132
This illustrates how a quantified target has the potential to work its way
into the ‘techno-managerial apparatus’ (Swyngedouw 2010) and inflect
material change. This particular case entailed a combination of involved
soft mechanisms, as the target gradually inserted itself in the discourse on
urban policy and moved its goal posts, and hard mechanisms, namely
national-to-urban funding flows. The takeaway message is that climaterelated targets can play an important role in legitimating practices that
advance sustainable energy transitions.
Benjamin Sovacool demonstrates how a political economic, multi-sited
comparative deconstruction of sectoral change from a public policy and
social justice perspective can surface uneasy questions about accountability
even in progressive energy transitions. Such an analysis offers a compelling
antidote to the optimism inherent in much current discussion and debate
about the desirability of electric mobility as a pathway for environmental
sustainability. In this context, due to the transportation sector’s dependence on fossil fuel energy sources and the monumental negative consequences for climate change, air pollution and other social impacts,
countless researchers, policymakers and other stakeholders view a widespread transition to electric mobility as both feasible and socially desirable
(Mitchell et al. 2010; Tran et al. 2012). The International Energy Agency
(2017) projects under the ‘Sustainable Development Scenario’ that 875
million electric vehicles (EVs) will need to be adopted by 2040. Mitchell
et al. (2010) call EVs nothing short of ‘transformative’ and ‘revolutionary’
for their potential effects on mobility patterns. Turton and Moura (2008,
p. 1091) add that when EVs are placed in a vehicle-to-grid configuration,
their transformative potential multiplies, representing ‘a paradigm shift in
how the energy and mobility markets are related’.
However, the Nordic transition to electric mobility when viewed from
a framing of sector-wide multi-scalar linkages, questions this so-called revolution. It underscores how wedding accountability to analyses of vulnerability and justice in energy transitions can fruitfully change the frame and
criteria by which we examine mobility transitions. In addition, many of the
injustices identified, or the issues of equity and vulnerability that arise, are
not ‘new’ to electric mobility—they likely exist with other low-carbon
technologies and also conventional cars and other forms of mobility.
However, a lesson here is perhaps that changing the performance or
engine of a vehicle, or introducing a new type of car such as battery electric vehicle, does not necessarily change the underlying political economy
or power dynamics behind mobility or automobility. Systems of mobility
S. SAREEN ET AL.
This illustrates how a quantified target has the potential to work its way
into the ‘techno-managerial apparatus’ (Swyngedouw 2010) and inflect
material change. This particular case entailed a combination of involved
soft mechanisms, as the target gradually inserted itself in the discourse on
urban policy and moved its goal posts, and hard mechanisms, namely
national-to-urban funding flows. The takeaway message is that climaterelated targets can play an important role in legitimating practices that
advance sustainable energy transitions.
Benjamin Sovacool demonstrates how a political economic, multi-sited
comparative deconstruction of sectoral change from a public policy and
social justice perspective can surface uneasy questions about accountability
even in progressive energy transitions. Such an analysis offers a compelling
antidote to the optimism inherent in much current discussion and debate
about the desirability of electric mobility as a pathway for environmental
sustainability. In this context, due to the transportation sector’s dependence on fossil fuel energy sources and the monumental negative consequences for climate change, air pollution and other social impacts,
countless researchers, policymakers and other stakeholders view a widespread transition to electric mobility as both feasible and socially desirable
(Mitchell et al. 2010; Tran et al. 2012). The International Energy Agency
(2017) projects under the ‘Sustainable Development Scenario’ that 875
million electric vehicles (EVs) will need to be adopted by 2040. Mitchell
et al. (2010) call EVs nothing short of ‘transformative’ and ‘revolutionary’
for their potential effects on mobility patterns. Turton and Moura (2008,
p. 1091) add that when EVs are placed in a vehicle-to-grid configuration,
their transformative potential multiplies, representing ‘a paradigm shift in
how the energy and mobility markets are related’.
However, the Nordic transition to electric mobility when viewed from
a framing of sector-wide multi-scalar linkages, questions this so-called revolution. It underscores how wedding accountability to analyses of vulnerability and justice in energy transitions can fruitfully change the frame and
criteria by which we examine mobility transitions. In addition, many of the
injustices identified, or the issues of equity and vulnerability that arise, are
not ‘new’ to electric mobility—they likely exist with other low-carbon
technologies and also conventional cars and other forms of mobility.
However, a lesson here is perhaps that changing the performance or
engine of a vehicle, or introducing a new type of car such as battery electric vehicle, does not necessarily change the underlying political economy
or power dynamics behind mobility or automobility. Systems of mobility
S. SAREEN ET AL.