The pace of governed energy transitions: Agency, international dynamics and the global Paris agreement accelerating decarbonisation processes?

Abstract

The recent debate on the temporal dynamics of energy transitions is crucial since one of the main reasons for embarking on transitions away from fossil fuels is tackling climate change. Long-drawn out transitions, taking decades or even centuries as we have seen historically, are unlikely to help achieve climate change mitigation targets. Therefore, the pace of energy transitions and whether they can be sped up is a key academic and policy question. Our argument is that while history is important in order to understand the dynamics of transitions, the pace of historic transitions is only partly a good guide to the future. We agree with Sovacool's (2016) argument that quicker transitions have happened in the past and may therefore also be possible in the future globally. The key reason for our optimism is that historic energy transitions have not been consciously governed, whereas today a wide variety of actors are engaged in active attempts to govern the transition towards low carbon energy systems. In addition, international innovation dynamics can work in favour of speeding up the global low-carbon transition. Finally, the 2015 Paris agreement demonstrates a global commitment to move towards a low carbon economy for the first time, thereby signalling the required political will to foster quick transitions and to overcome resistance, such as from from incumbents with sunk infrastructure investments.

Further reflections on the temporality of energy transitions: A response to critics

“…Grubler et al and Smil insufficiently recognize these differences, which limits the generalizability of their historical findings. We therefore concur with Kern and Rogge (2016), who write that "while history is important in order to understand the dynamics of transitions, the pace of historic transitions is only partly a good guide to the future." They also note that dynamic feedback mechanisms may be different going forward and that the sheer urgency and wicked nature of climate change as a global problem may motivate action.…”

“…The central argument advanced in Sovacool (2016) was not that quick transitions determinedly happen, but that there are two almost mutually exclusive academic discussions on the topic, one of them aligned with Grubler, Smil and others about the lengthiness of transitions; and another with separate scholars arguing in favor of speed (with Bromley 2016, Kern and Rogge 2016, and even Fouquet 2016 furthering some of these claims in their new contributions). In the extreme, one could even criticize this academic dichotomy as "hard historical facts" versus "normative, future-orientated desires.…”

“…Messengers Grubler et al (2016), Smil (2016), Kern and Rogge (2016), Fouquet (2016) and Bromley (2016) rightfully build and challenge some of the arguments presented in the special issue on energy transitions this journal published a few months ago.…”

Historical energy transitions: Speed, prices and system transformation

“…As a result, there has been a tendency towards very slow full or aggregated energy transitions (for a more detailed discussion of the complexities of transforming energy systems, see Grübler et al 2016, Smil 2016. Whether a full transition can be accelerated, as Sovacool (2016), Kern and Rogge (2016) and Bromley (2016) argue, depends on creating all the correct conditions for this to occur.…”

Out of the Comfort Zone! Governing the Exnovation of Unsustainable Technologies and Practices

“…In particular the transition literature on socio-technical system change (see Markard et al 2012 for an overview) has clearly focused on early transition phases, niche development and the early diffusion of innovations (Stegmaier et al 2014). In contrast, the more advanced phase of "breakthrough" and a corresponding destabilization of the existing system have received much less attention or, as in the work by Turnheim and Geels (2012), have been studied in cases where exnovation occurred through technical advances and shifted demand but was not intentionally governed (Kern and Rogge 2016). Rare exceptions looking at what we call exnovation governance include Stegmaier et al (2014; "discontinuation governance") and Kivimaa and Kern (2016; "motors of creative destruction").…”