Background Paper On Learning From The Political Economy Of The Energy Transition

Generated Summary

This paper presents an analysis of the political economy of energy transitions to draw lessons for potential transitions in the global food system. The research approach involves examining the similarities and differences between energy systems and food systems transitions, focusing on the role of political economies and their influence on the direction and outcomes of these transitions. The methodology includes a literature review of existing research on energy transitions and political economies, particularly focusing on the case studies of wind and solar power in Brazil and South Africa. The scope encompasses the analysis of climate dimensions, production concerns, consumption patterns, and land-use dynamics to understand the interplay of various political economies within these systems. The study aims to identify the factors that facilitate or hinder transitions, offering insights for policymakers, scholars, and stakeholders interested in sustainable food systems.

Key Findings & Statistics

• Of the 5824 CDM projects approved by 2011, 964 (17%) of them were agriculture projects.
• The study mentions that in the four years from 2011 to 2015, solar power bids fell by 83 percent while wind power bids dropped by 59 percent in South Africa.
• By 2015, both wind and solar cost R0.62/kWh versus the R1.03/kWh of new coal build in South Africa.
• The OECD reported an annual average of $US57 billions of total public and private finance in 2013-2014, while the Indian Ministry of Finance recalculated the sum as only US$1-2.2 billions.

Other Important Findings

• The transition processes of large and complex global systems share important similarities that allow transferring learning about one kind of system transition to another.
• The well-advanced literature on the political economy of energy transitions offers relevant signposts for analysis of similar potential transitions of the global food system.
• One shared starting point is the need to examine the effects of multiple, quite different political economies within the broader dynamic of overall system change.
• Climate change has already demonstrated a powerful capacity to set the starting points of both physical and social life, as extreme weather events and the apparently inexorable rise of global temperatures increasingly change the basic conditions of life around the world, often for the worse.
• The agenda of decarbonization also generates the sharpest opposition: very powerful actors have consistently mobilized against taking the necessary action to reduce greenhouse gases that would prevent additional future climate change.
• Transitions in those political economies may or may not be compatible with positive environmental effects for water, biodiversity, or climate.
• A study of transition needs some understanding of a possible endpoint or at least what would count as movement in the right direction.
• The multiple political economies offer different versions of what those might be, which are further detailed below. Among the many dimensions of both energy and food systems transitions, however, decarbonization is a clear first among equals for both.
• The basic interest structure of the climate change political economy is notoriously stacked against easy action: there is a general, but diffuse, interest in addressing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cause climate change.
• The political economy of energy or food production tends to involve a narrower set of economically oriented actors.
• In most countries, virtually everyone is a consumer of energy and food on a daily basis, making the consumption political economy important to both, on a large scale.
• Energy installations and agricultural production require land, including land that might have been or be used for other purposes.
• Climate change concerns drive many discussions about the need for major systemic transformations and proponents of action on other environmental topics frequently try to link to climate change in order to gain more attention and seek common solutions.
• The production agenda for energy systems transition is largely a positive agenda about economic expansion and growth.
• The climate change agenda for energy systems transition stresses the need to shut down fossil fuels, with predictable political and economic dilemmas.
• In contrast, the production agenda for energy systems transition is largely a positive agenda about economic expansion and growth.

Limitations Noted in the Document

• The study primarily focuses on the experiences of energy transitions, particularly in advanced industrial democracies and emerging economies like Brazil and South Africa, which may not fully represent the complexities of food systems transitions in other contexts.
• The paper acknowledges that the discussion on food systems transitions is based on a limited number of lessons derived from energy transitions, indicating that the analysis may not be exhaustive.
• The study notes the challenge in establishing the additionality required by many carbon credit processes in agricultural projects, which could limit the effectiveness of climate finance in the food system.
• The paper mentions that some of the conclusions here seem directly relevant for food systems transition, but doesn’t fully explore specific management systems or policy details.
• The study identifies land-use issues as central to both energy and food transitions, but the analysis of land-use is limited.

Conclusion

The study underscores that the transition from energy systems to food systems shares several critical features that make them comparable. Both areas involve substantial land-use implications and are central to everyday consumption, making them highly relevant to a broad audience. The political elite’s significant interest in the production within both sectors, along with their impact on global greenhouse gas emissions, highlights their importance in shaping climate change outcomes. The study stresses the need to acknowledge the multiple political economies at play within energy and food systems and recognize that these sub-systems may evolve at different rates, potentially creating conflicts. It emphasizes the need to consider the potential trade-offs that may arise as the study of the climate change reveals that narratives about climate change often stress the costs of current action, the analysis draws attention to the possible need for action. This can be seen as an effort to broaden the coalition that supports change, a critical component of this study. The experience of the energy transition, with its focus on developing new industries, job creation, and innovation, can offer valuable insights for the food systems transition. It also acknowledges the negative impacts of renewable energy and traditional energy sources on the environment, which can be seen as a crucial part of the transition. These can address the justice claims of those harmed by climate action. The energy transition has advanced by developing and proclaiming these possibilities, and those interested in food systems transitions can learn a great deal from their experiences, particularly by recognizing the value of multiple perspectives and the need for a just transition. Therefore, the transition should consider the complexity of both energy and food systems. The paper does not shy away from complexity, highlighting the need for adaptable and inclusive strategies that can accommodate multiple goals and interests for those impacted.