Energy Security Problem amid Global Energy Transition

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

In the early 2020s the world’s transition from carbon-intensive to climate-neutral energy use has already become a discernible and a difficult-to-reverse process. With Joe Biden’s election as US president, the United States have returned to the Paris Climate Agreement and have become a key driver of this process (along with the EU and China). As a result, the international community has reached a consensus on the ongoing energy transition. This process will require considerable effort and may take several decades. Nevertheless, the impact of energy transition on traditional approaches to energy security, which emerged largely as a result of the global oil crises of the 1970s and 1980s and are centered around the supply of fossil fuels, is already a relevant research topic. This problem is examined relying on the relevant terminological, theoretical and factual material. The article concludes that energy transition will ultimately undermine the carbon paradigm that has underpinned energy security policies since the 1970s. Rapid development of renewable and other low-carbon energy sources will certainly remove key energy security risks of energy importers and, possibly, allow them to achieve energy independence. However, a post-carbon era may also generate new risks. For countries that rely heavily on oil, gas and coal exports, energy transition will result in the loss of markets and revenues. It may present an energy security threat for them as well as it will require a costly and technologically complex process of the energy sector decarbonization. Some exporters, especially those with high fuel rents and insufficient financial reserves, may face serious economic and social upheavals as a result of energy transition. The EU and the US energy transition policies reflect provisions of all three fundamental international relations theoretical paradigms, including realism. This means that the EU and the US policy, aimed at promoting climate agenda, may be expected to be rather tough and aggressive. China as the third key player in energy transition is still following a liberal course; however, it may change in the future.

About the authors

Yury V. Borovsky

MGIMO University

Author for correspondence.
Email: yuribor@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8855-5147

PhD in History, Associate Professor, Department of International Relations and Foreign Policy of Russia

Moscow, Russian Federation

References

  1. Bobylev, S. N., Baraboshkina, A. V., & Zhu, X. (2020). Priorities of low-carbon development for China. E-Journal Public Administration, (82), 114-139. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24411/2070-1381-2020-10095
  2. Borisov, M. G. (2020). Energy transition and geopolitics. Eastern Analytics, (1), 7-16. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31696/2227-5568-2020-01-007-016
  3. Gaidaev, O. S. (2021). Securitization theory or a well overlooked old: On the philosophical and theoretical premises and origins of the theory. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 21(1), 64-78. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2021-21-1-20-32
  4. Garanina, O. L. (2021). Energy transition agenda: Challenges for Russia under the pandemic. Russian Foreign Economic Journal, (4), 40-52. (In Russian).
  5. Kovalev, Y. Y., & Porshneva, O. S. (2021). BRICS countries in international climate policy. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 21(1), 64-78. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2021-21-1-64-78
  6. Khudaykulova, A. V. (2020). Explaining the security of the global South: Western and Non-Western approaches. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International Relations, 13(3), 394-417. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2020.307
  7. Axon, C. J., & Darton, R. C. (2021). Sustainability and risk - a review of energy security. Sustainable Production and Consumption, (27), 1195-1204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.01.018
  8. Buzan, B., & Hansen, L. (2009). The evolution of international security studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817762
  9. Česnakas, G. (2010). Energy resources in foreign policy: A theoretical approach. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 3(1), 30-52.
  10. Chinn, S., Sol Hart, P., & Soroka, S. (2020). Politicization and polarization in climate change news content, 1985-2017. Science Communication, 42(1), 112-129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019900290
  11. Dunford, M., & Qi, B. (2020). Global reset: COVID-19, systemic rivalry and the global order. Research in Globalization, (2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2020.100021
  12. Froggatt, A., & Quiggin, D. (2021). China, EU and US cooperation on climate and energy. An ever-changing relationship. Chatham House Research Paper. Retrieved from https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/ files/2021-03/2021-03-26-china-eu-us-cooperation-froggatt.pdf
  13. Goldthau, A., & Westphal, K. (2019). Why the global energy transition does not mean the end of the petrostate. Global Policy, 10(2), 279-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12649
  14. Grant, S., Crim, C. C., & Jensen, P. K. M. (2015). Climatization: A critical perspective of framing disasters as climate change events. Climate Risk Management, 10, 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.09.003
  15. Hakes, J. (2015). A declaration of energy independence. New Jersey: Wiley.
  16. Harsem, Ø., & Claes, D. H. (2013). The interdependence of European-Russian energy relations. Energy Policy, 59, 784-791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.035
  17. Heinrich, A., & Szulecki, K. (2019). Energy securitization: Applying the Copenhagen school’s framework to energy. In K. Szulecki (Ed.), Energy security in Europe. Divergent perceptions and policy challenges (pp. 33-61). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64964-1_2
  18. Luft, G., & Korin, A. (2009). Realism and idealism in the energy security debate. In G. Luft & A. Korin (Eds.), Energy security challenges for the 21st century: A reference handbook (pp. 335-349). Santa Barbara: Praeger
  19. Luft, G., Korin, A., & Gupta, E. (2011). Energy security and climate change: A tenuous link. In B. Sovacool (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of energy security (pp. 43-56). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203834602
  20. Ozcan, S. (2013). Securitization of energy through the lenses of Copenhagen school. West East Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 57-72. Retrieved from http://www.westeastinstitute.com/journals/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Sezer_Ozcan.pdf
  21. Romanova, T. A. (2013). Security of energy demand: Security for suppliers? In H. Dyer & M. J. Trombetta (Eds.), International handbook of energy security (pp. 239-258). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing
  22. Schelly, C., Bessette, D., Brosemer, K., Gagnon, V., Arola, K. L. et al. (2020). Energy policy for energy sovereignty: Can policy tools enhance energy sovereignty? Solar Energy, 205, 109-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.05.056
  23. Smil, V. (2010). Energy transitions: History, requirements, prospects. Oxford: Praeger
  24. Sovacool, B. (2011). Introduction: Defining, measuring, and exploring energy security. In B. Sovacool (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of energy security (pp. 1-42). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203834602
  25. Sovacool, B. (2021). Who are the victims of low-carbon transitions? Towards a political ecology of climate change mitigation. Energy Research & Social Science, 73, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.101916
  26. Winzer, C. (2011). Conceptualizing energy security. University of Cambridge EPRG Working Paper, 1123, 1-36. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.5563

Copyright (c) 2021 Borovsky Y.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies