Suchergebnisse

What drives inequalities in the uptake of low-carbon energy technologies? Research has shown that people on higher incomes are significantly more likely to access and benefit from policies designed to boost uptake of clean energy technologies than those with lower incomes, revealing a pervasive inequality issue. Yet little is known about how these inequalities evolve or interact with factors beyond income alone, understanding of which is crucial to designing policies which do not simply replicate or exacerbate existing inequalities going forward. This paper thus advances the novel "feed-in-tariff trap" theory, which posits that, rather than income alone, peer diffusion and socioeconomic factors compound to widen inequalities in the uptake of low-carbon technologies over time. Using a combination of mixed effects and piecewise structural equation modelling, this theory is tested on the adoption of 21,206 household-level wind and solar PV installations across 6976 micro-level data-zones in Scotland between 2009 and 2020 under the UK government feed-in-tariff. It finds crucially that: (1) household solar PV and wind are adopted consistently in higher-income areas, (2) peer diffusion is strongest in higher income areas with high early adoption rates, and (3) socioeconomic conditions are extremely temporally stubborn. Combined, this trifecta creates an inequality "trap", locking the benefits of low-carbon technology subsidies into the same higher income areas and widening the gap in uptake between more affluent and deprived communities as a result. Recommendations are given on how best to address this, with implications for anyone concerned with a "just" transition going forward.

Can community energy help to overcome inequalities in who benefits from low-carbon technologies? Research has shown that the distribution of low-carbon technology subsidies and their associated benefits can be highly uneven across socioeconomic groups, revealing a persistent inequality issue. Yet this research has tended to focus almost exclusively on adoption of technologies at the household-level, with limited insights into whether and how this distribution might differ in the case of community energy. To address this, this paper quantitatively investigates the distribution of payments to household- and community-level energy systems across socioeconomic groups in Scotland under the UK government feed-in-tariff. Analysis is conducted on a novel dataset of 26,218 household and community wind and solar installations across 6,976 micro-level data-zones using a combination of distributional analysis and random effects within-between regression. It finds that feed-in-tariff payments for household-level wind and solar PV systems have heavily benefitted more affluent socioeconomic groups, while payments to community energy projects have flowed more consistently into areas of higher deprivation, particularly in the case of community solar. These findings suggest that community energy has been successful in bringing the benefits of low-carbon technologies to areas of lower income and higher deprivation, with important lessons for policymakers concerned with a just transition going forward.

The Scottish Government's recent review of its definition of fuel poverty has increased the focus on how best to deliver support to the most vulnerable fuel poor householders. Previously we have argued that this requires a greater emphasis on delivering face-to-face and in-home energy advocacy services however, we have also noted the need for further research to inform policy in this area. This paper presents findings from two related studies to elucidate our understanding of the energy advocacy needs of vulnerable householders. The first is a quantitative analysis of the types of support provided to vulnerable householders in Renfrewshire, which is contiguous with Greater Glasgow. The second is a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with clients accessing energy advocacy services provided by South Seeds, a charity serving the Glasgow Southside community, conducted as part of a wider evaluation of the organisation. These serve to illustrate that often the support sought is for advice that must be delivered face-to-face and in-home, supporting previous studies that show the provision of advice by telephone and online is often insufficient for meeting the needs of vulnerable householders.

In the light of the British referendum on EU membership on 23 June, the Centre for British Studies of the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin organised a series of public lectures on the future of the UK during the summer term 2016. Despite some forebodings, the outcome of the referendum still came as a harsh surprise. Brexit affects the Centre and its students professionally and personally. Whilst these are exciting times for scholars of British studies, we hope that our good relations to the UK can be maintained. The lecture series allowed us to follow the recommendations of our advisory board to produce a publication on the recent political developments in British politics. This short book is based on the public talks of our lecture series.