可再生能源开采中的治理差距和问责陷阱

IF 3 3区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Environmental Policy and Governance Pub Date : 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1002/eet.2122
Susan Park, Teresa Kramarz, Craig Johnson
{"title":"可再生能源开采中的治理差距和问责陷阱","authors":"Susan Park, Teresa Kramarz, Craig Johnson","doi":"10.1002/eet.2122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The global uptake of renewable technology is both a dramatic and insufficient contribution to achieving a 1.5–2° world. However, urgently decarbonizing energy use and systems by shifting to renewables relies on intensifying global supply chains, beginning with the extraction of “critical” minerals, an industry that has a long history of generating significant social and ecological harms. This paper examines the nature of transnational governance initiatives that have emerged to regulate what has been called “renewables extractivism.” We develop a novel database of 44 transnational initiatives for governing minerals for onshore wind, solar PV, and lithium‐ion batteries, which are driving renewable energy uptake. The database reveals “governance gaps” that refer to an absence of rules for many critical minerals and “accountability traps” where actors are held responsible for processes, standards, and sanctions that reflect their own normative logics, rather than the needs of affected communities and ecosystems. Current initiatives are designed in a way that measures, evaluates, and (very rarely) sanctions governance outcomes primarily in relation to supply chain security and energy access, as opposed to mitigating the social and environmental harms of resource extraction. The result is a transnational governance architecture that operates primarily (and systematically) with minimal scrutiny, transparency, and accountability. For stakeholders directly affected by the latest mining boom cycle, the absence of effective and legitimate accountability mechanisms reinforces a pattern of uneven development that shifts the most destructive forms of extraction to the social and ecological margins of the global commodity frontier.","PeriodicalId":47396,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Governance","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Governance gaps and accountability traps in renewables extractivism\",\"authors\":\"Susan Park, Teresa Kramarz, Craig Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eet.2122\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The global uptake of renewable technology is both a dramatic and insufficient contribution to achieving a 1.5–2° world. However, urgently decarbonizing energy use and systems by shifting to renewables relies on intensifying global supply chains, beginning with the extraction of “critical” minerals, an industry that has a long history of generating significant social and ecological harms. This paper examines the nature of transnational governance initiatives that have emerged to regulate what has been called “renewables extractivism.” We develop a novel database of 44 transnational initiatives for governing minerals for onshore wind, solar PV, and lithium‐ion batteries, which are driving renewable energy uptake. The database reveals “governance gaps” that refer to an absence of rules for many critical minerals and “accountability traps” where actors are held responsible for processes, standards, and sanctions that reflect their own normative logics, rather than the needs of affected communities and ecosystems. Current initiatives are designed in a way that measures, evaluates, and (very rarely) sanctions governance outcomes primarily in relation to supply chain security and energy access, as opposed to mitigating the social and environmental harms of resource extraction. The result is a transnational governance architecture that operates primarily (and systematically) with minimal scrutiny, transparency, and accountability. For stakeholders directly affected by the latest mining boom cycle, the absence of effective and legitimate accountability mechanisms reinforces a pattern of uneven development that shifts the most destructive forms of extraction to the social and ecological margins of the global commodity frontier.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Policy and Governance\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Policy and Governance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2122\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Policy and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2122","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

可再生能源技术在全球范围内的普及,对于实现 1.5-2° 世界既是一个巨大的贡献,也是一个不足的贡献。然而,通过转向可再生能源来实现能源使用和系统的紧急去碳化有赖于强化全球供应链,首先是 "关键 "矿物的开采,这一行业长期以来一直对社会和生态造成重大危害。本文研究了为规范所谓的 "可再生能源开采主义 "而出现的跨国治理倡议的性质。我们开发了一个新颖的数据库,其中包含 44 项跨国倡议,用于管理陆上风能、太阳能光伏发电和锂离子电池的矿产,这些倡议正在推动可再生能源的普及。该数据库揭示了 "治理差距",即许多关键矿产缺乏规则,以及 "问责陷阱",在这些陷阱中,参与者要对反映其自身规范逻辑而非受影响社区和生态系统需求的流程、标准和制裁负责。当前倡议的设计方式主要是衡量、评估和(极少)制裁与供应链安全和能源获取相关的治理成果,而不是减轻资源开采对社会和环境造成的危害。其结果是,跨国治理架构的运作主要(且系统地)是在极少监督、透明度和问责制的情况下进行的。对于直接受最新矿业繁荣周期影响的利益相关者而言,缺乏有效、合法的问责机制强化了不均衡的发展模式,将最具破坏性的开采形式转移到全球商品前沿的社会和生态边缘。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Governance gaps and accountability traps in renewables extractivism
The global uptake of renewable technology is both a dramatic and insufficient contribution to achieving a 1.5–2° world. However, urgently decarbonizing energy use and systems by shifting to renewables relies on intensifying global supply chains, beginning with the extraction of “critical” minerals, an industry that has a long history of generating significant social and ecological harms. This paper examines the nature of transnational governance initiatives that have emerged to regulate what has been called “renewables extractivism.” We develop a novel database of 44 transnational initiatives for governing minerals for onshore wind, solar PV, and lithium‐ion batteries, which are driving renewable energy uptake. The database reveals “governance gaps” that refer to an absence of rules for many critical minerals and “accountability traps” where actors are held responsible for processes, standards, and sanctions that reflect their own normative logics, rather than the needs of affected communities and ecosystems. Current initiatives are designed in a way that measures, evaluates, and (very rarely) sanctions governance outcomes primarily in relation to supply chain security and energy access, as opposed to mitigating the social and environmental harms of resource extraction. The result is a transnational governance architecture that operates primarily (and systematically) with minimal scrutiny, transparency, and accountability. For stakeholders directly affected by the latest mining boom cycle, the absence of effective and legitimate accountability mechanisms reinforces a pattern of uneven development that shifts the most destructive forms of extraction to the social and ecological margins of the global commodity frontier.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Policy and Governance
Environmental Policy and Governance ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
13.30%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Environmental Policy and Governance is an international, inter-disciplinary journal affiliated with the European Society for Ecological Economics (ESEE). The journal seeks to advance interdisciplinary environmental research and its use to support novel solutions in environmental policy and governance. The journal publishes innovative, high quality articles which examine, or are relevant to, the environmental policies that are introduced by governments or the diverse forms of environmental governance that emerge in markets and civil society. The journal includes papers that examine how different forms of policy and governance emerge and exert influence at scales ranging from local to global and in diverse developmental and environmental contexts.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Between science, authority, and responsibility: Exploring institutional logics to rethink climate governance Playing the CITES game: Lessons on global conservation governance from African megafauna Illuminating the collective learning continuum in the Colorado River Basin Science‐Policy Forums Achieving economy‐wide gains from residential energy efficiency improvements: The importance of timing and funding approach in driving the transition
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1