IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v393y2025ics0306261925006580.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Political inequality and impacts on climate mitigation: the case of Germany's energy sector

Author

Listed:
  • Faus Onbargi, Alexia
  • Dombrowsky, Ines

Abstract

To meet the Paris Agreement's aim of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, there is an urgent need for countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by transitioning their energy sectors from fossil-based to zero‑carbon sources. Despite strong climate policies and gradual emissions reductions, Germany remains the greatest emitter in the European Union. Coal, responsible for almost 35 % of the country's CO2 emissions, is not scheduled to be phased out until 2038. Wind, one of Germany's greatest sources of renewable energy, has faced challenges due to a 1000 m federal ‘rule’ between residential buildings and wind turbines. The German coal phase-out and the onshore wind phase-in are linked to questions of procedural injustice in energy, as showcased in multiple studies. In this paper we develop a comprehensive framework that introduces the concept of political inequality as a lens to examine procedural injustice in energy transition decision-making, arguing that it offers greater nuance. We apply the framework to Germany's coal phase-out and onshore wind phase-in, asking how stakeholders in the German energy transition – i.e. the Energiewende - report political inequalities of voice, representation, treatment and influence in these decision-making processes, both at the federal level and in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia. We also explore how such inequality impacts climate mitigation in Germany's energy sector and whether it slows progress. Our findings from twenty-eight semi-structured interviews with German decision-makers, civil society and activists, highlight multiple reported inequalities in these processes that point to several procedural injustices in energy transition decision-making in Germany. However, while political inequalities can indeed slow progress on climate mitigation in the energy sector, the reverse may also materialise. Further research is needed to understand how the tension between political inequality and climate mitigation unfolds in the German energy sector and in the broader energy transition.

Suggested Citation

  • Faus Onbargi, Alexia & Dombrowsky, Ines, 2025. "Political inequality and impacts on climate mitigation: the case of Germany's energy sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 393(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:393:y:2025:i:c:s0306261925006580
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.125928
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261925006580
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.125928?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. White, Ariel R. & Nathan, Noah L. & Faller, Julie K., 2015. "What Do I Need to Vote? Bureaucratic Discretion and Discrimination by Local Election Officials," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 109(1), pages 129-142, February.
    2. Lindvall, Daniel, 2023. "Why municipalities reject wind power: A study on municipal acceptance and rejection of wind power instalments in Sweden," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    3. Lienhoop, Nele, 2018. "Acceptance of wind energy and the role of financial and procedural participation: An investigation with focus groups and choice experiments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 97-105.
    4. Stetter, Chris & Wielert, Henrik & Breitner, Michael H., 2022. "Hidden repowering potential of non-repowerable onshore wind sites in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    5. Bucelli, Irene & Mcknight, Abigail, 2021. "Mapping systemic approaches to understanding inequality and their potential for designing and implementing interventions to reduce inequality," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 109884, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Frances Stewart, 2011. "Inequality in Political Power: A Fundamental (and Overlooked) Dimension of Inequality," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 23(4), pages 541-545, September.
    7. Lonergan, Katherine Emma & Suter, Nicolas & Sansavini, Giovanni, 2023. "Energy systems modelling for just transitions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    8. Johannes Hemker & Anselm Rink, 2017. "Multiple Dimensions of Bureaucratic Discrimination: Evidence from German Welfare Offices," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(4), pages 786-803, October.
    9. Pao-Yu Oei & Mario Kendziorski & Philipp Herpich & Claudia Kemfert & Christian von Hirschhausen, 2020. "Klimaschutz statt Kohleschmutz: Woran es beim Kohleausstieg hakt und was zu tun ist," DIW Berlin: Politikberatung kompakt, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, volume 127, number pbk148.
    10. Eckersley, Peter & Kern, Kristine & Haupt, Wolfgang & Müller, Hannah, 2021. "The multi-level context for local climate governance in Germany: The role of the federal states," IRS Dialog 3/2021, Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space (IRS).
    11. Kanbur, Ravi, 2016. "Capability, Opportunity, Outcome - - And Equality," Working Papers 250027, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    12. Burchardt, Tania & Hick, Rod, 2017. "Inequality, advantage and the capability approach," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 84598, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Hall, Peter A. & Taylor, Rosemary C. R., 1996. "Political science and the three new institutionalisms," MPIfG Discussion Paper 96/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rueß, Stefanie & Schneider, Gerald & Vogler, Jan, 2024. "Priming and prejudice: Experimental evidence on negative news frames and discrimination in German welfare offices," Working Papers 34, University of Konstanz, Cluster of Excellence "The Politics of Inequality. Perceptions, Participation and Policies".
    2. Mattie Mackenzie-Liu & David J. Schwegman & Leonard M. Lopoo, 2020. "Do Foster Care Agencies Discriminate Against Gay Couples? Evidence from a Correspondence Study," Center for Policy Research Working Papers 224, Center for Policy Research, Maxwell School, Syracuse University.
    3. Mattie Mackenzie‐Liu & David J. Schwegman & Leonard M. Lopoo, 2021. "Do Foster Care Agencies Discriminate Against Gay Couples? Evidence from a Correspondence Study," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(4), pages 1140-1170, September.
    4. repec:osf:socarx:9khds_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Michael Rochlitz & Evgeniya Mitrokhina & Irina Nizovkina, 2020. "Bureaucratic Discrimination in Electoral Authoritarian Regimes: Experimental Evidence from Russia," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2010, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    6. Adman, Per & Larsson Taghizadeh, Jonas, 2020. "Public officials’ treatment of minority clients," Working Paper Series 2020:12, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    7. Pfaff, Steven & Crabtree, Charles & Kern, Holger L. & Holbein, John B., 2018. "Does religious bias shape access to public services? A large-scale audit experiment among street-level bureaucrats," SocArXiv 9khds, Center for Open Science.
    8. Jessica Weber, 2023. "Coordination Challenges in Wind Energy Development: Lessons from Cross-Case Positive Planning Approaches to Avoid Multi-Level Governance ‘Free-Riding’," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-25, October.
    9. Yefimov, Vladimir, 2009. "Comparative historical institutional analysis of German, English and American economics," MPRA Paper 48173, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Maarten Hillebrandt, 2017. "Transparency as a Platform for Institutional Politics: The Case of the Council of the European Union," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(3), pages 62-74.
    11. Raitio, Kaisa, 2013. "Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis — The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 97-103.
    12. Henning Hermes & Philipp Lergetporer & Fabian Mierisch & Frauke Peter & Simon Wiederhold, 2023. "Discrimination on the Child Care Market: A Nationwide Field Experiment," Working Papers 225, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    13. Luis Alfonso Dau & Aya S. Chacar & Marjorie A. Lyles & Jiatao Li, 2022. "Informal institutions and international business: Toward an integrative research agenda," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(6), pages 985-1010, August.
    14. repec:mje:mjejnl:v:12:y:2017:i:2:p:25-70 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Emil Evenhuis, 2017. "Institutional change in cities and regions: a path dependency approach," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 10(3), pages 509-526.
    16. Sophie Jacquot & Cornelia Woll, 2003. "Usage of European Integration - Europeanisation from a Sociological Perspective," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-01019642, HAL.
    17. Streeck, Wolfgang, 2009. "Institutions in history: Bringing capitalism back in," MPIfG Discussion Paper 09/8, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    18. Yang, Lin, 2017. "The relationship between poverty and inequality: concepts and measurement," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103491, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Kaplan Yilmaz, 2017. "China’s OBOR as a Geo-Functional Institutionalist Project," TalTech Journal of European Studies, Sciendo, vol. 7(1), pages 7-23, June.
    20. Simon Guy & John Henneberry, 2000. "Understanding Urban Development Processes: Integrating the Economic and the Social in Property Research," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 37(13), pages 2399-2416, December.
    21. Niamh Hardiman, 2007. "Governing the Economy," Working Papers 200739, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    22. Michal Ovádek, 2021. "Procedural Politics Revisited: Institutional Incentives and Jurisdictional Ambiguity in EU Competence Disputes," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(6), pages 1381-1399, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:393:y:2025:i:c:s0306261925006580. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.