Natural resources and climate

A void in Central Asia research: climate change

The environmental burdens of special economic zones on the coastal and marine environment: A remote sensing assessment in Myanmar

ASEAN’s energy transition: how to attract more investment in renewable energy

The energy transition is progressing slowly in the ten member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). To achieve ASEAN’s target of 23% renewables in the primary energy supply by 2025, the region would need to invest USD 27 billion in renewable energy every year. However, the ASEAN countries attracted no more than USD 8 billion annually from 2016 to 2021. Through a comparative review of three key factors for attracting investment—renewable energy legislation, energy governance reform, and general conditions for investors—this study examines why the region’s renewable energy sector has not attracted more capital. The contribution of the article is threefold. First, it develops a new review model for assessing the business climate for renewable energy in any country. Second, it offers an update on the state of renewable energy deployment in the ASEAN countries. Third, taking into account international best practices, it identifies the obstacles and solutions to attracting investment in renewable energy in Southeast Asia. The article finds that carbon lock-in is pervasive, regulatory practices have been copy-pasted from the fossil-fuel sector to the renewables sector, and, except for Malaysia and Vietnam, no ASEAN country has implemented a major pro-renewable energy governance reform. Certain advanced renewable energy measures, such as auctions and feed-in tariffs, have been adopted in some member states, but the institutional capacity to implement them is limited. The share of renewables in the energy governance system needs to be increased.

Are renewable energy sources more evenly distributed than fossil fuels?

The energy transition literature assumes that renewable energy sources are more evenly distributed globally than fossil fuels. This assumption implies that the shift from fossil fuels to renewables will enable more countries to pursue energy self-sufficiency and end their dependence on imported energy. However, if the assumption is wrong, the energy transition will depend on transboundary electricity or hydrogen trade, creating new international relationships and opportunities for both cooperation and conflict. The contribution of this study is to test the assumption of the even distribution of renewable energy resources on a quantitative empirical basis. Lorenz curves are compared and Gini coefficients calculated for three types of fossil fuels and three types of renewable energy in 161 countries. The study concludes that renewable energy is indeed more evenly distributed than fossil fuels. This finding lends support to claims that energy transition will bring about a more decentralized global energy system centered on prosumer countries with few long-distance energy relationships. However, the difference between the evenness of the distribution of renewable energy resources and that of fossil fuel reserves is not as great as the literature assumes. International trade in energy, and by extension international energy politics, will not disappear entirely.

Coping with Complexity: Toward Epistemological Pluralism in Climate–Conflict Scholarship

Over the last two decades, climate security has become an increasingly salient policy agenda in international fora. Yet, despite a large body of research, the empirical links between climate-change and conflict remain highly uncertain. This paper contends that uncertainty around climate–conflict links should be understood as characteristic of complex social–ecological systems rather than a problem that can be fully resolved. Rather than striving to eliminate uncertainty, we suggest that researchers need to learn to cope with it. To this end, this article advances a set of principles for guiding scholarly practice when investigating a complex phenomenon: recognizing epistemological uncertainty, embracing epistemological diversity, and practicing humility and dialogue across difference. Taken together the authors call this ethos epistemological pluralism, whereby scholars self-consciously recognize the limits of their chosen epistemology for understanding the climate–conflict nexus and engage with other approaches without attempting to usurp them. Reviewing the last decade of climate–conflict scholarship, Beumont and de Coning show that climate–conflict research already manifests many of these ideals; however, they also identify problematic patterns of engagement across epistemological divides and thus plenty of scope for improvement. To illustrate why a diversity of methods (e.g., qualitative and quantitative) will not suffice, the article critically discusses prior research to illustrate why at least two epistemological approaches—constructivism and positivism—cannot be synthesized or integrated without significant analytical cost, and elaborates why excluding insights from any one would lead to an impoverished understanding of the climate–conflict nexus. The authors conclude with five practical recommendations of how scholars can help realize the ideal of epistemological pluralism in practice.

Climate, Peace and Security Fact Sheet: Somalia

Somalia is experiencing its worst drought in over four decades. More frequent and intense floods and droughts fuel competition over natural resources, exacerbating community tensions and vulnerabilities. In combination with decades of conflict and instability, climate change poses a serious challenge to peace and security.

Norges klimaomdømme på Twitter

In this article we explore whether oil and gas industry negatively affects Norway’s climate reputation by analyzing tweets posted during the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow. To make our findings more reliable, we compare tweets about Norway with tweets about Sweden. The results of our study reveal that there is no significant difference in negative sentiment between tweets about Norway compared with tweets about Sweden. However, we find that tweets about the two states differ thematically. While dominant topics in tweets mentioning Sweden are about promotion of the green transition and climate activism, tweets about Norway are mostly about climate financing and the need to phase out fossil fuel production. Furthermore, negative tweets about Sweden are of a more general nature, similar to criticism of all countries not meeting their climate goals, while negative tweets about Norway are specific and related to fossil fuel industry.