Mobilizing the emergence of Phronetic TechnoScienceSocieties:low-carbon e-mobility in China

TechnoScienceSociety (TSS) spells the wholesale reorganization of the constellation of related concepts that together make up the very common-sense meaning of ‘politics’ and ‘government’, not least of which today are knowledge, science, technology and society, all of which are currently founded on essentially literal, dualistic not pragmatic, processual grounds. We argue that grappling with TSS and a politics of TSS demands a shift broadly from a universalist (if possibly critical) epistemo-politics of critique or criticism to an onto-politics of situated practical wisdom (phronesis). Important pointers in this direction come from existing work in actor network theory (ANT)-inspired STS. But while useful starting points, this work is also insufficient in some key regards, to the point that we must now move beyond it. In particular, the need for a shift to a situated, processual and practically engaged perspective applies no less to discussions such as this in STS. We here trace out some of the argument for, and consequences of, that move. The argument proceeds as follows. First we consider the after-ANT argument of ontological politics and how this demands a break with the familiar epistemological and ‘one world’ politics still dominating contemporary discourse, mainstream and critical. Then we consider some of the key problems with this conception of ontological politics vis-à-vis the predicament of an emerging TSS. This includes a brief discussion of an alternative perspective, of complex power/knowledge systems (CP/KS) within a phronetic onto-politics. Finally, we illustrate the arguments by analysing, using this CP/KS and onto-political perspective, a key case study of contemporary TSS: the ongoing attempts of innovation towards a transition in urban mobility system in China

The neglected social dimensions to a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition: a critical and systematic review

Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) refers to efforts to bi-directionally link the electric power system and the transportation system in ways that can improve the sustainability and security of both. A transition to V2G could enable vehicles to simultaneously improve the efficiency (and profitability) of electricity grids, reduce greenhouse gas emissions for transport, accommodate low-carbon sources of energy, and reap cost savings for owners, drivers, and other users. To understand the recent state of this field of research, here we conduct a systematic review of 197 peer-reviewed articles published on V2G from 2015 to early 2017. We find that the majority of V2G studies in that time period focus on technical aspects of V2G, notably renewable energy storage, batteries, or load balancing to minimize electricity costs, in some cases including environmental goals as constraints. A much lower proportion of studies focus on the importance of assessing environmental and climate attributes of a V2G transition, or on the role of consumer acceptance and knowledge of V2G systems. Further, there is need for exploratory work on natural resource use and externalities, discourses and narratives as well as social justice, gender, and urban resilience considerations. These research gaps need to be addressed if V2G is to achieve the societal transition its advocates seek

Just transition as transition in justice : Really learning from, about and with China

Humanity is undergoing an unprecedented and irreversible transformation, reshaping both the planet and society. The concept of "just transition" has become a central narrative in climate and environmental discourses, yet prevailing scholarship often treats justice as a fixed, universal ideal, attaching it to transition without critically examining its contextual and evolving nature. This Perspective challenges such static interpretations, arguing that just transition should be understood as an ongoing process embedded in historically and culturally specific contexts, and so as a question, not a settled standpoint. We delineate what just transition is not: it is neither a predefined endpoint, nor simply the absence of injustice, nor a mechanism that inherently flattens power hierarchies. Drawing on empirical insights from China, we illustrate how local understandings of justice are shaped by place-specific cultural values and historical power structures. By critiquing dominant assumptions and advocating for a more dynamic, context-sensitive approach, this Perspective contributes to a more inclusive and globally relevant discourse on just transition, offering critical insights for scholars and policymakers navigating the complexities of sustainability transformations

The potential contribution of disruptive low-carbon innovations to 1.5 °C climate mitigation

This paper investigates the potential for consumer-facing innovations to contribute emission reductions for limiting warming to 1.5 °C. First, we show that global integrated assessment models which characterise transformation pathways consistent with 1.5 °C mitigation are limited in their ability to analyse the emergence of novelty in energy end-use. Second, we introduce concepts of disruptive innovation which can be usefully applied to the challenge of 1.5 °C mitigation. Disruptive low-carbon innovations offer novel value propositions to consumers and can transform markets for energy-related goods and services while reducing emissions. Third, we identify 99 potentially disruptive low-carbon innovations relating to mobility, food, buildings and cities, and energy supply and distribution. Examples at the fringes of current markets include car clubs, mobility-as-a-service, prefabricated high-efficiency retrofits, internet of things, and urban farming. Each of these offers an alternative to mainstream consumer practices. Fourth, we assess the potential emission reductions from subsets of these disruptive low-carbon innovations using two methods: a survey eliciting experts’ perceptions and a quantitative scaling-up of evidence from early-adopting niches to matched segments of the UK population. We conclude that disruptive low-carbon innovations which appeal to consumers can help efforts to limit warming to 1.5 °C

CarbonFreeports: Freeports as opportunities, not threats, for place based decarbonisation. Final report

This project explores the concept of CarbonFreeports – examining policy alignment between the Freeports strategy and UK Government commitments to low carbon investment towards Net Zero goals. CarbonFreeports provide a platform from which to explore the role of Freeports in stimulating low carbon forms of mobility, and innovation in transport infrastructure development, planning and practice, and examining the socio-economic and environmental justice implications of current Freeport investment. Using a qualitative empirical research approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with key regional stakeholders in Teesside and Liverpool City Region Freeport plans, and held workshops and webinars for further exploration and development of CarbonFreeport futures

Towards global relational theorizing: a dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone scholarship on relationalism

What is ‘relational theorizing’ in International Relations and what can it offer? This article introduces a thematic section that responds to these questions by showing two things. First, relational theorizing is not a doctrine or a method, but a set of analyses that begin with relations rather than the putative essences of constitutively autonomous actors. Second, relational theorizing has emerged from different geo-linguistic traditions, and a relational approach to International Relations (IR) can offer the language and space for increased and productive engagement beyond Anglophone scholarship. This thematic section takes a significant step in this direction by staging a dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone scholarship on relational IR theorizing. Such an engagement shows points of comparison and contrast, convergence and divergence. In this way, the essays presented here contribute to developing a more ‘global’ IR

Clash of Geofutures and the Remaking of Planetary Order: Faultlines underlying Conflicts over Geoengineering Governance

Climate engineering (geoengineering) is rising up the global policy agenda, partly because international divisions pose deep challenges to collective climate mitigation. However, geoengineering is similarly subject to clashing interests, knowledge‐traditions and geopolitics. Modelling and technical assessments of geoengineering are facilitated by assumptions of a single global planner (or some as yet unspecified rational governance), but the practicality of international governance remains mostly speculative. Using evidence gathered from state delegates, climate activists and modellers, we reveal three underlying and clashing ‘geofutures’: an idealised understanding of governable geoengineering that abstracts from technical and political realities; a situated understanding of geoengineering emphasising power hierarchies in world order; and a pragmatist precautionary understanding emerging in spaces of negotiation such as UN Environment Assembly (UNEA). Set in the wider historical context of climate politics, the failure to agree even to a study of geoengineering at UNEA indicates underlying obstacles to global rules and institutions for geoengineering posed by divergent interests and underlying epistemic and political differences. Technology assessments should recognise that geoengineering will not be exempt from international fractures; that deployment of geoengineering through imposition is a serious risk; and that contestations over geofutures pertain, not only to climate policy, but also the future of planetary order