1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Political Science
  4. Volume 26, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Political Science

Volume 26, 2023

International Energy Politics in an Age of Climate Change

Abstract

Global climate change is opening up new questions and reinvigorating old lines of inquiry in the study of international energy politics. Many policymakers and stakeholders are pushing for a clean energy transition away from the fossil fuels that have long dominated the world's energy supply. On some issues, there is considerable consensus between political scientists and other analysts, such as the basic categories of the “winners” and “losers” from the clean energy transition. On other issues, however, political science tends to depart significantly from other disciplines. The politics of the desired clean energy transition are highly complicated and filled with obstacles beyond those typically highlighted by either economics or physical sciences. For these reasons, energy politics associated with oil and other fossil fuels are far from over and continue to develop, even as new political dynamics associated with the clean energy transition emerge.

Keyword(s): clean energy transition, climate change, distributive politics, energy politics, oil
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051421-124241
2023-06-15
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/26/1/annurev-polisci-051421-124241.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051421-124241&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abdelal R. 2013. The profits of power: commerce and realpolitik in Eurasia. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 20:3421–56
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aklin M, Mildenberger M. 2020. Prisoners of the wrong dilemma: why distributive conflict, not collective action, characterizes the politics of climate change. Glob. Environ. Politics 20:44–27
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aklin M, Urpelainen J. 2018. Renewables: The Politics of a Global Energy Transition Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  4. Alkon M, Wong A. 2020. Authoritarian energy transitions undermined? Environmental governance cycles in China's power sector. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 68:101531
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Allan BB. 2018. Scientific Cosmology and International Orders, Vol. 147 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  6. Andonova LB, Betsill MM, Bulkeley H. 2009. Transnational climate governance. Glob. Environ. Politics 9:252–73
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Ansolabehere S, Konisky DM. 2014. Cheap and Clean: How Americans Think about Energy in the Age of Global Warming Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  8. Axelrod R, VanDeveer S. 2014. The Global Environment: Institutions, Law, and Policy Washington, DC: CQ Press
  9. Baker L, Newell P, Phillips J. 2014. The political economy of energy transitions: the case of South Africa. New Political Econ. 19:6791–818
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Barma NH. 2014. The rentier state at work: comparative experiences of the resource curse in East Asia and the Pacific. Asia Pacific Policy Stud. 1:2257–72
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bechtel M, Scheve K. 2013. Mass support for global climate agreements depends on institutional design. PNAS 110:3412763–13768
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bellin E. 2004. The robustness of authoritarianism in the Middle East: exceptionalism in comparative perspective. Comp. Politics 36:2139–57
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bergquist P, Mildenberger M, Stokes LC. 2020. Combining climate, economic, and social policy builds public support for climate action in the US. Environ. Res. Lett. 15:5054019
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bernstein S, Hoffmann M. 2019. Climate politics, metaphors and the fractal carbon trap. Nat. Climate Change 9:12919–25
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Blas J, Farchy J. 2021. The World for Sale: Money, Power, and the Traders Who Barter the Earth's Resources New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  16. Blondeel M, Colgan JD, Van de Graaf T. 2019. What drives norm success? Evidence from anti-fossil fuel campaigns. Glob. Environ. Politics 19:463–84
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Boasson E. 2014. National Climate Policy: A Multi-Field Approach New York: Routledge
  18. Bordoff J, O'Sullivan M 2022. Green upheaval. Foreign Aff. 101:168–84
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Borenstein S, Kellogg R. 2022. Carbon pricing, clean electricity standards, and clean electricity subsidies on the path to zero emissions NBER Work. Pap. 30263
  20. Bos K, Gupta J. 2018. Climate change: the risks of stranded fossil fuel assets and resources to the developing world. Third World Q. 39:3436–53
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Breetz H, Mildenberger M, Stokes L. 2018. The political logics of clean energy transitions. Bus. Politics 20:4492–522
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Brulle RJ, Roberts JT. 2017. Climate misinformation campaigns and public sociology. Contexts 16:178–79
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Bullock G, Theodoridis AG. 2017. Addressing concerns about climate policies: the possibilities and perils of responsive accommodation. Environ. Politics 26:61079–106
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Buntaine M, Prather L. 2018. Preferences for domestic action over international transfers in global climate policy. J. Exp. Political Sci. 5:273–87
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Busby JW. 2022. States and Nature: The Effects of Climate Change on Security Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  26. Carley S, Konisky DM 2020. The justice and equity implications of the clean energy transition. Nat. Energy 5:8569–77
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Christophers B. 2021. Fossilised capital: price and profit in the energy transition. New Political Econ. 27:1146–59
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Coady MD, Parry IWH, Le NP, Shang B. 2019. Global fossil fuel subsidies remain large: An update based on country-level estimates. Int. Monet. Fund Work. Pap. 2019/089. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509
  29. Colgan JD. 2013. Petro-Aggression: When Oil Causes War Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  30. Colgan JD. 2014. The emperor has no clothes: the limits of OPEC in the global oil market. Int. Organ. 68:3599–632
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Colgan JD. 2015. Oil, domestic conflict, and opportunities for democratization. J. Peace Res. 52:13–16
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Colgan JD. 2021. Partial Hegemony: Oil Politics and International Order New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  33. Colgan JD, Green JF, Hale TN. 2021. Asset revaluation and the existential politics of climate change. Int. Organ. 75:2586–610
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Colgan JD, Hinthorn M. 2021. Is cheap gasoline killing us? Fuel subsidies and under-taxation as a driver of obesity and public health problems worldwide. Energy Res. Social Sci. 82:102316
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Cooper J, Kim SE, Urpelainen J. 2018. The broad impact of a narrow conflict: how natural resource windfalls shape policy and politics. J. Politics 80:2630–46
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Cullenward D, Victor DG. 2020. Making Climate Policy Work Cambridge, UK: Polity
  37. Dauvergne P, Neville K. 2009. The changing north-south and south-south political economy of biofuels. Third World Q. 30:61087–102
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Decker C, Wohar M. 2007. Do increases in petroleum product prices put the incumbent party at risk in US presidential elections?. Appl. Econ. 39:7727–37
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Dolšak N, Prakash A. 2018. The politics of climate change adaptation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43:317–41
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Downie C. 2019. Business Battles in the US Energy Sector: Lessons for a Clean Energy Transition Abingdon, UK: Routledge
  41. Dubash NK. 2013. The politics of climate change in India: narratives of equity and cobenefits. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 4:3191–201
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Edomah N, Ndulue G. 2020. Energy transition in a lockdown: an analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on changes in electricity demand in Lagos Nigeria. Glob. Transitions 2:127–37
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Falkner R. 2016. A minilateral solution for global climate change? On bargaining efficiency, club benefits, and international legitimacy. Perspect. Politics 14:187–101
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Gaikwad N, Genovese F, Tingley D. 2022. Creating climate coalitions: mass preferences for compensating vulnerability in the world's two largest democracies. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 116:41165–83
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Gallagher K, Xuan X 2019. Titans of the Climate: Explaining Policy Process in the United States and China Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  46. Geels FW, Sovacool BK, Schwanen T, Sorrell S. 2017. Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science 357:63571242–44
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Gelles D. 2022. West Virginia punishes banks that it says don't support coal. New York Times July 28. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/28/business/west-virginia-fossil-fuel-banks.html
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Goldthau A, Hughes L. 2021. Saudi on the Rhine? Explaining the emergence of private governance in the global oil market. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 28:51410–32
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Goldthau A, Westphal K. 2019. Why the global energy transition does not mean the end of the petrostate. Glob. Policy 10:2279–83
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Graham E, Serdaru A. 2020. Power, control, and the logic of substitution in institutional design: the case of international climate finance. Int. Organ. 74:4671–706
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Green JF. 2021. Does carbon pricing reduce emissions? A review of ex-post analyses. Environ. Res. Lett. 16:4043004
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Green JF, Hadden J, Hale T, Mahdavi P. 2021. Transition, hedge, or resist? Understanding political and economic behavior toward decarbonization in the oil and gas industry. Rev. Int. Political Econ. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2021.1946708
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Hale T, Roger C. 2014. Orchestration and transnational climate governance. Rev. Int. Organ. 9:159–82
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Hall N. 2022. Transnational Advocacy in the Digital Era: Think Global, Act Local Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  55. Hancock KJ, Vivoda V. 2014. International political economy: a field born of the OPEC crisis returns to its energy roots. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1:206–16
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Hancock L, Ralph N, Ali SH 2018. Bolivia's lithium frontier: Can public private partnerships deliver a minerals boom for sustainable development?. J. Cleaner Prod. 178:1551–60
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Hayes J, Knox-Hayes J. 2014. Security in climate change discourse: analyzing the divergence between US and EU approaches to policy. Glob. Environ. Politics 14:282–101
     [Google Scholar]
  58. He B. 1996. Dilemmas of pluralist development and democratization in China. Democratization 3:3287–305
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Helveston J, Nahm J. 2019. China's key role in scaling low-carbon energy technologies. Science 366:6467794–96
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Hendrix C. 2017. Oil prices and interstate conflict. Conflict Manag. Peace Sci. 34:6575–96
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Henriksen LF, Seabrooke L. 2016. Transnational organizing: issue professionals in environmental sustainability networks. Organization 23:5722–41
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Hovi J, Sprinz DF, Sælen H, Underdal A. 2016. Climate change mitigation: a role for climate clubs?. Palgrave Commun. 2:116020
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Hughes L, Lipscy PY. 2013. The politics of energy. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 16:449–69
     [Google Scholar]
  64. IRENA (Int. Renew. Energy Agency) 2019. A new world: the geopolitics of the energy transformation Presentation of Rep. Global Commission on the Geopolitics of the Energy Transformation New York, NY: Mar. 29. https://www.norway.no/contentassets/e052e188c2a148deaf1328059bc4bf58/geopolitics.et_ny.29.3.2019.fin.pdf
  65. IRENA (Int. Renew. Energy Agency) 2021. Renewable power generation costs in 2020 Rep. Int. Energy Agency Paris, France: https://www.irena.org/publications/2021/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2020
  66. Jaffe AM. 2021. Energy's Digital Future New York: Columbia Univ. Press
  67. Javeline D, Kijewski-Correa T. 2019. Coastal homeowners in a changing climate. Clim. Change 152:2259–74
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Jensen NM, Johnston NP. 2011. Political risk, reputation, and the resource curse. Comp. Political Stud. 44:6662–88
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Jinnah S, Nicholson S, Flegal J. 2018. Toward legitimate governance of solar geoengineering research: a role for sub-state actors. Ethics Policy Environ. 21:3362–81
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Lachapelle E, Paterson M. 2013. Drivers of national climate policy. Climate Policy 13:5547–71
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Lilliestam J, Hanger S. 2016. Shades of green: centralisation, decentralisation and controversy among European renewable electricity visions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 172016:20–29
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Kalantzakos S. 2017. China and the Geopolitics of Rare Earths New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  73. Kaldor M, Karl T, Said Y, eds. 2007. Oil Wars London: Pluto
  74. Karl TL. 1997. The Paradox of Plenty Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  75. Kennard A. 2020. The enemy of my enemy: when firms support climate change regulation. Int. Organ. 74:2187–221
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Keohane N, Petsonk A, Hanafi A. 2017. Toward a club of carbon markets. Clim. Change 144:181–95
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Keohane RO, Victor DG. 2011. The regime complex for climate change. Perspect. Politics 9:17–23
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Keohane RO, Colgan JD. 2021. Save the environment, save American democracy. Foreign Aff. Sep. 20. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-09-20/save-environment-save-american-democracy
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Kern F, Rogge KS. 2016. The pace of governed energy transitions: agency, international dynamics and the global Paris agreement accelerating decarbonisation processes?. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 22:13–17
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Kim I 2022. Shale oil and the future of geopolitics. Handbook on Oil and International Relations R Dannreuther, W Ostrowski 407–24. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Kotchen MJ, Boyle KJ, Leiserowitz AA. 2013. Willingness-to-pay and policy-instrument choice for climate-change policy in the United States. Energy Policy 55:617–25
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Krane J, Idel R. 2021. More transitions, less risk: how renewable energy reduces risks from mining, trade and political dependence. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 82:102311
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Kuzemko C, Lawrence A, Watson M. 2019. New directions in the international political economy of energy. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 26:11–24
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Kyle J. 2018. Local corruption and popular support for fuel subsidy reform in Indonesia. Comp. Political Stud. 51:111472–503
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Lewis J. 2014. The rise of renewable energy protectionism: emerging trade conflicts and implications for low carbon development. Glob. Environ. Politics 14:410–35
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Lewis J 2017. The US-China climate and energy relationship. Parallel Perspectives on the Global Economic Order: A US-China Essay Collection M Goodman 93–97. Washington, DC: Cent. Strat. Int. Stud.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Li Y, Shapiro J. 2020. China Goes Green: Coercive Environmentalism for a Troubled Planet Cambridge, UK: John Wiley & Sons
  88. Lind J, Press DG. 2018. Markets or mercantilism? How China secures its energy supplies. Int. Secur. 42:4170–204
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Liou YM, Musgrave P. 2016. Oil, autocratic survival, and the gendered resource curse: when inefficient policy is politically expedient. Int. Stud. Q. 60:3440–56
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Lyubich E. 2020. The race gap in residential energy expenditures Work. Pap. 306 Energy Inst. Haas, Haas Sch. Bus., Univ. Calif. Berkeley: https://haas.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/WP306.pdf
  91. Mahajan A, Kline R, Tingley D. 2022. Collective risk and distributional equity in climate change bargaining. J. Conflict Resolut. 66:161–90
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Mahdavi P, Alvarez CM, Ross ML. 2022. Why do governments tax or subsidize fossil fuels?. J. Politics 84:42123–39
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Meckling J, Kelsey N, Biber E, Zysman J. 2015. Winning coalitions for climate policy. Science 349:62531170–71
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Meierding E. 2022. Over a barrel? Oil busts and petrostate stability. Comp. Politics 54:4671–94
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Mildenberger M. 2020. Carbon Captured: How Business and Labor Control Climate Politics Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  96. Mitchell RB, Carpenter C. 2019. Norms for the earth: changing the climate on “climate change. .” J. Glob. Secur. Stud. 4:4413–29
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Moerenhout T, Vezanis N, Westling C. 2017. Navigating political hurricanes in the MENA Region: energy pricing reform in a context of changing social contracts Rep. Columbia Cent. Glob. Energy Policy New York, NY: https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/Navigating%20Political%20Hurricanes%20in%20MENA%20Energy%20Pricing%20Reform%20in%20Context%20of%20Changing%20Social%20Contracts%20041117_0.pdf
  98. Morin JF, Jinnah S. 2018. The untapped potential of preferential trade agreements for climate governance. Environ. Politics 27:3541–65
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Muttitt G, Sharma S, Mostafa M, Kühne K, Doukas A et al. 2021. Step off the gas: international public finance, natural gas, and clean alternatives in the Global South Rep. Int. Inst. Sustain. Dev. Winnipeg, Can: https://www.iisd.org/publications/natural-gas-finance-clean-alternatives-global-south
  100. Nahm J, Steinfeld ES. 2014. Scale-up nation: China's specialization in innovative manufacturing. World Dev. 542014:288–300
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Nemet GF. 2019. How Solar Energy Became Cheap: A Model for Low-Carbon Innovation Abingdon, UK: Routledge
  102. Neubert M. 2020. Ørsted's renewable-energy transformation. Interview by McKinsey & Co., July 10. McKinsey Sustainability. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/orsteds-renewable-energy-transformation
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Newell P. 2021. Race and the politics of energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 71:101839
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Newell RG, Raimi D. 2018. The new climate math: energy addition, subtraction, and transition Issue Brief, Resources for the Future Washington, DC: https://www.rff.org/publications/issue-briefs/the-new-climate-math-energy-addition-subtraction-and-transition/
  105. Nordhaus W. 2015. Climate clubs: overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. Am. Econ. Rev. 105:41339–70
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Nyman J. 2014.. ‘ Red storm ahead’: securitisation of energy in US-China relations. Millennium 43:143–65
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Oberthür S, Hermwille L, Rayner T. 2021. A sectoral perspective on global climate governance: analytical foundation. Earth Syst. Governance 8:100104
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Ohlendorf N, Jakob M, Steckel JC 2022. The political economy of coal phase-out: exploring the actors, objectives, and contextual factors shaping policies in eight major coal countries. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 90:102590
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Okereke C. 2008. Equity norms in global environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Politics 8:325–50
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Okpanachi E, Andrews N. 2012. Preventing the oil “resource curse” in Ghana: lessons from Nigeria. World Futures 68:6430–50
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Oreskes N, Conway EM. 2011. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming New York: Bloomsbury
  112. Overland I, Bazilian M, Uulu TI, Vakulchuk R, Westphal K. 2019. The GeGaLo index: geopolitical gains and losses after energy transition. Energy Strategy Rev. 26:100406
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Paine J. 2016. Rethinking the conflict “resource curse”: how oil wealth prevents center-seeking civil wars. Int. Organ. 70:4727–61
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Peng W, Wagner F, Ramana MV, Zhai H, Small MJ et al. 2018. Managing China's coal power plants to address multiple environmental objectives. Nat. Sustain. 1:11693–701
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Prakash A. 2000. Greening the Firm: The Politics of Corporate Environmentalism Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  116. Riofrancos TN. 2017. Scaling democracy: participation and resource extraction in Latin America. Perspect. Politics 15:3678–96
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Rosenbloom D, Markard J, Geels F. 2020. Why carbon pricing is not sufficient to mitigate climate change—and how “sustainability transition policy” can help. PNAS 117:168664–68
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Ross ML, Hazlett C, Mahdavi P. 2017. Global progress and backsliding on gasoline taxes and subsidies. Nature Energy 2:16201
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Ross ML. 2012. The Oil Curse Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  120. Safari A, Das N, Langhelle O, Roy J, Assadi M 2019. Natural gas: a transition fuel for sustainable energy system transformation?. Energy Sci. Eng. 7:41075–94
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Scholten D, Bazilian M, Overland I, Westphal K. 2020. The geopolitics of renewables: new board, new game. Energy Policy 138:111059
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Setzer J, Byrnes R. 2019. Global trends in climate change litigation: 2019 snapshot Rep. Grantham Inst., London Sch. Econ. Political Sci. London:
  123. Shojaeddini E, Naimoli S, Ladislaw S, Bazilian M. 2019. Oil and gas company strategies regarding the energy transition. Prog. Energy 1:1012001
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Skovgaard J, van Asselt H, eds. 2018. The Politics of Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Their Reform Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  125. Smil V. 2010. Energy Transitions: History, Requirements, Prospects Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger
  126. Sovacool BK. 2016. How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13:202–15
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Sovacool BK, Kim J, Yang M 2021. The hidden costs of energy and mobility: a global meta-analysis and research synthesis of electricity and transport externalities. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 72:101885
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Sprecher B, Daigo I, Murakami S, Kleijn R, Vos M, Kramer GJ. 2015. Framework for resilience in material supply chains, with a case study from the 2010 rare earth crisis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49:116740–50
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Stokes LC. 2020. Short Circuiting Policy: Interest Groups and the Battle Over Clean Energy and Climate Policy in the American States New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  130. Stokes LC, Warshaw C. 2017. Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States. Nat. Energy 2:817107
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Sunter DA, Castellanos S, Kammen DM. 2019. Disparities in rooftop photovoltaics deployment in the United States by race and ethnicity. Nat. Sustain. 2:171–76
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Szulecki K, Westphal K 2018. Taking security seriously in EU energy governance: Crimean shock and the energy union. Energy Security in Europe K Szulecki 177–202. Cham, Switz.: Palgrave Macmillan
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Thurber MC. 2019. Coal Cambridge, UK: Polity
  134. Tingley D, Tomz M. 2014. Conditional cooperation and climate change. Comp. Political Stud. 47:3344–68
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Trachtman S. 2020. What drives climate policy adoption in the U.S. states?. Energy Policy 138:111214
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Vakulchuk R, Overland I, Scholten D. 2020. Renewable energy and geopolitics: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 122:109547
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Van de Graaf T, Bradshaw M. 2018. Stranded wealth: rethinking the politics of oil in an age of abundance. Int. Aff. 94:61309–28
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Van de Graaf T, Colgan JD. 2016. Global energy governance: a review and research agenda. Palgrave Commun. 2:15047
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Van de Graaf T, Colgan JD. 2017. Russian gas games or well-oiled conflict? Energy security and the 2014 Ukraine crisis. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 24:59–64
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Van de Graaf T, Overland I, Scholten D, Westphal K. 2020. The new oil? The geopolitics and international governance of hydrogen. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70:101667
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Victor DG. 2009. The politics of fossil-fuel subsidies. Rep. Glob. Subsid. Initiat. San Diego, CA: https://storm.colorado.edu/∼toohey/politics_ffs.pdf
  142. Vormedal I, Gulbrandsen LH, Skjærseth JB. 2020. Big oil and climate regulation: Business as usual or a changing business?. Glob. Environ. Politics 20:4143–66
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Wang N, Akimoto K, Nemet GF. 2021. What went wrong? Learning from three decades of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) pilot and demonstration projects. Energy Policy 158:112546
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Weiss JC, Wallace JL. 2021. Domestic politics, China's rise, and the future of the liberal international order. Int. Organ. 75:1635–64
     [Google Scholar]
  145. Welsby D, Price J, Pye S, Ekin P. 2021. Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5°C world. Nature 597:7875230–34
     [Google Scholar]
  146. Welton S, Eisen J. 2019. Clean energy justice: charting an emerging agenda. Harvard Environ. Law Rev. 43:307–70
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Williams A. 2022. US states divided over petrol stations as LA considers ban on new pumps. Financ. Times July 24
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Wilson T. 2022. Chevron invests in Google-backed nuclear fusion start-up pursuing “perfect power. .” Financ. Times July 20
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Zhong M, Bazilian MD. 2018. Contours of the energy transition: investment by international oil and gas companies in renewable energy. Electricity J. 31:182–91
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051421-124241
Loading
International Energy Politics in an Age of Climate Change
Annual Review of Political Science 26, 79 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051421-124241
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051421-124241
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051421-124241
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error