28
disaggregated level, most acts can be empirically and relationally categorised as aiding or opposing interlinked shifts towards decarbonisation and
social equity under energy transition.
Acts that aid such shifts, and are held to account by practices of legitimation in order to secure a durable outcome of this nature, can be characterised as contributing to a sustainable energy transition. This is a case
where practices of legitimation constitute substantive accountability relations. Conversely, acts that oppose such shifts are not substantively held to
account by practices of legitimation in the service of sustainable outcomes
(Blühdorn 2013). Rather, they are supported by practices of legitimation
that constitute a performance of hollow accountability; they support the
persistence or even expansion of unsustainable outcomes in the
energy sector.
It follows that practices of legitimation provide the basis for a relational
toolkit to identify substantive and hollow accountability through empirical
study of energy sector transitions. This fine-grained evidencing and analysis of the practices that constitute energy transitions can inform academics,
and in turn policymakers, practitioners and the public, about acts that
support sustainability and those that hold us back from it. Wielded well,
this pickaxe can equip citizens with evidence for their own urgent axes to
grind and create a strong push for public accountability to be instituted
into energy transitions towards sustainability.
This intent—to contribute to rapid decarbonisation of our energy systems and deeply change whom they benefit, thus addressing climate
change drivers and safeguarding public interest—is a guiding beacon. The
logical next step after propounding a typology of practices of legitimation
is to understand how to situate such an approach within scholarship on
energy transitions, so that it can render accountability crises visible in contextualised ways that inform and enable action. To open up space for sustainable outcomes through more accountable governance of energy
transitions, it is relevant to take point of departure in the variety of ways in
which scholarship on environmental governance approaches accountability in energy transitions. The five case chapters in Part II capture a wide
range of cases and different disciplinary perspectives.
S. SAREEN
disaggregated level, most acts can be empirically and relationally categorised as aiding or opposing interlinked shifts towards decarbonisation and
social equity under energy transition.
Acts that aid such shifts, and are held to account by practices of legitimation in order to secure a durable outcome of this nature, can be characterised as contributing to a sustainable energy transition. This is a case
where practices of legitimation constitute substantive accountability relations. Conversely, acts that oppose such shifts are not substantively held to
account by practices of legitimation in the service of sustainable outcomes
(Blühdorn 2013). Rather, they are supported by practices of legitimation
that constitute a performance of hollow accountability; they support the
persistence or even expansion of unsustainable outcomes in the
energy sector.
It follows that practices of legitimation provide the basis for a relational
toolkit to identify substantive and hollow accountability through empirical
study of energy sector transitions. This fine-grained evidencing and analysis of the practices that constitute energy transitions can inform academics,
and in turn policymakers, practitioners and the public, about acts that
support sustainability and those that hold us back from it. Wielded well,
this pickaxe can equip citizens with evidence for their own urgent axes to
grind and create a strong push for public accountability to be instituted
into energy transitions towards sustainability.
This intent—to contribute to rapid decarbonisation of our energy systems and deeply change whom they benefit, thus addressing climate
change drivers and safeguarding public interest—is a guiding beacon. The
logical next step after propounding a typology of practices of legitimation
is to understand how to situate such an approach within scholarship on
energy transitions, so that it can render accountability crises visible in contextualised ways that inform and enable action. To open up space for sustainable outcomes through more accountable governance of energy
transitions, it is relevant to take point of departure in the variety of ways in
which scholarship on environmental governance approaches accountability in energy transitions. The five case chapters in Part II capture a wide
range of cases and different disciplinary perspectives.
S. SAREEN