignment with economic, discursive, and political elements (Levy and Spicer 2013, 675). Not least, imaginaries may also differ in the temporal scale of the vision they provide, with some pointing to the near term while others depicting a more distant future, as Sovacool et al (2020) argue in their comparison of imaginaries of sustainable energy and mobility transitions. Differences in the maturity and temporal structures can also be expected between imaginaries of electrification and biogas in transport.…”

Pellets from Lignocellulosic Material Obtained from Pruning Guava Trees: Characterization, Energy Performance and Emissions

“…Investing in alternative sources of renewable energy can help solve this problem [6][7][8]. It is known that alternative energy sources include solar, tidal, wave, wind, hydraulic, geothermal, hydrogen and biomass [9][10][11]. The Mexican energy system is 86.4% dependent on fossil fuels (oil 62.4%, natural gas 19.7%, and 4.3% coal) and the contribution of renewable energies is only 10.4% (hydroenergy 1.5%, biomass (firewood and sugarcane bagasse) 5.7%, geoenergy (solar and wind) 2.8%, and biogas 0.1%) [12].…”