| Title | Resetting the energy-transition paths amid the dual crises: the EU-South Korean responses to the war in Ukraine and US-China rivalry |
|---|---|
| ID_Doc | 64645 |
| Authors | Lee, H; Lee, JS |
| Title | Resetting the energy-transition paths amid the dual crises: the EU-South Korean responses to the war in Ukraine and US-China rivalry |
| Year | 2023 |
| Published | Asia Europe Journal, 21, 4 |
| Abstract | Following the Paris Agreement, the European Union (EU) and South Korea became active in their pursuits of low-carbon energy solutions marked by substantial renewable energy growth and reforms in the mobility, power, and industrial sectors. Policy initiatives, such as the European Green Deal (2019) and Korean Green New Deal (2020), demonstrated their ambitious decarbonization commitments. However, their sustainable energy transitions have encountered two major challenges. First, the energy crisis due to the Russo-Ukrainian war accounts for the reduced supplies of Russian oil and gas, global price spikes, and a renewed focus on energy security; second, the US-China strategic competition exposed the over-reliance on China for the production of rare-earth materials that are essential for renewable energy technologies. The intersection of energy security and transition has emerged as a pivotal concern for both parties. In response, the EU introduced the "REPowerEU" plan to accelerate energy transition, whereas South Korea strategically expanded its nuclear power usage and recalibrated its energy mix. Both the EU and South Korea have augmented their investments in renewable energies while ensuring stable supplies of rare-earth materials and navigating new regulatory pressures from the USA. This study first represents a comparative survey of the energy-transition initiatives of both parties, including a comprehensive assessment of the European and Korean Green Deals and their measures for energy security. Further, the potential EU-Korea cooperation toward overcoming the energy crises, recognizing their shared values and opportunities to synergize bilateral- and multilateral-level energy transition, was explored. |
Similar Articles
| ID | Score | Article |
|---|---|---|
63976
|
Bazilian, M; Bradshaw, M; Gabriel, J; Goldthau, A; Westphal, K Four scenarios of the energy transition: Drivers, consequences, and implications for geopolitics(2020)Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change, 11, 2 | |
| 74392
|
Darke, W; Karatayev, M; Lisiakiewicz, R Sustainable energy security for Central Asia: Exploring the role of China and the United Nations(2022) | |
| 62815
|
Leonard, M; Pisani-Ferry, J; Shapiro, J; Tagliapietra, S; Wolf, G The geopolitics of the European Green Deal(2021)Vestnik Mezhdunarodnykh Organizatsii-International Organisations Research Journal, 16, 2 | |
| 64567
|
Wisniewski, TP Investigating Divergent Energy Policy Fundamentals: Warfare Assessment of Past Dependence on Russian Energy Raw Materials in Europe(2023)Energies, 16, 4 | |
| 19383
|
Filipovic, S; Orlov, A; Panic, AA Key forecasts and prospects for green transition in the region of Central Asia beyond 2022(2024)Energy Sustainability And Society, 14.0, 1 | |
| 63140
|
De Vincenzo, D NextGenerationEU between pandemic, war, and energy transition(2022) |