Climate Change and Energy Futures - Theoretical Frameworks, Epistemological Issues, and Methodological Perspectives

Abstract

Critically re-imagining our energy systems is a major task for addressing climate change. Technological change or market signals do not automatically create new energy futures. Rather, political priorities and action shape the ambitions behind energy transitions. In response, this special issue is dedicated to re-thinking energy futures related to climate change, with attention to the social values and norms, hierarchical structures, and social imaginaries underlying decision-making in a carbon-constrained world. Three cross-cutting themes run across this special issue. First, the papers identify new ways of envisioning and creating low-carbon energy futures that engage a range of social actors. Second, the papers highlight the need for analyses that bridge the global and local scales. Third, this issue emphasizes the importance of dialogue across disciplinary perspectives to strengthen the role of environmental social science in decision-making and community responses to climate change and energy futures.

Keywords:

• Energy
• global climate change
• futures research
• environmental politics
• energy transition

Societal reliance on fossil fuel-dependent energy systems, such as oil or coal, is a major driver of climate change (le Billon and Kristoffersen 2020; Young 2016). As such, a key task for addressing climate change is to critically re-imagine our energy systems (Meadowcroft et al. 2018; Urry 2016). This special issue engages in “thinking futures” (Urry 2016) related to climate change and energy, with attention to the social values and norms, hierarchical structures, and social imaginaries underlying decision-making in a carbon-constrained world. Futures research focuses on understanding how organizations or other actors develop and mobilize visions for the future. As Hajer and Pelzer (2018) put it, the work of “futuring” is carried out by particular social actors to either promote or undermine collective visions of desired or expected futures. Organizational actors and other social groups adopt a variety of planning tools “to make predictions about what futures are possible or likely, appealing or to be avoided” (Stoddart et al. 2020). The task for futures research is not to predict the future, but rather to analyze the “techniques of futuring” that are used by organizations and social groups to advance their desirable futures (Hajer and Pelzer 2018). This special issue focuses on energy futures as a sub-category of social futures that “focus on the systems, social implications, and societal configurations related to the energy sources that power society” (Stoddart et al. 2020).

One of the main threads in energy futures research is work on energy transitions. The conventional wisdom that carbon pricing is the most efficient policy response to climate change reflects economic-centric and engineering-centric perspectives on energy transitions (Baranzini et al. 2017). While these perspectives have produced a variety of interesting models that found traction in policy and practice, they often neglect the range of political and social dynamics that facilitate or impede various climate and energy futures (Farla et al. 2012; Lindberg et al. 2019; Lockie and Wong 2017; Markard et al. 2012; Meadowcroft 2009; Meadowcroft 2016; Meadowcroft et al. 2018; Nilsson et al. 2011; Rosenbloom et al. 2016; Rosenbloom et al. 2020). In fact, Bernstein et al. (2010) argue that one reason for the early success of carbon pricing mechanisms is precisely because it allowed private sector advocates to side-step the political complexities of multi-lateral climate governance. By contrast, electoral and political institutional dynamics, as well as social perceptions of legitimacy, can make the difference between success and failure in implementing carbon pricing as a lever redirecting societies toward new energy futures (Harrison 2010; Raymond 2019).

Over the past few years, a growing body of social science research explores the complex relationships between energy systems, environmental sustainability, and social inequality and justice. This literature has a great deal to contribute to an energy futures research program. The energy justice literature, for example, is cohering into a vibrant body of work that highlights the social bases of conflicting visions and interests involved in creating energy futures (for an overview see: Heffron et al. 2015; Jenkins et al. 2018; Sovacool et al. 2017). Energy justice scholarship focuses on the distributional dimension of which groups benefit from or are put at risk for the sake of energy production and distribution. Energy justice scholarship also attends to the procedural dimensions of energy justice, or which social groups and interests are valued or excluded in decision-making about the risks and benefits related to energy development. From this perspective, just energy systems entail the fair distribution of benefits and risks of energy development, and also involve democratic participation in decision-making by affected communities. These guiding principles can help ensure more politically legitimate and equitable energy futures in response to climate change.

As Bengston (2019) notes in a recent article in this journal, futures research has a long history and diverse methodological toolkit that varies along three dimensions: qualitative or quantitative, expert-based or participatory, and evidence-based or imaginative. This diversity of approaches is united by a shared concern with generating insight “into how and why the future could be different than today” and how to “improve planning and decision making” (Bengston 2019, 1099). However, this methodological toolkit remains underused within natural resource and environmental management, which tends to focus on developing and using models to forecast and plan for the “most likely” future. By working across multiple methods, futures research offers new insights that move beyond traditional forecasting methods, which are often “poor at best when applied to complex social-ecological systems,” such as those involved in climate change or energy transitions (Bengston 2019, 1108). The articles in this special issue demonstrate how a diverse range of methodologies – including interviewing, surveys, social network analysis, block modeling, and text-based semantic network analysis – can be applied to advance our understanding of climate change and energy futures.

Our aim is to generate new insight through a range of environmental social science perspectives to enable a more holistic understanding of how energy systems can be re-shaped to meet the imperative for climate change, while also contributing to social-ecological wellbeing. This involves two key dimensions: (1) the conditions or qualities of alternative visions of what low-carbon energy systems might be; and (2) the manner or means of the processes for transition and transformation to new low-carbon energy systems. To that end, the papers in this special issue are organized around two intersecting themes: (1) fossil fuels and energy futures, and (2) civil society and the political sphere in energy futures.

Fossil Fuels and Energy Futures

Dependence on carbon-intensive energy systems is a major contributor to climate change. Therefore, discussions of addressing climate change must address the role of fossil fuels in our energy futures. Much of the research on fossil fuels and society to date focuses on conflicts over oil exploration and extraction, or on oil sector engagement with climate change (e.g. Bach 2019; Davidson and Gismondi 2011; Oriola 2013; Pulver 2007; Widener 2018). Thinking about fossil fuels and energy futures often focuses on the most cost-effective strategies for energy transition. However, economic analyses risk under-estimating the socio-political implications of energy transitions, such as how incumbent fossil fuel industries resist or delay transitions by leveraging their political social network ties and social influence (Young 2016). Mildenberger (2020), for example, shows how fossil fuel sector interests achieve a “double representation” through political parties and labor unions in countries like Australia, Norway, and the United States. This double representation limits the efficacy of climate mitigation policy and ensures incremental rather than transformative responses to climate change. Similarly, Lee and Hess show that energy industry incumbents and their political allies in the U.S. oppose renewable energy transitions by taking advantage of the American culture of political polarization and mobilizing frames that cast renewable energy development as “an expensive or elitist policy” (Lee and Hess 2019, 193).

The papers by Carter and McKenzie and Tindall et al. further advance our understanding of how and whether fossil fuels fit into different energy futures. Carter and McKenzie provide a broad overview of the Keep it in the Ground (KIIG) Movement, which advocates a supply-side approach to limiting oil and gas extraction as a means toward rapid decarbonization. Through this overview, they identify a suite of related political, institutional, and cultural forces that either limit or facilitate the emergence and success of KIIG movements in oil-dependent regions. This analysis provides important insight into the social forces that potentially accelerate the “decline” of fossil fuel sociotechnical systems, which as Markard (2020) notes is an understudied dimension of transition studies.

Tindall et al. focus on Canada as a country that is caught between espoused commitments to climate action and economic reliance on fossil fuels. By examining the Canadian climate policy network, they find that policy network actors’ affiliation with particular social network blocks better predicts support or opposition for a fossil fuel-oriented future than whether policy actors are affiliated with a particular political party, business sector, or civil society. Taken together, these papers show how the interests of the fossil fuel sector influence political discussion about which energy futures are seen as desirable or achievable.

Civil Society and the Political Sphere in Energy Futures

Developing energy futures that respond to climate change is deeply embedded within the social network relationships, organizational dynamics, and epistemological underpinnings of actors in civil society and political spheres (Meadowcroft 2016). A growing body of literature examines the social dimensions of energy system transitions and futures with regard to issues of social power, inequality, democracy and public participation, and community wellbeing (Burke and Stephens 2018; Jasanoff 2018; Meadowcroft 2009; Raymond 2019; Thombs 2019). For example, “energy democracy” advocates articulate an energy future that imagines a broader, more engaged role for citizens in energy policymaking, but also as “prosumers” (producers and consumers) in more decentralized, sustainable energy systems (Szulecki 2018).

Additionally, the politics of climate change is shaped by the intervention of civil society and social movement actors, who influence the terms of debate around policy solutions. A great deal of research has focused on the role of civil society in policy networks that shape climate policy-making, including renewable energy transitions (e.g. Hadden 2015; Kukkonen et al. 2018; Ylä‐Anttila and Swarnakar 2017). However, less of this work looks beyond policy outcomes to examine how civil society action in the political sphere also helps envision and create new energy futures. A useful example is Vasi’s (2011) research on the multiple roles played by environmental organizations in advancing wind energy transitions in Denmark and Germany through influencing the attitudes of policymakers, the private sector, and consumers. Even less attention has been paid to the underlying logics of those in decision-making positions – i.e. policy and industry elites – who must make difficult tradeoffs between climate action, economic development, social stability, and political viability.

The papers by Ylä-Anttila et al., Wong and Lockie, Kurniawan and Schweizer, and Norgaard advance our understanding of these issues. Ylä-Anttila et al. use social network analysis to examine political advocacy coalitions in Finland and Australia. Despite their differences, they find remarkably similar network structures in the two countries, with a dominant “treadmill of production” coalition of business, labor, and government actors. However, they also identify important fault lines that may result in a reconfiguration of policy networks in support of stronger climate action and new energy futures.

Wong and Lockie examine elite (government, corporate, and NGO) interpretations of short-term and long-term climate change risk and uncertainty in Australia, China, and the United Kingdom. For many policy elite actors, technocratic and market-based climate solutions are preferred because they are less susceptible to short-term political risks. Relatedly, a minority of participants, largely from civil society, assert that climate change responses should be opened to greater public participation and deliberation. These findings echo Lindberg et al.’s (2019) analysis of renewable energy transition pathways in the EU, where there is broad support for transitions across sectors, but disagreement over how centralized or decentralized energy transitions should be. They similarly note that NGOs are particularly important voices in advocating for decentralization and democratization.

Kurniawan and Schweizer use social network analysis and semantic network analysis to examine a diverse set of energy future scenarios prepared by various Canadian governmental and non-governmental organizations in order to find key points of commonality and divergence among the scenarios articulated by these different groups. Energy scenarios, such as those scenarios developed through the work of the IPCC, government agencies, think-tanks, or academic research groups, can be thought of as specific “techniques of futuring” (Hajer and Pelzer 2018) among the broader suite of tools and techniques for envisioning and implementing energy figures. Through their analysis, Kurniawan and Schweizer identify commonalities across these scenarios, but also find that the energy futures articulated in government scenarios may be narrower in scope than those from non-governmental perspectives.

The closing commentary piece by Norgaard offers a timely theoretical intervention into thinking about energy futures. Drawing from her work with the Karuk Tribe in California, as well as Indigenous social theory, Norgaard argues that framing climate change as a crisis point in an otherwise positive narrative of modernist progress serves to marginalize alternative social imaginaries about climate change. By attending to Indigenous theory and knowledge, we can view climate change not as an unexpected consequence of modernity, but rather as the latest episode of settler-colonialism’s long history of unsustainable political and economic development. As such, Norgaard’s analysis speaks directly to the ways in which energy justice is bound up with ongoing legacies of Indigenous-settler colonial relationships (also see LeQuesne 2019; Palmater 2015). Collectively, these papers highlight the need to engage a broader range of social actors and perspectives in the processes of creating just and resilient energy futures.

Toward Inter-Disciplinary Perspectives on Energy Futures

The overall goals of the special issue are to develop inter-disciplinary theoretical and methodological conversations that advance research on climate change and energy futures. The papers in this special issue are connected through several overarching themes. First, “transformation” is a keyword running across the papers. Authors focus on identifying leverage points for creating new low-carbon energy futures. Their work highlights that energy futures are processes of transformation involving collaboration and contestation among a range of social actors. This complements other research in energy transitions and energy justice that calls attention to the ways in which energy transitions involve competing visions and political interests among a range of actors.

Second, the papers grapple with the need for analyses that bridge the global and the local scales. Problems related to climate and energy futures are often understood as global. However, the scale of place belonging, social meaning, and social practices is local. For example, resistance to new energy development is often understood as more about local issues than it is about global climate change. The work included in this special issue traces global-local dimensions of social imaginaries, politics, and power.

Third, the importance of dialogue across multiple perspectives is emphasized across the papers. As Rosenbloom et al. (2020) note, treating climate change primarily as a market failure fails to recognize it as a “system problem” involving “sociotechnical systems made up of interconnected technologies, infrastructures, regulations, business models, and lifestyles” (Rosenbloom et al. 2020, 8665). This calls for new forms of interdisciplinary energy futures research, as well as increasing the flow of communication between theoretically sophisticated and applied modes of analysis. The work included in this special issue helps solidify the unique roles for environmental social scientists in engaging with decision-makers and communities on issues related to energy futures.

Finally, climate change and energy futures research is not simply about being predictive, or about providing optimistic or pessimistic scenarios. Rather, the authors share an orientation to social futures research that emphasizes the need to address key questions, including: Who gets to envision and enact energy futures? Who are energy futures enacted upon? These questions highlight the significance of social power and inequality in creating new energy futures in response to climate change. The research presented in this special issue highlights the need to continue expanding the intellectual and political work of thinking futures.

Conclusion

Economics and engineering oriented perspectives have often overshadowed discussion of climate change and energy futures, particularly in policy and practice communities (Lockie and Wong 2017; Nilsson et al. 2011; Urry 2016). However, technological change or new market signals do not automatically create new energy futures. Political action also shapes the “pace, scope and direction of the transition” (Goldthau et al. 2019, 31; also see Farla et al. 2012; Meadowcroft 2009; Meadowcroft 2016; Rosenbloom et al. 2020). Energy transitions are not only shaped by existing socio-technical pathways, but also by competing political interests and visions for the future that play out through “critical choices” made by policy-makers at key “branching points” that decide how future energy systems will evolve (Rosenbloom et al. 2018). These social-political dimensions of energy futures are being explored through a growing body of research on energy transitions and futures from across the social sciences, to which this special issue contributes. Ongoing research on climate change and energy futures will benefit from further embracing methodological diversity and interdisciplinary dialogue to better grasp how energy futures evolve through policy-making and debate, social movement mobilization, business sector responses, public perceptions, and mass media framing.

Acknowledgements

This special issue originated in the Climate Change and Energy Futures workshop, held at the Nexus Centre, Memorial University. For the workshop summary see: Nezhadhossein, E., and M. Stoddart. 2019. Connecting Climate Change, Energy, and Social Futures, The Nexus Centre, https://www.hss.mun.ca/nexus/posts/81? We thank Elahe Nezhadhossein for her assistance on this project.

Additional information

Funding

The workshop was supported by a SSHRC Connections Grant, the Memorial University Conference Fund, the Nexus Centre (Memorial University), the University of Waterloo Interdisciplinary Centre on Climate Change, the Waterloo Institute of Sustainable Energy, and the Department of Knowledge Integration at the University of Waterloo.