Energy
Energy is not a political science concept. It originates in physics and describes “a fundamental entity of nature,” best understood as “the capacity for doing work.” Furthermore, as the Encyclopaedia Britannica notes, it “may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other forms,” to which Merriam-Webster dictionary adds that it can be “transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical change within the system.” At the same time, energy is a frequent object of political discussions, due to the fundamental role it plays in modern societies. Energy generates welfare through ceding human physical labor to work done by machines, from home appliances to steelworks; it provides the physical comfort of adequately heated or cooled surroundings; it makes possible the mobility achieved through modern means of transportation. All of these rely on the conversion of energy resources into energy services. Socioeconomic development is correlated with increasingly higher energy consumption (Destek & Sarkodie, 2019). The fundamental and omnipresent nature of energy and its importance for sustaining modern livelihoods are expressed with the often-used metaphor of the “lifeblood of society.” This has political consequences, as access to energy services at a certain level and affordable price is the foundation of social contracts, leading to popular discontent when these are not provided.
Fashionably or fatally late? exploring NDC procrastination in the UNFCCC
The current global climate change mitigation regime established by the Paris Agreement rests on a “pledge-and-review“ mechanism with the cyclical submission of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to progressively increase climate ambition. Following the 2023 collective review, the so-called Global Stocktake (GST), Parties were required to submit updated NDCs by February 2025. Yet compliance has been strikingly low: only 16 of 198 Parties met the deadline, and even after an extended September cutoff, just 64 submissions were recorded, covering roughly 30% of global emissions. We examine the phenomenon of NDC procrastination – the widespread delay in meeting procedural obligations – and its implications for the climate regime. Drawing on 23 country case studies, compliance reports, and fieldwork at the climate summit in Bonn, we identify four clusters of factors behind delayed submissions. Financial and institutional capacity challenges include resource constraints, reliance on external technical assistance, and complex whole-of-government coordination requirements. Technical and data-related challenges stem from gaps in emissions inventories, modelling expertise, and recalibration needs when baselines shift. Political and governance challenges range from domestic uncertainty (elections, coalition changes) to geopolitical shocks, armed conflict, and instances of ‘green backlash,’ where governments actively obstruct climate policy. Finally, procedural and strategic dynamics encourage states to delay pledges for performative or tactical reasons. While these factors can explain why many parties were late with their submissions, the question of what NDC procrastination means for the future of global climate action is more complex. While NDCs are visibly treated more seriously by many, and considerable resources are channeled into the work on pledges, the scale of non-compliance underscores the fragility of procedural norms. Furthermore, the post-GST round of delayed pledges highlights the tension between detailed, economy-wide pledges aligned with domestic policies and ratcheting up mitigation ambition at a pace needed to tackle dangerous climate change.
Kledd for makt
Få legger merke til hva statsledere og politikere har på seg når antrekket funker. Men når det feiler, blir bekledningen omtrent det eneste folk s...
Building influence: China's Belt and Road Initiative and the geopolitics of infrastructure
Over the past decade, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has redrawn physical, economic, and political maps. From ports in the Indian Ocean to...
Geo-economic Resilience: Collective Measures Against the Weaponisation of External Dependencies in the NB8 Region
Geo-economic competition and the coercive use of economic statecraft are supplanting the rules-based system of liberal economic exchange. Small economies like the NB8 states are vulnerable to this development, including the potential weaponisation of external dependencies against them. This policy brief proposes measures for NB8 states to prepare for such scenarios and suggests collective policies to enhance geo-economic resilience in the region.