Reducing greenhouse gas emissions has generally been approached through demand-side initiatives, yet there are increasing calls for supply-side interventions to curtail fossil fuel production. Pursuing energy transition through supply-side constraints would have major geopolitical and economic consequences. Depending on the criteria and instruments applied, supply cuts for fossil fuels could drastically reduce and reorient major financial flows and reshape the spatiality of energy production and consumption. Building on debates about just transitions and supply constraints, we provide a survey of emerging interventions targeting the supply of, rather than the demand for, fossil fuels. We articulate four theories of justice and criteria to prioritize cuts among fossil fuel producers, including with regard to carbon intensity, production costs, affordability, developmental efficiency and support for climate change action. We then examine seven major supply constraint instruments, their effectiveness and possible pathways to supply cuts in the coal, oil and gas sectors. We suggest that supply cuts both reflect and offer purposeful political spaces of interventions towards a ‘just’ transition away from fossil fuel production.
AdeyeyeABarrettJDiamondJ, et al. (2009) Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002–2009.
Washington, DC:
Environmental Law Institute.
2.
ArmstrongC (2017) Justice and Natural Resources: An Egalitarian Theory.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
3.
AylingJGunninghamN (2017)
Non-state governance and climate policy: The fossil fuel divestment movement.Climate Policy17(2): 131–149.
4.
BarnettJ (2007)
The geopolitics of climate change.Geography Compass1(6): 1361–1375.
5.
BastEMakhijaniSPickardS, et al. (2014) The Fossil Fuel Bailout: G20 Subsidies for Oil, Gas and Coal Exploration.
London:
Overseas Development Institute and Oil Change International.
6.
BauerNMcGladeCHilaireJ, et al. (2018)
Divestment prevails over the green paradox when anticipating strong future climate policies.Nature Climate Change8(2): 130–134.
7.
BlondeelMandVan de GraafT (2018)
Toward a global coal mining moratorium? A comparative analysis of coal mining policies in the US, China, India, Indonesia and Australia. Climatic Change150: 1–13.
BradshawEA (2015)
Blockadia rising: Rowdy greens, direct action and the Keystone XL pipeline.Critical Criminology23(4): 433–448.
10.
BridgeG (2017)
The map is not the territory: A sympathetic critique of energy research’s spatial turn. Energy Research and Social Science36: 11–20.
11.
BridgeGBradshawM (2017)
Making a global gas market: Territoriality and production networks in liquefied natural gas.Economic Geography93(3): 215–240.
12.
BridgeGLe BillonP (2017) Oil. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
13.
BridgeGBouzarovskiSBradshawM, et al. (2013)
Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy.Energy Policy53: 331–340.
14.
BridgeGBarrSBouzarovskiS, et al. (2018) Energy and Society: A Critical Perspective.
Abingdon:
Routledge.
15.
BrockADunlapA (2018)
Normalising corporate counterinsurgency: Engineering consent, managing resistance and greening destruction around the Hambach coal mine and beyond.Political Geography62: 33–47.
16.
CalvertK (2016)
From ‘energy geography’ to ‘energy geographies’: Perspectives on a fertile academic borderland. Progress in Human Geography40(1): 105–125.
17.
CoadyDParryISearsL, et al. (2017)
How large are global fossil fuel subsidies?World Development91: 11–27.
18.
ColganJD (2014)
The emperor has no clothes: The limits of OPEC in the global oil market.International Organization68(3): 599–632.
19.
CollierP (2015) Curbing carbon without curbing development. In: BarrettSCarraroCde MeloJ (eds) Towards a Workable and Effective Climate Regime.
London:
CEPR and Clermont-Ferrand, pp.423–433.
20.
CollierPVenablesAJ (2014)
Closing coal: Economic and moral incentives.Oxford Review of Economic Policy30(3): 492–512.
21.
DalbyS (2013)
The geopolitics of climate change.Political Geography37: 38–47.
22.
DaleBKristoffersenB (2018)
Post-petroleum security in a changing Arctic: Narratives and trajectories towards viable futures. Arctic Review on Law and Politics9: 1–17.
23.
EkwurzelBBonehamJDaltonMW, et al. (2017)
The rise in global atmospheric CO2, surface temperature, and sea level from emissions traced to major carbon producers.Climatic Change144(4): 579–590.
24.
EllabbanOAbu-RubHBlaabjergF (2014)
Renewable energy resources: Current status, future prospects and their enabling technology.Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews39: 748–764.
25.
Equinor (2018) Energy Perspectives: Long-term Macro and Market Outlook.
Stavanger:
Equinor.
26.
EricksonPLazarusM (2018)
Would constraining US fossil fuel production affect global CO2 emissions? A case study of US leasing policy. Climatic Change150 (1–2): 1–14.
27.
Erickson P, Lazarus M and Piggot G (2019) Limiting fossil fuel production as the next big step in climate policy. Nature Climate Change. DOI: 10.1038/s41558-018-0337-0.
28.
FæhnTHagemCLindholtL, et al. (2017)
Climate policies in a fossil fuel producing country: Demand versus supply side policies. The Energy Journal38(1): 77–102.
29.
FlemingDChamberlainS (2011) TEQs (Tradable Energy Quotas): A Policy Framework for Peak Oil and Climate Change.
London:
All-Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil, and the Lean Economy Connection.
30.
GoldthauAKeatingMFKuzemkoC (2018) Handbook of the International Political Economy of Energy and Natural Resources.
Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
31.
GreenF (2017) The normative foundations of climate legislation. In: AverchenkovaAFankhauserSNachmanyM (eds) Trends in Climate Change Legislation.
Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar, pp.85–107.
32.
GreenF (2018)
The logic of fossil fuel bans.Nature Climate Change8: 449–551.
33.
GreenFDennissR (2018)
Cutting with both arms of the scissors: The economic and political case for restrictive supply-side climate policies.Climatic Change150(1–2): 73–87.
34.
GreinerPTYorkRMcGeeJA (2018)
Snakes in the greenhouse: Does increased natural gas use reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal consumption?Energy Research and Social Science38: 53–57.
35.
GrigorescuAKompE (2017)
The ‘broadening’ of international human rights: The cases of the right to development and right to democracy.International Politics54(2): 238–254.
HallJCShultzCStephensonEF (2018)
The political economy of local fracking bans.Journal of Economics and Finance42(2): 397–408.
38.
HarrisonK (2015)
International carbon trade and domestic climate politics.Global Environmental Politics15(3): 27–48.
39.
HarstadB (2012)
Buy coal! A case for supply-side environmental policy.Journal of Political Economy120(1): 77–115.
40.
HealyNBarryJ (2017)
Politicizing energy justice and energy system transitions: Fossil fuel divestment and a ‘just transition’.Energy Policy108: 451–459.
41.
HowarthRWIngraffeaAEngelderT (2011)
Natural gas: Should fracking stop?Nature477(7364): 271–275.
42.
HuberMT (2013) Lifeblood: Oil, Freedom, and the Forces of Capital. Minneapolis,
MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
43.
HuberMTMcCarthyJ (2017)
Beyond the subterranean energy regime? Fuel, land use and the production of space.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers42(4): 655–668.
IEA (2017) Coal Information.
Paris:
International Energy Agency.
46.
JenkinsKMcCauleyDHeffronR, et al. (2016)
Energy justice: A conceptual review. Energy Research and Social Science11: 174–182.
47.
KamaK (2016)
Contending geo-logics: Energy security, resource ontologies, and the politics of expert knowledge in Estonia.Geopolitics21(4): 831–856
48.
KarthaSLazarusMTempestK (2016) Fossil Fuel Production in a 2°C World: The Equity Implications of a Diminishing Carbon Budget.
Stockholm:
Stockholm Environment Institute.
49.
KarthaSCaneySDubashNK, et al. (2018)
Whose carbon is burnable? Equity considerations in the allocation of a ‘right to extract’.Climatic Change150(1–2): 117–129.
50.
KristoffersenB (2014) ‘Securing geography’: Framings, logics and strategies in the Norwegian High North. In: PowellRDoddsK (eds) Polar Geopolitics: Knowledges, Resources and Legal Regimes.
Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar, pp.131–148.
51.
LahnB (2017) Redusert oljeutvinning som klimatiltak: Faglige og politiske perspektiver (Policy Note No. 01/2017).
Oslo:
CICERO.
52.
LangeGMWodonQCareyK (2018) The Changing Wealth of Nations 2018: Building a Sustainable Future.
Washington, DC:
World Bank.
53.
LazarusMvan AsseltH (2018)
Fossil fuel supply and climate policy: Exploring the road less taken.Climatic Change150(1–2): 1–13.
54.
LazarusMEricksonPTempestK (2015) Supply-side climate policy: the road less taken. Working Paper 2015-13.
Stockholm:
Stockholm Environment Institute.
55.
Le BillonP (2013) Wars of Plunder: Conflict, Profits and the Politics of Resources.
New York:
Oxford University Press.
56.
Le BillonPCarterA (2012) Securing Alberta’s tar sands: Resistance and criminalization on a new energy frontier. In: SchnurrMSwatukL (eds) Natural Resources and Social Conflict.
London:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp.170–192.
57.
Le BillonPGoodE (2016)
Responding to the commodity bust: Downturns, policies and poverty in extractive sector dependent countries.The Extractive Industries and Society3(1): 204–216.
58.
Le BillonPVandecasteyenR (2013)
(Dis)connecting Alberta’s tar sands and British Columbia’s north coast.Studies in Political Economy91(1): 35–57.
59.
LeggettJ (1996)
The emerging global-warming market-driver in the energy sector: a status report.Renewable energy8(1–4): 6–9.
60.
LenfernaGA (2018)
Can we equitably manage the end of the fossil fuel era?Energy Research & Social Science35: 217–223.
61.
MazaheriN (2017)
Oil, dissent, and distribution.World Development99: 186–202.
62.
McCrearyTAMilliganRA (2014)
Pipelines, permits, and protests: Carrier Sekani encounters with the Enbridge Northern Gateway project.Cultural Geographies21(1): 115–129.
63.
McGladeCEkinsP (2015)
The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2°C.Nature517(7533): 187.
64.
McNeillJLThorntonTF (2017)
Pipelines, petitions, and protests in the internet age: Exploring the human geographies of online petitions challenging proposed transcontinental Alberta oil sands pipelines.Annals of the American Association of Geographers107(6): 1279–1298.
65.
MendelevitchR (2018)
Testing supply-side climate policies for the global steam coal market: Can they curb coal consumption?Climatic Change150(1–2): 1–16.
66.
MendelevitchRLorenzCHolzF, et al. (2017) A global coal-phase-out and the international coal market: A focus on demand-side and supply-side policies in China and India. In Meeting the energy demands of emerging economies, 40th IAEE international conference, Singapore, June 18–21, 2017. International Association for Energy Economics.
PalenWJSiskTDRyanME, et al. (2014)
Consider the global impacts of oil pipelines.Nature510(7506): 465–467.
72.
PopovichNAlbeck-RipkaLPierre-LouisK (2018) 67 environmental rules on the way out under Trump. New York Times, 31 January.
73.
PrincenTMannoJPMartinPL (2015) Ending the Fossil Fuel Era.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
74.
RekkerSAO’BrienKRHumphreyJE, et al. (2018)
Comparing extraction rates of fossil fuel producers against global climate goals.Nature Climate Change8(6): 489–492.
75.
RichterPMMendelevitchRJotzoF (2018)
Coal taxes as supply-side climate policy: A rationale for major exporters?Climatic Change150(1–2): 43–56.
76.
RossML (2012) The Oil Curse: How Petroleum Wealth Shapes the Development of Nations.
Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
77.
ScholtenD (2018) The Geopolitics of Renewables.
New York:
Springer.
78.
SetoKCDavisSJMitchellRB, et al. (2016)
Carbon lock-in: Types, causes, and policy implications.Annual Review of Environment and Resources41: 425–452.
79.
ShavellS (2011) Should BP be held liable for economic losses due to the moratorium on oil drilling imposed after the Deepwater Horizon accident?. Harvard Law and Economics Discussion Paper 708.
Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Law School.
80.
ShearerCMathew-ShahNMyllyvirtaL, et al. (2018) Boom and Bust 2018. Tracking the Global Coal Plant Pipeline. San Francisco, CA: CoalSwarm, Greenpeace USA and Sierra Club.
81.
Shell (2016) A Better Life with a Healthy Planet: Pathways to Net-Zero Emissions.
The Hague:
Shell.
82.
SinnHW (2012) The Green Paradox: A Supply-side Approach to Global Warming.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
83.
SovacoolBKScarpaciJ (2016)
Energy justice and the contested petroleum politics of stranded assets: Policy insights from the Yasuní–ITT Initiative in Ecuador.Energy Policy95: 158–171.
84.
SpashCL (1994)
Double CO2 and beyond: Benefits, costs and compensation.Ecological Economics10(1): 27–36.
85.
SteentjesKPidgeonNFPoortingaW, et al. (2017) European Perceptions of Climate Change (EPCC): Topline Findings of a Survey Conducted in Four European Countries in 2016.
Cardiff:
Cardiff University.
86.
TemperLBlissS (2015) Decolonising and Decarbonising: How the Unist’ot’en are Arresting Pipelines and Asserting Autonomy.
Barcelona:
EJOLT.
87.
TemperLDel BeneDMartinez-AlierJ (2015)
Mapping the frontiers and front lines of global environmental justice: The EJAtlas.Journal of Political Ecology22(1): 255–278.
88.
ToewsGNaumovA (2015)
The relationship between oil price and costs in the oil industry. Energy Journal36: 237–254.
89.
TrinksPJScholtensLMulderM, et al. (2017) Divesting Fossil Fuels: The Implications for Investment Portfolios.
Groningen:
University of Groningen.
90.
TvinnereimELachapelleEBorickCP (2017)
Is support for international climate action conditional on perceptions of reciprocity? Evidence from survey experiments in Canada, the US, Norway, and Sweden. Cosmos: Proceedings of the Singapore Academy of Sciences12(1): 45–55.
VallejoMCBurbanoRFalconíF, et al. (2015)
Leaving oil underground in Ecuador: The Yasuní–ITT initiative from a multi-criteria perspective.Ecological Economics109: 175–185.
94.
Van de GraafT (2018) Battling for a shrinking market: Oil producers, the renewables revolution, and the risk of stranded assets. In: ScholtenD (ed.) The Geopolitics of Renewables.
Cham:
Springer, pp.97–121.
95.
Van de GraafTSovacoolBKGhoshA, et al. (2016) The Palgrave Handbook of the International Political Economy of Energy.
Cham:
Springer.
96.
Van de GraafTHaesebrouckTDebaereP (2018)
Fractured politics? The comparative regulation of shale gas in Europe.Journal of European Public Policy25(9): 1276–1293.
97.
Van den BergS (2018) Netherlands to halt gas production at Groningen by 2030. Reuters, 29 March.
98.
VerkuijlCPiggotGLazarusM, et al. (2018) Aligning Fossil Fuel Production with the Paris Agreement: Insights for the UNFCCC Talanoa Dialogue. Policy Brief.
Stockholm:
Stockholm Environment Institute.
99.
WangJFengLTangX, et al. (2017)
The implications of fossil fuel supply constraints on climate change projections: A supply-side analysis.Futures86: 58–72.
100.
WattsMJ (2005)
Righteous oil? Human rights, the oil complex, and corporate social responsibility.Annual Review of Environment and Resources30: 373–407.
101.
WeberGCabrasI (2017)
The transition of Germany’s energy production, green economy, low-carbon economy, socio-environmental conflicts, and equitable society.Journal of Cleaner Production167: 1222–1231.
