SUS-POL Research Programme

NEW: Uplift is looking for an experienced Social Media Officer to join our team campaigning to stop the development of new oil and gas fields and for a rapid and fast phase out of oil & gas in the UK through a just transition. It's a great job if you want to help stop giant oil fields and fight for a just transition to renewable energy. You'll get to work with me almost daily. Feel free to reach out with any questions. https://lnkd.in/eBBUJxUK

Fantastic new blog from Silvia Weko of FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg for the SUS-POL Research Programme exploring how a fossil fuel phase-out may entail a phase-in of Big Tech. Silvia Weko argues that this could have a variety of implications for equity, justice, and energy security https://lnkd.in/eJ-RGtP6 Research Institute for Sustainability (RIFS) Willy Brandt School of Public Policy at the University of Erfurt

SUS-POL's Freddie Daley and Ewan Gibbs, of the University of Glasgow, warn that the end of coal in the UK is littered with lessons for ongoing efforts to phase-out fossil fuel production for The Conversation UK. "Phasing out coal was a brutal and profound process. Organised labour was decimated, entire regions were forced into decline, and communities were left with sustained economic, social and health problems. The towering ghosts of power stations like Ratcliffe-on-Soar will haunt Britain’s ongoing effort to phase out North Sea oil and gas and replace it with clean energy. "The opportunities presented by the transition away from fossil fuels will only be fully realised if workers are at its centre." Check out the full article here: https://lnkd.in/efFiFftG

Excellent and vital new piece by Freddie Daley from the SUS-POL Research Programme and Ewan Gibbs in The Conversation UK on the need for a genuinely just transition, one that does not make the same mistakes as when the coal industry was destroyed in Britain. Workers in the fossil fuel industry must have secure jobs to transition to! https://lnkd.in/dzU6Fxp9

❓🛢Did you know that the main driver of oil demand growth is the expansion of fossil-based petrochemical production and that 50 % of industry growth occurs in China?🛢❓ ➡ Why is that the case? How does the expansion unfold? And what are the implications for the global energy order and the prospects of phasing out fossil fuels to halt escalating climate breakdown? I am really happy to share this new paper with Mathias Larsen taking up these very questions: https://lnkd.in/d5QXyn9M In the paper, we map recent trends and explain how they undermine efforts of decarbonisation and lock-in fossil fuel extraction. With this backdrop for the analysis, we explore: i) the Chinese political economy and industrial policy. ii) the implications for decarbonization, both nationally and globally. iii) implications for global environmental politics and China's political role in the emerging world order. On this basis, we sketch out an agenda for future research to understand this central driver of oil demand growth, which underpins the continuation of an extractive fossil-based energy regime. If you are interested in hearing more about petrochemicals and their relevance for renewable energy transition, feel free to have a look at my newly published thesis on the subject: https://lnkd.in/dBibXE_s

🛢 📈 Why does fossil-based plastic production keep expanding in a time of socio-ecological crisis?📈🛢 In a new paper with Karl Holmberg, Fredric Bauer and Johannes Stripple, we take up this question, analysing the buildout of petrochemical production in Antwerp by exploring its material, institutional, and discursive dynamics at various scales. https://lnkd.in/dBbpxZ8W 💡Three key insights:💡 1️⃣ Plastic and petrochemicals, more broadly, are constitutive elements of the global energy order, and we need to appreciate the role of fossil fuels as feedstock. ➡ Expansion in Europe happens in part because of the shale boom in the US, and shale exploration and production is profitable because of plastics and petrochemicals. 2️⃣ The old storyline of growth and development no longer stands on its own. To legitimise and ensure expansion, new investments in fossil-based plastic production are justified with reference to their supposed climate benefits. ➡ In the paper, we show how INEOS changed their storyline from one about economic gains to one about sustainability, when faced with opposition. 3️⃣ Theoretically, we engage with the notion of trasformismo in neo-Gramscian theory, arguing for close attention to the specific combination of power that actors employ and how the material links to the discursive and vice versa. In case this sparked your interests, this paper very much relates to my PhD on the topic of petrochemical transitions and climate change. I have written a short introduction to the thesis here: https://lnkd.in/dBibXE_s

Breaking news: the UK government will not challenge Uplift's or Greenpeace's application for judicial review of the Rosebank oil field. It accepts that the Supreme Court's finding in the ground-breaking Finch case that environmental impact assessments must take into account scope 3 emissions also applies to offshore oil and gas projects in the UK. This is a long overdue, huge step forward for the integrity of environmental decision-making in the UK. The government is now planning to launch a public consultation to determine the future approach to EIAs in light of Finch and the implementation of its commitment to end new oil & gas exploration licensing. In the meantime, the Scottish Court of Session will have to consider the responses of the other respondents/interested parties in the case, which include the North Sea Transition Authority and Equinor. But in all likelihood, the decision to approve Rosebank (and the Jackdaw gas field, which the government has also decided not to defend) will be quashed. If the developers of those fields decide they still want to press ahead with them, they will likely have to submit new environmental statements--this time including scope 3 emissions--and it will be up to the new government to decide whether or not to approve those fields. Rosebank stands out as one of the worst propositions for the UK in terms of an energy project. It will create a massive volume of emissions (the equivalent of running 56 coal-fired power plants for a year); the developers will receive billions of pounds in tax breaks; its oil will be exported and will do nothing to make the UK's energy more secure or affordable; and it will put a gas pipeline through a marine protected area. And it is the UK's largest undeveloped oil field at a time when we have heard from countless authorities that there is no room for new oil and gas investments if we're going to have a hope of limiting warming to 1.5C. It should be a straightforward decision to reject a project that so manifestly offers only private--not public--benefit. Thank you to everyone who has spoken out against Rosebank, and to the amazing Sarah Finch and her team. There are brighter days ahead! https://lnkd.in/ekiMiHqG

New blog for the SUS-POL site from Freddie Daley and Marcel Llavero Pasquina exploring the potential paradoxes and policy implications of paying the owners of fossil fuel reserves to forgo extraction. They identify three major paradoxes: 1️⃣ Paying states to forgo extraction may introduce perverse incentives to discover and extract fossil fuels. For instance, if the premise of payment is on the basis of proved, probable, and possible fossil fuel reserves, fossil fuel exploration would likely increase. 2️⃣ Reinforces the power dynamics of resource ownership, whereby reserves are effectively ‘held ransom’ by the owners, who accrue greater bargaining power as humanity moves into an increasingly carbon-constrained world. If payments dry up, owners can threaten extraction. 3️⃣ Institutionalising a framework whereby the owners of reserves are compensated could entrench climate injustice by rewarding those that have benefited the most from fossil fuel extraction to date. For instance, the top seven proprietors of carbon bombs are China, the USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada, and Qatar. The authors argue that these paradoxes and practical implications highlight the contested nature of supply-side climate policies and their multifaceted vulnerabilities in an increasingly polarised world. But these paradoxes should not - in any way - detract from the urgent endeavour of co-creating just, equitable and global solutions to keeping reserves safely in the ground and ending the age of fossil fuels. https://lnkd.in/e3bxhTnS

🚨 NEW PAPER 🚨 Peter Newell, Roz Price and I reflect on the gap in our collective understanding of how citizen engagement with just transitions can be deepened and enhanced by drawing on experiences from other related and parallel processes. We argue that it is vital that broader and more integrated conceptions of just transitions are considered, reflective of the multiple historical and contemporary injustices they are seeking to reckon with. The paper focuses on voices, spaces and alliances allows us to simultaneously explore questions of representation participation and mobilisation which we take to be key to citizen engagement with just transitions. Successful interventions need to simultaneously amplify voice, contest and create new spaces, and forge new alliances effectively! Check out the full paper: https://lnkd.in/dhjqbd-w  

OPEN ACCESS: The financial system is fundamentally misaligned with climate goals, says Peter Newell (University of Sussex). 🔶 We need to move beyond mobilising and de-risking private finance 🔷 Flows of public and private finance must be deliberately and proactively redirected and regulated in order to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement 🔶 Governments should make greater use of the many policy tools they have at their disposal, with regards to taxation and regulation Read more about this transformative approach to climate finance ⤵