Search

This paper argues that past research has overlooked how the way problems and solutions are framed contribute to a prevailing gap in the global governance of climate and energy. Empirically, this paper investigates the frames of energy and climate change as expressed in key documents from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and International Energy Agency (IEA). Partly in contrast to past research, this paper finds (1) that there is a growing similarity in how the IPCC and IEA frame climate and energy; (2) that the IEA has gone from ignoring to acknowledging climate change and the transformation to a low-carbon energy system; and (3) that there is a prevailing difference in emphasis, whereas the IPCC only marginally discuss energy, while the IEA is still mainly talking about energy needs and fossil fuels even if climate change and renewables have entered their agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the liberal optimism of the long 1990s has faded into a world of growing inequality and resurging nationalism, there is less certainty about the prospects of economic convergence and global integration. Beyond the formidable human cost of maintaining a divided world, the possibility of incomplete globalisation also gives rise to a number of environmental risks. While environmental political theory generally sees strength in localism, history rather shows that a robust world trade system is crucial to offset local resource scarcities and that cosmopolitan norms of solidarity are essential for helping communities to rebuild after environmental catastrophe. In relation to climate change, statist thinking has led to a focus on non-scalable technologies and a silent acceptance of chronic poverty abroad as a way of avoiding a climate emergency. Contrary to such views, this paper argues that accelerating the transition to a fully integrated high-energy planet may more effectively mitigate Anthropocene risks. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]