Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Document Type
- Peer-Reviewed Article (3) (remove)
Language
- English (3) (remove)
Division
- Energie-, Verkehrs- und Klimapolitik (3) (remove)
In recent years, the public discourse on the phase-out of carbon-intensive technologies and practices has come to a near consensus that a "just transition" is required. Yet, this term seems to have as many meanings as there are stakeholders using it. The purpose of this paper is to unpack the different meanings that regional stakeholders assign to it and the underlying dimensions of in(justice) that they invoke in their political communication.
To this end, we employ a policy narrative analysis to study and compare the political discourse in four European coal and carbon-intensive mining regions: Ida-Virumaa (Estonia, oil shale), the Rhenish mining region (Germany, lignite), Upper Silesia (Poland, hard coal) and Western Macedonia (Greece, lignite). Specifically, we address the following research questions: Which narratives are characterising the political discourse around just transition? Which (in)justices are being invoked? Which patterns, similarities or differences are recognizable between regions?
We found that hopeful narratives describing structural change as an opportunity to reinvent the region are prevalent in all regions. Strong narratives of resistance only prevail in Upper Silesia and Ida-Virumaa where a phase-out decision has not yet been adopted. In terms of injustices, we find surprisingly little evidence that injustices related to the immediate effects of the transformation (e.g. lay-offs and compensation for workers and companies) play an important role. Instead, the aspects related to the historical injustices produced by the legacy industrial system prevail. And perhaps most importantly, questions about access and allocation of the opportunities of the imminent transition are key and should be addressed more explicitly.
The Glasgow climate conference marked a symbolic juncture, lying half-way between the adoption of the UNFCCC in 1992 and the year 2050 in which according to the IPCC special report on the 1.5°C limit net zero CO2 emissions need to be reached, globally, in order to maintain a good chance of achieving the 1.5°C limit. This article undertakes an assessment of what the UNFCCC and in particular the Paris Agreement and its implementation process have actually achieved so far up to and including the results of the Glasgow conference. The article discusses efforts at ambition raising both within and outside the formal diplomatic process, the finalization of the implementation rules of the Paris Agreement, as well as progress on gender responsiveness, climate finance, adaptation and loss and damage. In summary, the Paris Agreement and its implementation can be considered a success as it is having a discernible impact on the behavior of parties as well as on non-party actors. However, significant further efforts will be required to actually achieve the objectives of the Agreement.
2020 was meant to be the year of climate ambition. Then the COVID-19 pandemic struck, the Glasgow conference was postponed to November 2021, and climate policy generally appeared to have been put on the backburner. But towards the end of the year prospects seemed to brighten with a series of zero-emission pledges and the election of Joe Biden as US President. This article analyses what the year of the pandemic achieved in terms of combating climate change. This article first summarizes the virtual events that were organised to substitute for the physical UNFCCC conferences and what progress was or was not made on the outstanding items of the "Paris rulebook", implementation of the Gender Action Plan, and other items. Subsequently, the article surveys the status of NDC updates and to what extent recovery programmes have been used to advance climate action. Finally, the article takes a closer look at the current dynamics among non-Party actors. In summary, while formal negotiations essentially stopped in the year of the pandemic, the conservation did not. However, implementation is still lagging far behind the ambitious targets that have been set. While implementation is mostly the domain of national policy, the international process has a number of options at its disposal to foster climate action.