Implementing the European Green Deal during the Evolving Energy Crisis
Implementing the European Green Deal during the Evolving Energy Crisis
复制标题
在不断演变的能源危机期间实施欧洲绿色协议
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
C. Dupont
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ingmar von Homeyer;S. Oberthür;C. Dupont
乍一看，2021年欧盟气候政策的发展有两个特点。首先，2019年启动的欧洲绿色协议（Eckert，2021年）的实施取得了重大进展，6月通过了《欧洲气候法》（第2021/1119号法规），并于2021年7月公布了委员会的“适合55岁”一揽子实施立法（欧盟委员会，2021 c）。第二，绿色协议的实施是在危机持续和加剧的情况下进行的。除了持续的COVID-19疫情外，这还包括能源危机，该危机于2021年期间展开，并于2022年2月俄罗斯入侵乌克兰后急剧升级。在这种情况下，绿色交易的实施情况如何？欧盟是更接近还是更远离符合2015年《巴黎协定》的真正有效的气候政策？现有文献没有提供明确的预期。长期以来，欧盟的气候政策一直遵循“国际领先但不情愿”的模式，即与国际相比，欧盟的气候政策相对雄心勃勃，但鉴于《巴黎协定》的目标是将全球平均气温从工业化前水平的上升限制在远低于2°C甚至1.5°C的范围内，这一政策仍然不够（Gheuens和Oberthür，2021年; Oberthür和Dupont，2021年;参见《巴黎协定》）。环境署，2019年）。连续和重叠的危机以各种方式与这种模式相互作用（von Homeyer等人，2021年）。一方面，2008/2009年的全球经济和金融危机将辩论从气候雄心转向其他优先事项和成本效益，尽管欧盟气候政策的广泛轨迹仍在继续（Gravey和Jordan，2021，第347页; Slominski，2016）。另一方面，对COVID-19危机的政治反应被发现有可能加速欧盟的气候和能源转型（Dupont等人，2020; Eckert，2021）。在这两种情况下，危机与欧盟气候政策的既定政治冲突线相互作用，特别是以波兰为首的更进步的西方和北方以及更持怀疑态度的东部欧盟成员国之间的冲突（Bocquillon和Maltby，2017年; Dupont等人，2020; Eckert，2021; Skjærseth，2021）。在此背景下，在调查2021年和2022年初不断变化的危机条件下欧盟气候政策的发展时，我们提出了两个论点。首先，欧洲绿色协议的实施尽管遇到了一些阻力，但仍取得了进展，而欧盟的气候政策仍然没有达到巴黎协定2/1.5°C目标的要求。第二，仍在发展的能源危机，强烈JCMS 2022页。1-12 DOI：10.1111/jcms.13397
At first sight, two features stand out in the development of EU climate policy in 2021. First, the implementation of the European Green Deal, launched in 2019 (Eckert, 2021), advanced significantly through the adoption of the European Climate Law (Regulation 2021/1119) in June and the publication of the Commission’s ‘Fit for 55’ package of implementing legislation in July 2021 (European Commission, 2021c). Second, implementation of the Green Deal proceeded at a time of enduring and intensifying crises. Above the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, this included an energy crisis that unfolded in the course of 2021 and escalated dramatically following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. How has the implementation of the Green Deal fared under these conditions? Has the EU moved closer to, or further away from, a truly effective climate policy in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement? Existing literature does not provide clear-cut expectations. EU climate policy has long followed a pattern of ‘internationally leading but insufficient’, in the sense that it has been relatively ambitious by international comparison but has remained insufficient in view of the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting the rise of global average temperature to well below 2°C or even 1.5°C from pre-industrial levels (Gheuens and Oberthür, 2021; Oberthür and Dupont, 2021; cf. UNEP, 2019). Sequential and overlapping crises have interacted with this pattern in various ways (von Homeyer et al., 2021). On the one hand, the global economic and financial crisis of 2008/2009 shifted the debate away from climate ambition towards other priorities and cost-efficiency, although the broad trajectory of EU climate policy continued (Gravey and Jordan, 2021, p. 347; Slominski, 2016). On the other hand, the political response to the COVID-19 crisis has been found to have the potential to accelerate the EU’s climate and energy transition (Dupont et al., 2020; Eckert, 2021). In both instances, the crises interacted with established political conflict lines on EU climate policy, prominently the one between more progressive Western and Northern and more sceptical Eastern EU Member States, led by Poland (Bocquillon and Maltby, 2017; Dupont et al., 2020; Eckert, 2021; Skjærseth, 2021). Against this backdrop, in investigating the development of EU climate policy under evolving crisis conditions in 2021 and early 2022, we advance two arguments. First, the implementation of the European Green Deal has progressed despite some headwinds, while EU climate policy has continued to fall short of what would be required in view of the 2/1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. Second, the still evolving energy crisis, strongly JCMS 2022 pp. 1–12 DOI: 10.1111/jcms.13397
金钱让欧盟运转：部长会议冲突的客观基础
DOI：
10.1111/jcms.12194
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
ERN: Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances (Topic)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Bailer;Mattila;Schneider
通讯作者：
Schneider