4.4 Article

Deep entanglements: History, space and (energy) struggle in the German Energiewende

期刊

GEOFORUM
卷 91, 期 -, 页码 1-9

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.02.017

关键词

Energy geographies; Energy transition; Energiewende; Energy struggles; Energy democracy; Spatial imaginaries

资金

  1. Economic and Social Research Council [1661549] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper contributes to recent debates in energy geography, especially to energy transition research and literature, by developing a critical and empirically grounded understanding of energy transitions as expressions of contentious socio-spatial politics, past and present. The paper argues that historical struggles and contentious political practices around energy, so called energy struggles, continue to inform the ongoing and dynamic socio-spatial politics of energy transitions today and often manifest themselves in transition narratives. This analysis is supported by qualitative empirical materials derived from recent fieldwork in Berlin, Germany, which was conducted within the broader left-green movement for a socio-ecological and democratic German Energiewende. A historicisation of contentious politics and energy struggles facilitates an empirically robust framing of energy transition projects as dynamic, multi-actor, and more than eco-technical processes. The paper's contribution to energy geographies is threefold; firstly, utilising an empirically robust and historically sensitive analysis of the German Energiewende, the paper explores the deep entanglements of history, space and struggle in energy transitions. Secondly, the paper emphasises the need to understand energy transitions as constituted by energy struggles and contentious politics, past and present. Thirdly, the paper examines emergent spaces of energy democracy as part of the Energiewende and explores recent energy democracy demands as a spatial politics of energy transitions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据