Reflecting the external dimensions of EU’s global green leadership with comparative research
Chair(s): Sebastian OBERTHÜR (Brussels School of Governance (VUB))
Discussant(s): Jan ORBIE (Ghent University)
With ever-growing demand for renewable energy transition to achieve Net-Zero by 2050, the EU’s global green leader ambition has been re-initiated in the European Green Deal (2019) aiming to engage and support partners and other regions in taking their share of promoting sustainable development. Nevertheless, rising geopolitical tensions and internal political shifts within the EU put its global green leadership in question. The coupling of industrial- and climate policy to inspire commitment and investment in financial flows toward climate becomes prevalent, but this puts strong focus on domestic manufacturing of critical products and national security first. This affects the external dimensions of the EU’s climate action and its green diplomacy as well, with which the EU is failing to effectively re-strategize itself and financially support developing countries’ climate action. In this respect, in-depth comparative analyses between the EU and its partners that are politically, economically, and culturally different from the EU are very much essential to boost further knowledge exchange and green investment but little has been done in the field of European climate governance research.
Against the background, this panel aims to reflect the external dimensions of the EU’s green leadership ambitions and contribute to the academic discussions on comparative studies and EU climate governance. With this aim, the panellists will present five research projects displaying diverse ways of using comparative research to reconsider the EU’s global green leadership. By doing this, they will examine potential opportunities and challenges for the EU’s green leadership role and inspire the EU’s future pathways to engage with non-European partners.
Presentations of the Symposium
Comparing policy frameworks for the decarbonization of energy-intensive industries
Simon OTTO
Brussels School of Governance (VUB)
The current global power dynamics driven by geopolitics and geoeconomics are accelerating, with climate change becoming an increasingly prominent issue, caused in part by these broader shifts. The urgent need to address the severe consequences of climate change has placed green technologies and energy transition at the forefront of international agendas. Both the European Union (EU) and the People's Republic of China (hereafter referred to as China) have integrated these objectives into their foreign policy frameworks. Both are key exporters of green technologies, with China leading globally in the manufacturing of such innovations. Nevertheless, third countries are lagging in their adoption of advanced green technologies while simultaneously experiencing the impacts of climate change. Even though they present attractive markets for exports from both the EU and China, these nations face the challenge of revamping their economies while dealing with the effects of environmental degradation.
Against this backdrop, the study specifically explores energy transition developments in Central Asia. Within this region, the study aims at investigating the influence exerted by both the EU and China on energy transition efforts in the region, analyzing the nature and quality of these external impacts. This research adopts a comparative approach to examine and critically evaluate the foreign energy policy frameworks of both actors, with a focus on their engagement in Central Asia. It will investigate the range of policy instruments and strategies employed by the EU and China in their pursuit of national interests, analyzing how these are translated into their broader foreign policy agendas. Given the increasingly cautious stance toward China, this study aims to deepen the understanding of how the EU can strategically navigate and engage in third countries where China's influence is already well-established.
Beyond economics: understanding the political opposition to the EU’s autonomous trade- sustainability policies
Caroline BERTRAM
University of Cambridge
To achieve the aims of the Paris Agreement the deep decarbonisation of energy-intensive industries (EIIs) by mid-century is essential. This is technically possible but requires a far-reaching transformation of these industries. However, this transformation is constrained by significant technological, economic, and political barriers. Accordingly, comprehensive governance and public policies are needed to address these barriers and advance the deep decarbonisation of EIIs globally, but these tend to be underdeveloped.
Against this backdrop, this paper aims to analyse if relevant industrial emitters have sufficient policies in place to enable the deep decarbonisation of EIIs in line with the Paris Agreement. Based on existing literature the paper first identifies core pillars a policy framework for the deep decarbonisation of EIIs should entail. Second, the paper analyses to what extent these policy pillars are being ‘exploited’ by existing national policies in ten countries (Brazil, China, European Union, India, Japan, Morrocco, Russia, South Africa, Turkey, United States), based on existing literature, analysis and export reviews. This allows to provide a snapshot of the current state of policies for EII decarbonisation, compare policy frameworks across countries and identify major policy gaps.
The paper finds that at large existing policy frameworks are insufficient to drive the transformations needed for the deep decarbonisation of EIIs. While all countries analysed have policies for EII decarbonisation in place, existing policy frameworks remain mostly incomplete and incoherent and focus predominantly on incremental emissions reductions. However, at the same time, recent policies focused on technology development and commercialisation and market creation for zero-emissions EIIs in some industrialised economies have some potential to significantly advance the sectoral transformation. These findings highlight the continued need for ambitious and proactive industrial policies to steer and accelerate the decarbonisation of EIIs and underscore the relevance of international cooperation.
Governing environmental practices through EU trade agreements – a comparative assessment of conditions of effectiveness
Simon HAPPERSBERGER
Brussels School of Governance (VUB)
The EU and South Korea are the two fastest jurisdictions where global climate policy integration takes place compared to other democratic state systems. Most recently, their hydrogen policy integration led to multiple policy adoption across different policy areas to support the creation of related markets and infrastructure. Nevertheless, the hydrogen strategies and policymaking processes have been taking different shapes between the two, which eventually displays distinct levels of understanding of environmental regulation and diverged ways of sustainability transition. How can we explain their diverse ways of creating green markets and industries to achieve global net-zero targets?
Recent literature on global environmental politics and political economy pays attention to the diverse types of powerful states to explain the success of global environmental regulation policy, namely regulatory state, and developmental state. Against this backdrop, the suggested paper aims to investigate the development of the EU’s hydrogen policy integration as the outcome of a regulatory subsystem of policy integration. To demonstrate the EU regulatory state’s nature in the context of its hydrogen eco-system, the paper uses comparative case study method by contrasting the EU’s case to South Korea’s hydrogen policy integration case as a developmental subsystem. The data is collected from the European Commission’s- and South Korean government’s official documents on hydrogen policy and strategies, Ministerial documents and guidelines, related industry associations from the enforcement of each case’s green deal strategy until now.
By demonstrating the two distinctive pathways of green transition with the hydrogen policy integration cases, the research expects to emphasize the importance of states’ domestic institutional settings for the implementation of global climate action and sustainable transition. Moreover, it will highlight the concept of policy integration as a process and its usefulness for comparative policy analysis among cases from different societal- and cultural contexts.