Impact of the Russian-Ukrainian Crisis on the Approaches of German Parties towards Energy Transition

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

开放存取 开放存取
受限制的访问 ##reader.subscriptionAccessGranted##
受限制的访问 订阅存取

详细

Since the 1990s, Germany has been following the concept of the energy transition. A long political debate on the necessity of its implementation ended after the Fukushima Daiichi accident in 2011, when a consensus emerged among the leading German parties on the main problems of the energy transition. However, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict of 2022 has actualized the use of fossil fuels, NPPs and has led to a change in the established positions of the German parties on achieving carbon neutrality. The authors of the article used discourse-analytical approach to study the issue and examined the changes in Germany's energy policy in the context of the crisis through the perspective of the transformation of the discourse of German parties. The aim of the study was to identify discursive shifts as well as dominant narratives in the rhetoric of German parties on the energy transition problem after the February 2022 events. It was assumed that the energy transition discourse would remain dominant in the rhetoric of the German parties in light of the onset of the crisis. As an alternative hypothesis, it was assumed that a number of German parties would shift towards the energy mix discourse, making it dominant and most influential, leading to a revision of the German energy policy. The content analysis of the FRG parties' tweets confirmed the alternative hypothesis. The authors conclude that after the beginning of the energy crisis, under the influence of public sentiment, the CDU/CSU, FDP and Left shifted towards the energy mix discourse, making it dominant and more influential than the energy transition discourse. This contributed to the adjustment of the German government's policy in the energy sector.

作者简介

D. Vakarchuk

Russian State University for the Humanities (RSUH)

Email: vakarchuk.d@rggu.ru
Candidate of Sciences (History), Associate Professor Moscow, Russia

A. Ivoninskaia

Russian State University for the Humanities (RSUH)

Email: ivoninskaiaalena@mail.ru
Graduate student Moscow, Russia

参考

  1. Белов В.Б. (2022) Смена парадигмы в энергетической кооперации Германии с Россией. Современная Европа. № 4(111). С. 5‒21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S0201708322040015
  2. Кавешников Н.Ю. (2017) Энергетическая безопасность в стратегии Могерини: выводы для России. Современная Европа. № 1. С. 22‒31. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/soveurope120172231
  3. Меден Н.К. (2023) Электроэнергетика Германии в условиях энергокризиса: цена надёжности. Часть 1. Научно-аналитический вестник ИЕ РАН. № 2(32). С. 113‒124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15211/vestnikieran22023113124
  4. Alonso-Muñoz L., Casero-Ripollés A. (2018) Political agenda on Twitter during the 2016 Spanish elections: issues, strategies, and user’s responses. Communication & Society. Vol. 31. Issue 3. P. 7‒25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15581/003.31.3.7-23
  5. Buschmann P., Oels A. (2019) The overlooked role of discourse in breaking carbon lock-in: The case of the German energy transition. WIREs Climate Change. Vol. 10. Issue 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.574
  6. De Zúñiga H.G., Michalska K.K., Römmele A. (2020) Populism in the era of Twitter: How social media contextualized new insights into an old phenomenon. New Media & Society. Vol. 22. Issue 4. P. 585‒594. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819893978
  7. Eckert E., Kovalevska O. (2021) Sustainability in the European Union: Analyzing the Discourse of the European Green Deal. Risk and Financial Management. Vol. 14. Issue 2. 80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14020080
  8. Fairclough N. (1992) Discourse and social change. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. 259 p.
  9. Fischer A., Küper M., Schaefer T. (2022) Gaslieferungen aus Russland können kurfristig nicht kompensiert werden. Wirtschaftsdienst. Vol. 102. Issue 4. P. 259‒261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10273-022-3162-z
  10. Hake J., Fischer W., Venghaus S., Weckenbrock C. (2015) The German Energiewende – History and status quo. Energy. Vol. 92. P. 532–546. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.04.027
  11. Leipprand A., Flachsland C., Pahle M. (2016) Energy transition on the rise: discourses on energy future in the German parliament. Innovation The European Journal of Social Science Research. Vol. 30. Issue 3. P. 283–305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2016.1215241
  12. Louwerse T., Sieberer U., Tuttnauer O., Andeweg R. (2021) Opposition in times of crisis: COVID-19 in parliamentary debates. West European Politics. Vol. 44. Issue 5‒6. P. 1025‒1051. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2021.1886519
  13. Muñoz M.M., Rojas-de-Gracia M.M., Navas-Sarasola C. (2022) Measuring engagement on twitter using a composite index: An application to social media influencers. Journal of Infometrics. Vol. 16. Issue 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101323
  14. Soares F.B., Recuero R. (2021) Hashtag Wars: Political Desinformation and Discursive Struggles on Twitter Conversations During the 2018 Brazilian Presidential Campaign. Social Media + Society. Vol. 7. Issue 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211009073
  15. Sytnik A. (2019) Digitalization of Diplomacy in Global Politics on the Example of 2019 Venezuelan Presidential Crisis. Digital Transformation and Global Society. P. 187‒196. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37858-5_15
  16. Törnberg A., Törnberg P. (2016) Muslims in social media discourse: Combining topic modeling and critical discourse analysis. Discourse Context & Media. Vol. 13. P. 132‒142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2016.04.003
  17. Wiertz T., Kuhn L., Mattissek A. (2023) A turn to geopolitics: Shifts in the German energy transition discourse in light of Russia's war against Ukraine. Energy Research & Social Science. Vol. 98. 103036. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103036
  18. Alonso-Muñoz L., Casero-Ripollés A. (2018) Political agenda on Twitter during the 2016 Spanish elections: issues, strategies, and user’s responses, Communication & Society, 31(3), pp. 7‒25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15581/003.31.3.7-23
  19. Belov V.B. (2022) Smena paradigmy v energeticheskoi kooperatsii Germanii s Rossiei [Paradigm Change in the Energy Cooperation between Germany and Russia], Contemporary Europe, 4(111), pp. 5‒21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S0201708322040015 (In Russian).
  20. Buschmann P., Oels A. (2019) The overlooked role of discourse in breaking carbon lockin: The case of the German energy transition, WIREs Climate Change, 10(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.574
  21. De Zúñiga H.G., Michalska K.K., Römmele A. (2020) Populism in the era of Twitter: How social media contextualized new insights into an old phenomenon, New Media & Society, 22(4), pp. 585‒594. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819893978
  22. Eckert E., Kovalevska O. (2021) Sustainability in the European Union: Analyzing the Discourse of the European Green Deal, Risk and Financial Management, 14(2), 80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14020080
  23. Fairclough N. (1992) Discourse and social change, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.
  24. Fischer A., Küper M., Schaefer Th. (2022) Gaslieferungen aus Russland können kurzfristig nicht kompensiert werden, Wirtschaftsdienst, 102(4), pp. 259‒261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10273-022-3162-z
  25. Hake J., Fischer W., Venghaus S., Weckenbrock C. (2015) The German Energiewende – History and status quo, Energy, 92, pp. 532‒546. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.04.027
  26. Kaveshnikov N. (2017) Energeticheskaya bezopasnost' v strategii Mogerini: vyvody dlya Rossii [Energy Security in Mogherini’s Strategy: Conclusions for Russia], Contemporary Europe, 1, pp. 22‒31. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15211/soveurope120172231 (In Russian).
  27. Leipprand A., Flachsland C., Pahle M. (2016) Energy transition on the rise: discourses on energy future in the German parliament, Innovation The European Journal of Social Science Research, 30(3), pp. 283‒305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2016.1215241
  28. Louwerse T., Sieberer U., Tuttnauer O., Andeweg R. (2021) Opposition in times of crisis: COVID-19 in parliamentary debates, West European Politics, 44(5‒6), pp. 1025‒1051. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2021.1886519
  29. Muñoz M.M., Rojas-de-Gracia M.M., Navas-Sarasola C. (2022) Measuring engagement on twitter using a composite index: An application to social media influencers, Journal of Infometrics, 16(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101323
  30. Meden N.K. (2023) Elektroenergetika Germanii v usloviyakh energokrizisa: tsena nadezhnosti. Chast' 1 [The German Power Industry Under Conditions of Energy Crisis: the Price of Reliability. Part 1], Scientific and Analytical Herald of the Institute of Europe RAS, 2(32), pp. 113‒124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15211/vestnikieran22023113124 (In Russian).
  31. Soares F.B., Recuero R. (2021) Hashtag Wars: Political Desinformation and Discursive Struggles on Twitter Conversations During the 2018 Brazilian Presidential Campaign, Social Media + Society, 7(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211009073
  32. Sytnik A. (2019) Digitalization of Diplomacy in Global Politics on the Example of 2019 Venezuelan Presidential Crisis, Digital Transformation and Global Society, pp. 187‒196. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37858-5_15
  33. Törnberg A., Törnberg P. (2016) Muslims in social media discourse: Combining topic modeling and critical discourse analysis, Discourse Context & Media, 13, pp. 132‒142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2016.04.003
  34. Wiertz T., Kuhn L., Mattissek A. (2023) A turn to geopolitics: Shifts in the German energy transition discourse in light of Russia's war against Ukraine, Energy Research & Social Science, 98, 103036. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103036

版权所有 © Russian Academy of Sciences, 2024

##common.cookie##