Which Perceptions and Norms Will Shape Europe’s Energy Future?
By Ieva Rozentāle and Stefan Flothmann (Mindworks Lab)
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has created new energy challenges in Europe, and fresh opportunities to transform what and how much energy societies and economies consume. We suggest that three specific narratives and norms will take prominence in politics, business, and the general public and will determine which solutions will gain momentum in the coming years.
This war and its impact are strongly related to fossil fuel imports from Russia. It will influence energy politics and the popular perceptions of energy consumption in Europe for years to come. Narratives around different solutions are continuously created and spread, seeking to win support for Europe’s energy future. They range from sovereignty and reductionism to supply chain changes and a nuclear renaissance. People’s shared perceptions of what is possible, reasonable and accepted as the new norm will determine which narratives succeed. Emotions, social endorsement, and not rational arguments will form these perceptions and norms. These mindsets will inevitably evolve as the war collapses our understanding of security in Europe and the increasing economic and political effects on daily life become apparent.
The onset of any significant crisis opens a window of opportunity to influence worldviews as people try to make sense of the disruption.
Tailored campaigns can and will influence the development of norms and narratives to galvanise what solutions people will support. Reiterating environmental objectives or imperatives is not the best way to change norms and narratives when people’s minds are focused on other concerns like peace and security.
As the pandemic has shown, while a call for green recovery resonated with the media, it did little to redirect money flows from carbon-intensive to low carbon economies. It is essential to manage the development of narratives rather than solely focus on broadcasting one’s opinions. In hindsight, better narrative management throughout the pandemic would have prevented the creation of anti-vaxxers and vaxxers’ identities and hindered the proliferation of conspiracy theories, saving lives and protecting the social fabric of societies. Similar narrative and norm management can determine how energy consumption and social cohesion will evolve in the coming years.
Imagining the possible futures that could emerge is an advanced way to broaden our ability to develop strategies to guide such mindset and system changes. We developed four scenarios to assess the impacts of public perceptions on the future of energy in Europe. If you are a campaigner or changemaker working on the green transition in Europe, this article is for you.
The Four Scenarios
We propose that three mindset factors will shape public opinion and the consequent course of the European transition to energy independence (or the lack of it) in the coming months:
- The extent of the support for the idea that a communal sacrifice of one’s conveniences is a vital component of the energy transition and the belief that energy independence is indispensable for Europe.
- The perceived fairness and sense of agency that the public feels over the political decisions concerning energy independence; whether these decisions appear to be considering everyone’s best interests, whether there is a sense of collective ownership of them, and whether public concerns are heard and reflected in these decisions.
- The varying support for different types of energy technology (nuclear, renewables, fossils) is determined by the trust in them as being a workable solution for the energy transition and people’s preparedness and confidence to solve multiple problems at a time. The opposite of that is to neglect or ignore climate and environmental threats for the time being.
We believe that the first two will largely determine if Europe can achieve energy independence. They, therefore, are the basis of our four scenarios. The third factor will determine the quality of this independence — the choice between fossil fuels and nuclear or renewables. We use this third factor to indicate a variant of the scenario in italic if we have concluded that the differences in energy technology support would significantly alter the scenario.
We explore three impact areas:
- Speed and nature of energy transition,
- Political stability and consistency of policies
- Social fabric, European identity, and resilience
We do not consider the scenarios as comprehensive or even holistic, but they focus on major possible trends that we consider most relevant to inform energy strategies of the coming months.
Scenario 1: Just transition to sovereignty
Unity | Optimism | Solidarity | Collective efforts of saving | Pride | Action
A strong, positively framed willingness to sacrifice short-term comforts in exchange for complete sovereignty have become the norm. The sovereignty advocates and politicians have gone to extreme lengths to show that the sacrifices will have an end date. Europeans are inspired and have eagerly contributed to an action plan to end Europe’s dependency on Russian fossil fuels. They take pride in saving energy and increasing energy efficiency through behaviour change and investments in their homes and workplaces.
Political stability and consistency of policies
The social policies tailored for lower-income groups to buffer the dramatic price increase have been vital to the public’s acceptance of higher prices for energy as a worthwhile collective hardship. The creative reductionist incentive schemes have successfully engaged different income groups. European businesses are leading the way, and even energy-intensive industries are transforming into ‘for-purpose operations’ seeking their share in ensuring Europe’s energy sovereignty. Being driven by a shared action plan to reach the milestones and final objectives has enabled consistent policy approaches that are non-partisan.
Speed and nature of energy transition
The impressive progress in reducing energy consumption within the EU has created and enforced the belief that Europe can achieve energy sovereignty without abandoning climate and other environmental objectives. Societies see renewables as the core component of this transition, streamlining new projects.
Heightened public interest in accountable action plans has prevented investments in solutions that do not yield fast results or are not cost-effective (i.e. support to extend the lifetime of existing nuclear reactors but not to build new ones). Solutions, therefore, include multiple energy technologies while delaying decarbonisation.
Social fabric, European identity and resilience
A conviction that the transition costs are equally shared between countries and social classes, coupled with the optimism and purpose of creating a more assertive Europe, have increased the connectedness and resilience of societies. The enthusiasm for collective action builds a new European identity that extends beyond common markets and subsidies, allowing for the discovery of common values worth defending. Divisive forces like national populism or foreign cyberwarfare struggle to win ground as societies have become more resilient to conspiracy theories and hate speech.
Progress to become energy independent from Russia has given people optimism that Europe can solve immense challenges. While they apply this hope to other emerging or existing crises like climate, some people fear we are running out of time, leading to anxiety or denial. Emotional instability reduces political engagement and resilience while providing openings for divisive forces to attack public trust in institutions, governments, and fellow citizens.
Scenario 2: Power to populists
Forced Transition | Polarization | Populism | Decline of EU | Opportunism
Policymakers have been pushing hard for sacrifices and independence. Yet, the transition decisions made or proposed are perceived as unfair and elitist. Energy prices and inflation and the debate on whose needs should be prioritised dominate the discourse. A cacophony of narratives around better solutions has fragmented the perception among different social groups. Vested interests in certain energy technologies and the objective of reducing trust in the government drive these narratives. Populist parties claiming to protect commoners’ interests gain support. They promote convenience and promise to secure current lifestyles as a basic right of every European.
Speed and nature of energy transition
The initial political progress on shared energy transition plans in the EU was fast. Progress stalled when the honeymoon phase of solidarity was over, and the debate moved to the social and economic costs. Measures welcomed as solutions at first have become the problems. If early weeks saw strong public support for oil and gas embargos, RE and efficiency investments, this soon turned into a backlash against these measures, largely because interest groups redefined them as an unjustified burden for the already struggling public. Funding pouring in from the nuclear and fossil fuel industries has further assisted in deteriorating trust in governments and RE as a solution, with detrimental reputational impacts for the future. Business engagement with the transition is low, especially for those who see no image benefit or perceive it as damaging.
A pluralistic technology approach in the governmental action plan would lower the reputational risk for RE. Economic impact debates would circle multiple technologies, and attacks on government plans would be less technology-focused. Risk nevertheless prevails as vested interests would still fund and fuel certain directions of the divided discourse.
Political stability and consistency of policies
The failure of governments to engage the public has diminished support for energy independence. The increasing popularity of populism either poses a direct electoral threat or forces governments to readjust their plans to regain the trust of their constituencies. Inconsistent action leads to frustration and distrust between European leaders as countries fail to fulfil previous commitments. Initial political unity on Europe’s energy plans falters, and energy politics reverts to sluggish horse-trading, where countries trade security objectives for environmental ones. If not handled well, this scenario can further degrade into Scenario 3.
Social fabric, European identity and resilience:
Existing narratives of an elitist pro-business Europe manifest. Increasing amounts of people feel alienated or economically threatened by the Union. At the same time, they acknowledge the added value of Europe’s military strength as it ensures peace. The emotional dissonance provides grounds for irrational thinking and behaviour and low societal resilience. People are vulnerable to conspiracy theories searching for new powers and communities to protect them. Trenches between existing identity groups widen, and new identities emerge.
Scenario 3: Collective paralysis
Political polarisation | Blame | Pessimism | Decision paralysis | Info wars
The difficulties to come to any solution that would satisfy different parties proved impossible. A state of collective paralysis has emerged: people don’t feel like they have control over anything, and decision-makers have been afraid to make firm decisions not to aggravate the situation. Collective sacrifices of convenience disappeared from the debate early on, as economic costs and responsibility shifting became the core narrative. Ever-increasing uncertainty has given rise to collective blame seeking, anger and tiredness. The polarisation has increased the risk of social unrest.
Speed and nature of energy transition
The debate to become energy independent from Russia reopened previous disagreements and allowed countries to withdraw from prior commitments. Parallel crises have further aggravated the decision-making process. Difficult decisions are postponed, and energy independence has become an impossible dream. As energy has become a killing field of failure, governments try to capture the public attention for other issues, including military defence and food security.
Political stability and consistency of policies
People disengage from the debate, as politicians can’t agree, and no energy vision for Europe’s future emerges. Political timidity and agony are taking centre stage. Power fights over outcomes and economic impacts lead to mistrust. As energy has become an unpopular dividing issue, exposing governmental vulnerabilities, political willingness to engage with it is decreasing, and momentum to solve energy independence and decarbonisation is faltering. Energy infrastructure decisions become arbitrary and more vulnerable to lobby efforts of vested interest and corruption in the absence of clear plans and targets and the lack of public interest. Even uneconomic decisions like new nuclear power plants or coal power plants become possible.
Social fabric, European identity and resilience
Blame games have heavily divided Europe, and the Union fails to inspire its citizens. The public’s faith in institutions to deal with today’s concerns, such as peace and climate change, has eroded. People turn to other groups and identities to fill in the gaps in their narratives of security and purpose. The lack of progress in solving multiple crises drives people into anxiety or denial, leading to social and political disengagement. In the absence of perceived agency, it is high time for conspiracy theories and diverse fragmented worldviews. Only governments that control narratives by owning or limiting their media and use mercenaries to influence their social media spaces can ensure some level of national unity. Others are becoming increasingly vulnerable to cyberwarfare that aims to further erode trust in their institutions.
Scenario 4: Business as usual
Mediocracy | Convenience | Apathy | Everything and Nothing
In European politics, initial enthusiasm makes way for pragmatism and national bargaining. Europe is back to solving one problem at a time. Energy sovereignty is declared an ambitious long-term objective, and globalisation protagonists declare it economically undesirable. The general public is convinced that they are already paying enough to express their solidarity, and they should not be asked to pay more. Certain peace- and security-keeping ‘essentials’ like military spending are tolerated. Still, the public expresses a limit to its willingness to sacrifice for Ukraine, thus not supporting energy regulations that impact their comfort and purchasing power.
Speed and nature of energy transition
Political compromises are characterised by the lowest common denominator, exceptions and derogations. There is no real transition, rather a plethora of attempts to make things better in whatever way governments can agree. With little ambition comes the lack of a clear strategy, leaving space for diverse national energy pathways. Prolonging the coexistence of fossil and renewable energy sources and different technologies provides minimal political friction and prevents the development of more synergies in a shared energy system. As no clear norms emerge, businesses refrain from large investments and favour import replacements while individual values drive decisions. Some decide to become independent from Russia, others to protect the environment, but most stick to shareholder value.
Political stability and consistency of policies
Voters are not inspired. Still, most feel lenient towards the actions of their national leaders, given the difficult times. Large military expenditures are welcome as nobody connects them to any social ramifications. Additional sacrifices, such as a fast energy transition to sovereignty, have been stigmatised as unjust, unfair, and too costly. Besides a few groups, nobody talks about them with any urgency anymore. The details of energy politics are of no interest to the general public as long as people are not making connections between decisions and energy price developments. Energy pathways and technology preferences remain influenced by national preferences, often driven by corporate interests that influence domestic narratives. Mediocracy provides stability in the short to medium-term while postponing real solutions into the future, gradually increasing political, social and environmental vulnerabilities.
Social fabric, European identity and resilience
Europe remains a union of convenience; only security has enriched the bargaining currency of national bargaining. The image of the EU continues to be defined by the bureaucracy of Brussels. While people enjoy their sustained comfort and personal perspectives, anxiety and worry take hold of Europe’s citizens, leaving them doubting Europe’s ability to navigate the challenges of the emerging new world order and its state of ‘Omni-Crisis’. Living in Europe is not perceived as good, but rather as somehow better than in other parts of the world, which are seen as even more vulnerable. Resilience is not an experience but rather wishful thinking. Fear leads to anxiety and denial, providing entry points for divisive narratives to take hold and grow. Without increased countermeasures to control narratives, societies are vulnerable to polarization, especially in response to other crises.
What now?
We strongly recommend that energy teams use the above scenarios to discuss and potentially alter their campaign plans to foster positive and minimise negative mindset impacts; we are happy to facilitate such discussions.
We developed ten recommendations on how to ensure a future close to what we describe in Scenario One: Just Transition to Energy Security and how to avoid sliding into one of the other scenarios.
Our review of recent public opinion polls on the topic shows where we are on these mindsets and which direction we are heading in.
Mindworks is a social and cognitive science lab. We support changemakers in their mission to change mindsets and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace. Mindworks supports operations across the world with an emphasis on the Global South.
If you want to leave us feedback, join our community or have any questions, reach us at hello@mindworkslab.org
