Perspective Chapter: The Regime Matters – A Multidisciplinary Perspective on Energy Security in the Era of Climate Change and Growing Uncertainties for Resilience in Sustainable Energy Development

Abstract

This chapter provides a comprehensive exploration of energy security, beginning with various definitions and their positioning within the international political economy of energy. It examines energy security from multiple angles, including perspectives of energy-importing and exporting nations, transit regions, militarization, energy shocks, demographic shifts, and corruption. The chapter highlights the challenges, risks, and vulnerabilities inherent in energy security and underscores its intricate interconnections. It concludes by advocating for the integration of resilience thinking into energy security policies due to growing uncertainties in social, economic, and ecological systems, compounded by climate change. These factors significantly shape the context in which energy security strategies are devised and implemented.

1. Introduction

Exosomatic energy is putative of global economic growth and development [1] and remains at the center of contemporary socio-economic development and environmental sustainability policy discourses. As a result, the security concern of exosomatic energy is one of the contemporary sustainable development priorities across the globe. Giving the above reason, every national economy endeavors to ensure a sufficient degree of energy security and formulate, strategize, and execute energy security policies in accordance with individual economies’ requirements and unique circumstances [2]. The notion of energy security is multifaceted and dynamic–it revolves around the understanding and analysis of the factors, dynamics, and policies that contribute to ensuring a stable, reliable, and sustainable energy supply. Given the centrality of energy and entire socio-technical systems – its security discourses encompass various dimensions, including, but not limited to, political, geopolitical, economic, social, and socio-technological systems components, and aims to mitigate risks and vulnerabilities associated with energy systems across time and space. In line with the above reasoning, the authors in [3] have suggested that the concept of “energy security” is more akin to an abstraction than a well-defined policy or term, making it challenging to describe. Furthermore, whether one reason from the positivist or normativist (or a combination of the sort) perspectives, the conceptual and practical meaning of energy security can vary depending on different perspectives, such as institutional, national, or personal views [4]. Again, from the international political economy of energy perspective, securitization of energy system is a construct of four main frames – namely: the “dominant worldviews”, “prioritized component of energy security”, “energy security for whom?”, and “underlying values and goals” – and are influenced by the ruling social, economic, political or environmental ideologies (see Table 1). Humans are evolutionarily wired to be security-thinking burdened species – thus, how to secure energy is human existential. For example, a view exists that human conception of energy security can be traced to the prehistoric era when humans first discovered and began controlling fire [6] as an exosomatic energy. However, the beginning of academic discourses on energy security might have emerged in the 1960s [7], probably as one of the post-Second World War development thinking. But, the 1970s oil crisis fairly marked the commencement of energy securitization and measurement efforts through policy rationalization and academic research [8, 9], especially among the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) economies. A year after the 1973 oil crisis – 1974, the International Energy Agency (IEA) was established as an intergovernmental organization to promote energy supply security and foster economic growth – a direct response to the oil crisis that unfolded during the years 1973–1974 [8]. According to an account, as part of the IEA’s oil crisis management frameworks, the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) member countries must hold oil stocks equivalent to 90 days of imports [8], as part of energy security measures. One can fairly argue that in years predating the first oil crisis in the 1970s, the securitization of energy systems was not a prominent policy issue [9]. With the turn of events, however, the popularity of social, economic, political, and geopolitical impacts of the 1973 oil crisis became a household concern, especially in the developed economies that largely relied on the Gulf States region for oil. As “loosely” emphasized by ([10], p. 111), “even casual newspaper readers have become aware that there are links between energy, security and foreign policy”. Notable early works from a political point of view, like Willrich’s article on international energy issues and options, provided comprehensive analyses of the international energy sector and its implications on a national and global scale [11]. Willrich distinguished between “security of supply” and “security of demand” and recognized that energy issues varied for different stakeholders, be they oil-importing or producing nations [p. 746]. Throughout the latter part of the 20th century, energy security studies primarily operated within a political economy framework with a focus on a reasonably stable supply of oil [12], with little or no recourse to environmental sustainability dimensions. Researchers and policymakers prioritized diversification, uninterrupted flow, and affordability of energy supply. Such earlier rationalization of the energy security concept renders it as “security of supply” focused, and as a central element in defining and operationalizing energy security. If we turn to the use of the term “security” as constantly applied by security researchers and scholars, security collocates the “non-existent of threats”. We are however further burdened with the word “threat” – as spatial, time, culture, values and perspective dependent – implying the concept of security co-evolves social, economic, environmental, geopolitical, and the like factors. For instance, during the First World War (WW I) and Second World War (WW II), access to refined, efficient energy fuels was a topic profile geopolitical and national security strategy reflecting the Neomercantilists worldview of seeing energy security as a defense of nationality security (see Table 1).

Frame Agents	Dominant worldviews	Prioritized components of energy security	Energy security for whom?	Underlying values and goals
Market liberalists	Technological optimism, free market libertarianism	Economic affordability	Economy	Welfare, freedom
Neo-mercantilists	Defense of national security	Geopolitical availability	State	Political independence and territorial integrity
Environmentalists	Environmental preservationism, conscientious consumption	Environmental sustainability	Earth	Respect for nature
Social greens	Justice, neo-Marxism	Social acceptability	Society	Equity, justice

Table 1.

Frames and worldviews on the international political economy of energy.

Source: Adopted from ([5], p. 93).

Today, as the body and internal structure of knowledge about the “indispensability of energy systems” – as humans cannot survive without working – and no work could be done without useful energy services, energy security scholarships have evolved into an interdisciplinary field. This is largely due to factors such as climate change, globalization, and the uncertain future of fossil fuels. These developments have introduced new dimensions to the concept, including sustainability, resilience, energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, accessibility of energy services (addressing energy poverty and its multidimensionality), and more. As a result, energy security has become intricately intertwined with other environmental, social, political, and security issues. To capture the multidimensional nature of energy security, systematic literature reviews [13, 14] and international research [15] have explored diverse perceptions and indicators of the concept. In particular, [15] went further with the dominant focus on finding a converging definition for the concept of energy security by identifying 16 distinct dimensions of energy security – including affordability of energy services, equitable access to energy, and energy efficiency. Sovacool et al. [15] go beyond traditional definitions, including dimensions like energy education and ensuring transparency in their research. Through questionnaire administration, these authors rigorously demonstrate that people’s perception of energy security varies and covariates education, age, gender, and culture value systems. Sovacool [16] further expands on this idea by introducing the concept of “cultures” within the energy sector, suggesting that different perceptions can be explained by the cultural context to which the participants belong. Additionally, Sovacool [16] identifies at least five different energy cultures, including national, economic, political, professional, and epistemic cultures. By doing so, the author highlights the multifaceted nature of energy security and emphasizes how various subjects perceive the concept differently based on their own preferences and backgrounds.

Another attempt to conceptualize energy security is in the work of [17]. These researchers focus on the core question of “what to protect?”. Accordingly, they define energy security as the “low vulnerability of vital energy systems”. The energy systems’ “vulnerability” may result from exposure to risks – being they natural or due human factors (or a combination human and natural factors). In the context of low-income economies that faced with weak, and inequitable critical energy infrastructure, but are faced with extreme climatological events due to climate change and variability [18], building resilience capacity is indispensable to maintaining security. The authors examine vulnerabilities across different energy systems, including energy infrastructure, energy services, and renewable energy sources. While this introduces some senses of universalism in our understanding of energy security, the authors acknowledge that energy security remains an abstract concept that heavily depends on the perspectives, actions and values of the actors involved. In retrospect, consensus exists that the meaning of a concept, in general terms, changes over time. Citing the concept of “democracy” as an example, ([19], p. 18) suggests that “Democracy 2000 years ago had a different meaning than democracy today”. By a way of cross-disciplinary reasoning, we can claim that the concept of energy security is continuously evolving, with its scope continually expanding and lacking a universally accepted definition. That notwithstanding, promoting sustainable development relies significantly on ensuring energy security, which has become a fundamental pillar in energy policies and frameworks worldwide. According to Chris Rupped (n.d.), as cited in [20], the period 1985 to 2003 marked the era of energy security, and from 2004 onwards, marked the period of “energy insecurity” [p. 172]. With the growing uncertainties and vulnerabilities in social, economic, political, geopolitical, and environmental systems, including emerging infectious diseases, that follow the patterns of global warming and climate [21], the context in the notion of energy security, relative to the three major policy and academic questions: (a) “security for whom”, (b) “security for which values”, and (c) “security from which threats”, is likely to maintain an enduring energy systems research and policy concern far into the twenty-first century.

1.1 Dynamics and perspectives of energy security thinking

Energy security’s interpretation varies in academic literature, among different stakeholders, and across energy-importing/exporting nations, organizations, and military. The broader understanding is shaped by strategies for safeguarding it. This multifaceted concept spans diverse dimensions, explored next to understand varied actor perspectives.

2. Net-importing (relatively energy resource poor) economies energy security

Energy resources exhibit varying geographical distributions and availability [22, 23]. In countries reliant on energy imports or those lacking ample resources, ensuring energy security centers on maintaining a consistent, reliable energy supply. This involves addressing citizens’ energy needs and sustaining crucial sectors like transportation, heating, and electricity [24]. According to [11], energy security pertains to guaranteeing adequate energy supplies to sustain the national economy at a standard level.

Hence, economies reliant on energy imports prioritize enacting effective domestic and foreign policies to ensure a stable energy supply. These actions may encompass diversifying energy sources, enhancing efficiency, and promoting new technologies [24, 25, 26]. These strategies aim to reduce dependence risks build robust energy infrastructure, and led to the formation of the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 1974 – a global organization of 29 economies focused on energy security. Established within the framework of the OECD, the IEA characterizes energy security as “as the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price”¹, which is consistent with three out of the popular “the 4 A’s of energy security”² – availability, accessibility, and affordability dimensions of energy security suggested in the literature [17]. Consequently, the IEA’s energy security definition aligns with that of the European Union (EU). As the title of this chapter seeks to describe, regime thinking matters in the attempt to conceptualize energy security and determine the most optimal strategic responses to deal with short-term supply or demand-side shocks. As a result, the IEA has recently added the imperatives of climate change, weather, and digital resilience to energy security rationalization, including environmental sustainability.

Europe does not only represent a significant energy import-dependent region but has also traditionally relied on individual member states and their national initiatives for energy security strategies. However, in recent decades, the European Union (EU), as an intergovernmental organization, has characterized its energy policy in three main thematic areas: energy security, competitiveness, and sustainability ([28], p. 6). The Energy Security Strategy of the European Union addresses both immediate and future energy security measures. In the short term, the strategy primarily emphasizes enhancing resilience against energy supply disruptions through diversification of energy supply sources. Meanwhile, the long-term measures aim to decrease dependence on external energy sources. To ensure the ability to overcome supply disruptions, the strategy proposes various actions, such as coordinating risk assessments, establishing reserves, safeguarding critical infrastructure (particularly focusing on cybersecurity), fostering an integrated internal market (including the construction of vital inter-connectors among member states), strengthening cooperation with new suppliers, and developing new energy transit routes. An example of such a route is the Southern Gas Corridor [29]. Given European Union Member States over reliance on Russia for energy, especially gas, the resilient of the region’s energy systems has to be tested in the face of the ongoing Russian-Ukraine war and the energy sector impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. A seeming progress in line with the above, however, is that, European Union Member States reportedly managed to reduce their dependency on Russia in their natural gas imports by 40% in 2022, compared to 2019 ([30], p. 64).

In the realm of global energy geopolitics, the United States stands uniquely; it is faced with challenges and opportunities inherent in both energy-importing and exporting economies. Given this complexity, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) [31] argues that the United States holds the distinction of being both the largest energy importer and the largest energy producer and consumer globally. However, there is a growing consensus that the shale revolution is transforming the United States into a net exporter of oil and gas. Meanwhile, the US Energy Information Administration further projects that the country will become a net energy exporter by 2022. However, it seems the USA became a net exporter of petroleum two years ahead of the 2022 projection by the EIA, as the same source indicates that “In 2020, the United States became a net exporter of petroleum for the first time since at least 1949”. For instance, in 2022, the US exports of petroleum were estimated as 9.58 million barrels per day (b/d) as against 8.32 million b/d in the same year under review. Making America’s annual net petroleum exports 1.26 million b/d in 2022.

Traditionally, energy security in the United States has primarily focused on achieving what is known as “energy independence”, particularly concerning oil. However, as observed by a prominent energy policy scholar [16], neither the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 nor the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 (both of which were signed into law by President Bush) provide a clear definition of energy security. An exception of the recent official document that seeks to address the notion of energy security is a paper from the Executive Office of the President of the United States ([32], p. 11). It establishes that “energy security is used to mean different things in different contexts and broadly covers energy supply availability, reliability, affordability, and geopolitical considerations”. This aligns with the definitions provided by the United Nations (UN) and the International Energy Agency (IEA). It is widely acknowledged that the shale revolution is playing a significant role in transforming the United States into a net exporter of oil and gas.

When it comes to energy security perspectives from net-importing economies, Japan stands out as a substantial “elephant in the room” – with its significant footprint on the global energy landscape. Due to the country’s disadvantage in terms of the geography of strategic energy resources, the country heavily relies on imported energy commodities. For example, according to the World Nuclear Association, Japan imports approximately 90% of its energy requirements.³ In 2017, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry estimated Japan’s primary energy self-sufficiency as 9.6% and ranked 34th among the OECD countries [33]. Consequently, supply-side security has always been both domestic and geopolitical concern. Thus, energy dependence – the extent to which internal/external disruption to energy availability would negate the welfare of citizens and energy security (already defined) has always been an integral part of Japan’s national security strategies through times of major energy crises. As a reference period, the oil embargoes of the 1970s substantially unearthed and exposed Japan to the risks associated with relying on oil from the Persian Gulf States. As a result, by 1985, nuclear plants constituted about 23.8% of total electricity generation and remained steady until 2010 – with a share of about 25.7%. Following the nuclear accident at Fukushima in March 2011, nuclear plants share of electricity generation reduced to approximately 14.7% and to .0.00% in 2014 due to the subsequent closure of all Japanese nuclear reactors. Japan’s “pride” is a function of a stable or secured energy system. Thus, the 2011 Daiichi Nuclear plant meltdown led to a sharp increase in liquefied natural gas (LPG) imports. Some analysts argued that the Fukushima Nuclear accident in 2011 affected both the supply and demand sides energy security globally – as Japan’s demand for fossil fuels surged, raised the prices of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and uranium [34] – affecting availability, affordability, sustainability and accessibility dimensions of energy security as mentioned in the reviewed literature. Specifically, using 2008 as a reference year, Japan’s consumption of natural increased from 88 billion cubic meters (bcm) to 114 bcm in 2011, 119 bcm in 2014, and steadily declined to the 2009 level of 93 bcm, and 92 bcm in 2022.⁴

Surprisingly, the “Strategic Energy Plan 2018”, and the “Japan 2021 Energy Policy Review” [33, 35], pivotal energy policy documents in Japan, overtly highlight the escalating apprehension regarding energy insecurity. It delineates a comprehensive framework for enhancing security, encompassing various measures such as augmenting the availability of fossil fuels both domestically and internationally, hastening energy efficiency initiatives, fostering the growth of renewable energy sources, reconfiguring nuclear policies, opening up energy markets, and formulating strategies for swift emergency responses following the Fukushima incident. Under Tokyo’s Strategic Energy Plans, energy security is prioritized. In this policy logic, the Japanese Government’s stated goal of achieving energy security, among other things, is to “increase the ‘independent development ratio’ … to 40% for oil and natural gas, and to 60% for coal by 2030” ([35], p. 30). Paradoxically, even though this plan emphasizes these security measures, the official elucidation of the energy security concept by the Government of Japan has been omitted.

3. Energy exporters landscapes

When considering energy security, economies abundant in energy resources also share security concerns. In that, socioeconomic development, national security, cyberinfrastructure, etc., are significantly influenced by energy security, just like energy-importing countries. Thus, energy security encompasses both supply-side and demand-side security. Policymakers energy security burden from the landscape of the energy-exporting economies should be defined as the “security of supply”. Here, security of demand can be viewed as the guaranteed access to foreign markets for energy exporters. This fairly implies that energy security as a policy concept from the energy-importing and energy-exporting economies are not mutually exclusive. Exporters have to strategize to deal with both such external and internal variables, including but not limited to access to international energy markets, global demand and prices, domestic and geopolitical stability, investments and infrastructure, market diversification, environmental regulations, the rate of energy resource depletion, major environmental treaties and conventions, currency fluctuations and sanctions. In particular, market diversification is imperative to maintain a stable stream of revenue. This is very crucial for the energy-rich-poverty paradox countries, such as Nigeria, Ghana, Angola, Gabon, Chad, and the Republic of the Congo. With specific reference to Africa, both matured and new oil-exporting countries have to strictly adhere to the principle of the Non-Aligned Movement established at the Belgrade Conference in 1961, probably to avoid spillover effects of sanctions as have been applied to the powerful Western allies against countries such as Russia and Iran during geopolitical tensions. Another aspect that can enhance demand security is maintaining a delicate equilibrium between supply and demand. Energy exporters (most resource-rich economies) are interested in maintaining stable demand for their energy products, which is often linked to the interests of the industrialized club economies and the development of non-fossil energy sources in the climate regime.

From the landscape of the energy-exporting countries and the concept of energy security, the role of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is worth considering with reference to 1970s. As a general knowledge, the OPEC is an intergovernmental organization consisting of 13 oil-exporting states. While not all major energy suppliers, such as Russia, are members of OPEC, the organization accounted for 36.3% in 2022 [36] as against 42.4% in 2017 [37] of global oil production, making it the largest energy exporter under the period of review. In the 2010 Long-Term Strategy document, OPEC outlined long-term energy policy objectives of ensuring long-term oil revenues by stabilizing fair energy prices and securing global oil demand for producers. The official document acknowledges the importance of understanding future oil demand requirements as a crucial aspect of OPEC’s overall energy security concerns. Additionally, the strategy emphasizes security of supply, which, in OPEC’s context, refers to ensuring an efficient, economic, and consistent supply of petroleum to consuming nations.

However, it is worth noting that while OPEC primarily focuses on energy security purely from the perspective of energy exporters, it recognizes shared energy security concerns with the rest of the world. OPEC acknowledges that environmental issues like climate change have global implications, necessitating multilateral cooperation among all stakeholders in the energy sector. It is worth mentioning that, based on our current social-technical systems, energy stands as a pivotal resource driving transformative global development, with oil and gas maintaining their crucial roles within this sector. Despite the ongoing shift toward renewables, these traditional sources will remain integral, particularly in developing and emerging economies for the foreseeable future in addressing other dimensions of security, including energy poverty, food and water security, health, sustainable transport, dealing with emerging infectious diseases, climate change and global warming adaptation, etc.

Energy is a key resource for transformational development globally. Oil and gas (fossil fuels) will continue to play a key role in this sector, irrespective of the gradual transition toward renewables, and will continue to do so in most developing and emerging economies in the near future.

4. Militarization and energy security

Militarization – defined as “the cultural, symbolic, and material preparation for war” [38], can have significant implications for energy security, both directly and indirectly. In military parlance, energy security is often defined as operational energy. This technically encompasses the daily energy required for training, transportation, and sustaining military forces and weapons platforms during military operations. Emerging out of this global recognition is that energy security has become an increasingly important strategic aspect of military planning and activities. Multiple forces are propelling this trend, but can be summarily enumerated under such sub-headings as the desire for resource control and geopolitics, concerns about supply disruptions, vulnerability of energy infrastructure network systems, energy transit routes, environmental concerns (global warming and climate change), high defense spending, dependence on energy imports, supply disruptions.

Militarization can lead to the control or occupation of energy-rich regions or key transit routes for energy resources. This can potentially grant a country greater influence over energy markets and supply chains. Geopolitical tensions arising from militarization can disrupt the flow of energy resources, impacting global energy markets and prices. Again, Militarized conflicts in energy-producing regions can disrupt the extraction, production, and transportation of energy resources. Attacks on energy infrastructure, such as oil fields, refineries, pipelines, and ports, can lead to supply disruptions and price spikes. This instability can affect energy-importing nations’ access to vital resources. Based on history and contemporary wartime experiences, energy infrastructure systems are often a target in conflicts due to their economic and strategic importance. Militarization can potentially heighten security concerns for energy facilities, making them more vulnerable to attacks, sabotage, and cyber threats. This can undermine the reliability of energy supply chains. From scarcity and allocation reasoning, military buildups and maintenance of a large military force require significant resources, including energy. A country with a highly militarized stance might divert resources away from the development of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency measures, thereby hindering its transition to a more sustainable energy mix.

Essential to the above is a “collective defense” organization, like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Until the recent decades of heightened environmental and ecological security concerns, NATO’s foremost focus has been to function as a collective and regional security organization [39], particularly in defense against the Soviet Union following the aftermath of the Second World War. Indisputably, energy security is the nucleus of the collective security of its members. Keshk [40] has eloquently stated that “energy security is one of red lines crossing which by any party is not allowed by NATO” ([40], p. 10). Accordingly, disruptions in energy supply (particularly fossil fuels) can have significant implications for the security of NATO allies and partners, potentially impacting the effectiveness of NATO’s military operations. Typically, energy security policy would traditionally fall within the purview of individual sovereign nations. Nevertheless, NATO allies are committed to engaging in discussions regarding energy security, encompassing its broader dimensions, and collaborating to bolster NATO’s ability to make meaningful contributions in areas where energy has the potential to yield collective or regional benefits across social, political, economic, and even ecological domains.

For instance, in their Strategic Concept for the Defense and Security document, the Members of the NATO explicitly state that

Key environmental and resource constraints, including health risks, climate change, water scarcity and increasing energy needs will further shape the future security environment in areas of concern to NATO and have the potential to significantly affect NATO planning and operations ([41], p. 15). [Emphasis added].

In essence, the process of militarization can lead to extensive outcomes on energy security. This encompasses impacts on resource access, supply chains, infrastructure, and the potential to shift toward more sustainable energy sources. Moreover, tense geopolitical relations and conflicts possess the capacity to interrupt energy markets, sway investment choices, and impede the overall progress toward establishing a dependable and environmentally-friendly energy future.

5. Energy transit economies landscape of energy security

Conventionally, energy particularly commercialized fossil fuels, entails intricate and interlinked value chains encompassing various stages such as exploration, extraction, conversion, transportation, and distribution to potential end-user sub-sectors. Thus, energy resources can be categorically delineated as the primary basis for dividing the global landscape into three distinct “energy worlds”: nations endowed with abundant energy resources, nations primarily characterized as energy consumers, and nations serving as intermediaries for energy transit [42]. Another context is that in 2022, about 82% of the total primary energy consumption globally came from fossils – with oil, gas, and coal, respectively, accounting for 31.6%, 23.5, and 26.7%.⁵ Meanwhile, globally, oil and natural gas – constituting about 55.1% of total primary energy consumed in 2022, were (as has been historically) exclusively transported through sea routes. Consequently, we reasonably argue that the attainment of energy security – whether collectively or individual sovereign nation perspectives, hinges significantly upon the primacy of energy diplomacy and cooperative efforts among both importing and exporting nations, ceteris paribus. This places the world’s major chokepoints – defined as “narrow channels along widely used global sea routes” [44]. According to [44], global chokepoints for maritime transit of crude products (particularly oil and gas) are a critical component of global energy security. For instance, in 2015, the Energy Information Administration estimated that 61% of global petroleum and other forms of liquids were transported through maritime routes. Although the statistics are somewhat outdated, their validity might still hold true, given the absence of recent evidence indicating any changes in the geographical and associated energy geopolitical fundamentals in these regions.

The EIA has named seven chokepoints: the Strait of Hormuz, Strait of Malacca, Suez Canal, Bab el-Mandeb, Cape of Hope, Danish Strait, Turkish Straits, and Panama Canal, whose security determine the faith of global energy systems’ security (See Figure 1).

Figure 1.

World oil transit chokepoints: Source: Adapted from [44].

Just for reference purpose, the Suez Canal and the SUMED Pipeline serve as strategic conduits for the transportation of Persian Gulf crude oil, petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments to Europe and North America. Situated within Egypt, the Suez Canal effectively links the Red Sea with the Mediterranean Sea, assuming a pivotal role as a critical chokepoint due to the substantial quantities of energy commodities that traverse this passage. In 2018, for instance, the northbound petroleum exports from the Persian Gulf States – Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia to Europe and North America, 85% were reportedly transported via the Suez Canal.⁶ In the realm of energy security policy discourse, the pivotal point is that the essential elements of energy security, denoted as the 4 A’s, rely fundamentally on the stability of key energy transit routes and chokepoints, as previously indicated. Some energy risk analysts have strongly reiterated that blocking a chokepoint, even temporarily, can lead to substantial increases in total energy costs and world energy prices – negating the affordability dimension of energy security. In addition, chokepoints also leave oil tankers vulnerable to theft from pirates, terrorist attacks, political unrest in the form of wars or hostilities, and shipping accidents that can lead to disastrous oil spills [45].

While sustainable development goals and other international initiatives have emphasized the significance of addressing energy security, which involves the intricate interplay between poverty reduction and the mitigation and adaptation of climate change, the intricate nature of energy interdependence facilitated by geographical attributes such as energy transit routes and chokepoints has not been systematically deliberated upon. In order to effectively attain the energy objective outlined in the sustainable development goals, these deliberations must assume a prominent position within the framework of the United Nations system. Valuable insights can be drawn from the profound impacts of events like the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war, which have starkly exposed vulnerabilities within global energy systems, particularly the disproportionate repercussions on economies with limited financial resources. Thus, in the regime of high uncertainties like climate change, geopolitical tension, pandemics, etc.; low-income economies, in particular, must raise energy security policy questions duly relevant to the physical, economic, markets, social, and geopolitical imperatives of energy system.

6. Energy shocks (crises)

Energy crises or shocks and human progress constitute co-evolutionary phenomena within social-ecological systems. While the oil shocks of the 1970s predominantly hold the status of a reference point in energy economics and historical literature, an alternative proposition posits that the initial documented energy crisis took place around 1600 – known as the “Firewood crisis in England” ([46], p. 417). Thus, throughout history, energy crises have arisen due to various factors such as energy shortages (resource depletion), conflicts, market manipulations, rent-seeking behaviors, and government interventions. Fiscal interventions – such as tax increases, the nationalization of energy companies, and regulatory measures in the energy sector can disrupt the balance of supply and demand, leading to an intermittent or prolonged crises. Additionally, protests, government embargoes, over-consumption, aging infrastructure, disruptions at oil refineries and port facilities, and increased energy consumption during harsh summers and winters can also contribute to emergencies.

Minor interruptions in energy supplies, especially in countries with energy infrastructure network systems, can occur due to infrastructure failures, while severe weather events can cause significant damage to infrastructure and potentially trigger a crisis. Acts of terrorism or militia targeting critical infrastructure pose serious challenges to energy consumers as well. Political events such as regime changes can cause disequilibrium in the energy system, including disruption in oil and gas supply value chains, resulting in shortages. Furthermore, fuel shortages can occur due to excessive and wasteful use of fuels.

Although an authoritative definition of the concept of energy shocks is lacking, this phenomenon, which has emerged as a prominent concern since the 1970s, can be broadly comprehended as an occurrence within the energy system. This occurrence entails a substantial constriction in the availability of energy resources to an economy, resulting in a noteworthy bottleneck [47]. One notable demand–supply interaction feature of energy shock, particularly in the short-term – is price hikes or inflation during supply shock in the energy sector – which can simply be reasoned from the theoretical relationship between scarcity and price in microeconomics. A dominant reference period in the literature is the energy crisis of the 1970s, during which major industrial countries faced substantial petroleum shortages. This crisis had far-reaching effects, including a stock market crash, rampant inflation, and high unemployment rates. The two most severe crises during this period were the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis. While contestable, some commentators believe the energy shocks, especially from 1973 to 1979, significantly increased and sustained the sovereign debt burden of developing countries, as poor-oil-importing countries such as Ghana were compelled to borrow from commercial banks and economies with high-interest rates due to inflation tightening policy.⁷

As a commonplace is that the 1973 oil crisis occurred when Arab members of OPEC imposed an embargo against the United States and other countries supporting Israel during the Arab-Israeli War. The embargo prohibited petroleum exports to these nations and led to cuts in oil production. Regarding mechanism analysis, the 1979 energy crisis was triggered by decreased oil output following the Iranian Revolution. The outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War further disrupted oil production in the major Persian Gulf nations, leading to economic recessions in various oil-dependent. Oil prices did not return to pre-crisis levels until the mid-1980s.

The 1990 oil price shock occurred in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The invasion and subsequent embargo caused a significant shift in the oil market. Concerns initially focused on the loss of crude oil supplies, and the price spike, lasting nine months, contributed to the recession of the early 1990s. Although less severe than the crises of the 1970s and 1980s, it still had a notable impact, especially among the industrialized club economies.

At this juncture, it is pertinent to highlight that the underlying factors behind energy crises, particularly in relation to crude products, exhibit a dynamic nature. The intricacies associated with these factors have shown a consistent inclination toward escalation as we approach the new millennium. Notably, during the 2000s, the ramifications stemming from oil shocks deviated from those witnessed in preceding decades. For example, in the writing period, the predominant factor behind the escalation in energy prices was the disequilibrium within the fundamental dynamics of the crude oil markets. This imbalance is juxtaposed with a constrained expansion of supply and accentuated by the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia-Ukraine tensions, and general speculative activities within global markets.

Table 2 shows crude oil prices from 2002 to 2022. To mitigate any possible bias regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war in our analysis, 2019 was chosen as a reference year. A general observation is that, from 2019 to 2020, global annual average oil prices witnessed a downward trend, suggesting an immediate effect of the COVID-19 lockdown and border restriction measures to contain the pandemic on the oil markets. In particular, with Brent averaging around $101 per barrel, oil prices experienced a rise of approximately 42% by the end of the year. It increased from 64.21 (US $/bbl) in 2019 pre-COVID-19 to 101.32 (US $/bbl) in 2022. Nonetheless, examining the aforementioned correlations carefully is crucial, considering both systematic and idiosyncratic risks specific to each country’s circumstances. In certain nations, the observed impacts primarily underscore underlying structural vulnerabilities within their energy sub-sector. For instance, consider Ghana, where the escalation of energy costs – particularly regarding fossil fuels – is partly attributed to substantial debts in the energy sector, instances of corruption and mismanagement, inefficiencies in transmission and distribution, as well as the transition toward electricity generation through gas-fired thermal plants.

Year	Dubai ($/bbl)	Brent ($/bbl)	Nigerian Forcados ($/bbl)	West Texas Intermediate ($/bbl)
2002	23.60	25.02	25.04	26.16
2003	26.75	28.83	28.68	31.06
2004	33.51	38.27	38.13	41.49
2005	46.78	54.52	55.69	56.59
2006	61.48	65.14	67.07	66.04
2007	67.92	72.39	74.48	72.20
2008	94.28	97.26	101.43	100.06
2009	61.14	61.67	63.35	61.92
2010	77.78	79.50	81.05	79.45
2011	105.93	111.26	113.65	95.04
2012	109.06	111.67	114.21	94.13
2013	105.47	108.66	111.95	97.99
2014	97.02	98.95	101.35	93.28
2015	51.22	52.39	54.41	48.71
2016	41.02	43.73	44.54	43.34
2017	53.02	54.19	54.31	50.79
2018	70.15	71.31	72.47	65.20
2019	63.71	64.21	64.95	57.03
2020	42.41	41.84	42.31	39.25
2021	68.91	70.91	69.76	68.10
2022	96.38	101.32	101.40	94.00

Table 2.

Crude oil prices in US dollars per barrel (2002–2022).

Source: Author’s compilation based Statistical Review of World Energy (2023 72nd Edition).

Overall, energy crises have historically stemmed from a range of factors, including shortages, conflicts, market manipulations, government interventions, infrastructure failures, geopolitical events, and excessive consumption. These crises have had significant economic and social repercussions, shaping the energy landscape and highlighting the importance of energy security.

7. Corruption and energy security

Corruption, generally, is seen as a drag on society’s progress – economically, socially, politically, ecologically, or even, if verifiable, spiritually. For a straightforward discussion, I resort to a dictionary definition of “corruption” and its relationship with energy security. According to the Collins COBUILD Dictionary of CD-Rom (2006), the notion of corruption can be defined as “is dishonesty and illegal behavior by people in positions of authority or power”. Despite the emphasis placed by the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and international development initiatives on the pivotal role of energy access in socioeconomic advancement, a paucity of comprehension persists regarding the degree to which corruption within energy systems by prominent entities can either exacerbate or alleviate security concerns. Discussions at the beginning of the text accentuated that energy security ensures a stable energy supply crucial for development. However, corruption can threaten energy security goals by distorting market deficiencies, discouraging investments, and threatening the profitability, equity, and resilience of energy infrastructure network systems. As reported in [48], a recent study on Latin American societal elites reveals that hindrances to expanding wind and solar energy capacity and establishing larger cross-regional power systems primarily include corruption, bureaucratic challenges, insufficient global coordination, and substantial public-private investments. This section explores a limited mechanism through which energy corruption can undermine energy security.

Corruption, either from country to country, person to person, institution to institution, perceived or real, can significantly distort the energy markets and the governing institutions. Corruption can skew energy markets by favoring well-connected entities, reducing competition, and disrupting supply reliability due to subpar infrastructure. A case in point is that energy systems involve mega infrastructure investment, with millions of dollars in the North and South. Another lens of thinking about the energy-in(security)-nexus is that pervasive energy sector corruption can possibly result in distorted investment priorities. Corrupt practices often divert funds meant for energy infrastructure development and maintenance into the pockets of individuals or groups. This diversion can result in inadequate investment in critical energy projects, such as power plants, pipelines, and grids, leading to insufficient energy supply and frequent blackouts. For instance, if funds intended for upgrading power generation facilities are embezzled by corrupt officials, the energy system’s capacity may remain insufficient to meet demand.

Arguably, irrespective of the political systems of a country – market or centrally planned economy, corruption in the energy sector can be a fertile ground for inefficient resource allocation. From a standpoint rooted in either political economy or political ecology, it can be duly posited that a fundamental imperative of a state resides in the judicious utilization of its collective resources, encompassing vital elements such as energy, to optimize the overall welfare of its populace, thereby effecting the reduction or mitigation of adverse welfare circumstances. Linked to the above, the United Nations’ view on energy services and development, as indicated in the Seventh Goal of the SDGs (SDG 7), is that “The survival and advancement of humanity hinge upon the availability of energy for the purpose of household heating, the production of commodities, and the facilitation of communication across extended distances”. This places energy resources at the center of multidimensional development thinking, including, ecological, social, institutional, economic, and political well-being. However, corruption can lead to the misallocation of energy resources, favoring politically connected parties or personal interests instead of optimizing resource utilization. For example, oil exploration and mining licenses might be awarded to companies based on bribes rather than their technical expertise, leading to ineffective resource management and decreased energy output [49, 50]. Furthermore, sector corruption can result in the erosion of regulatory frameworks. While not a novel idea, it is worth mentioning in the unique context of energy security discussions that corruption can weaken regulatory institutions responsible for overseeing the energy sector, leading to reduced accountability and enforcement of rules. Regulatory bodies that are compromised by corruption might overlook safety standards, environmental regulations, and fair market practices, ultimately risking energy supply disruptions and environmental degradation. Again, where it goes unchecked, energy sector corruption, especially mega oil, gas, electricity, nuclear plants, etc., can lead to unjustifiable higher costs and reduced competitiveness. Corruption often introduces inefficiencies and unnecessary costs into the energy value chain. When bribes and kickbacks are involved in procurement processes, costs can skyrocket, affecting the 4 A’s of energy security for consumers and businesses. This reduced cost-effectiveness can make the country’s industries less competitive globally. In addition, the cancer of energy corruption can repel foreign investment and energy-related foreign financial aid. Yes! Corruption in the energy sector can deter foreign investment! Investors (except corrupt ones) hesitate to commit capital to a country with an unreliable and unpredictable energy supply due to corruption, as it increases the perceived business risks. This lack of investment can hinder the development of new energy projects and technologies, further exacerbating energy security concerns. As an illustration, within the realm of contemporary indices utilized by organizations and foreign investors to conduct country risk analyses, the corruption index is a pivotal determinant in the decision-making process [51, 52].

Energy sector corruption may severely impact international environmental treaties and conventions, such as the Paris Agreement of 2015, intended to cut anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector. In that, corruption can obstruct renewable energy development efforts. In many cases, corruption-driven policies can favor traditional energy sources over renewable alternatives. For instance, bribes and kickbacks from fossil fuel interests might lead to delayed adoption of renewable energy projects, hindering the transition to cleaner and more sustainable energy sources. Lastly, corruption, in general, can lead to social unrest and political instability: Energy shortages caused by corruption can lead to public dissatisfaction and unrest, as citizens suffer from blackouts, fuel shortages, and increased energy costs. This dissatisfaction can escalate into broader political instability, potentially affecting the country’s stability and governance.

The detrimental impact of corruption within the energy sector on energy security is evident and far-reaching. Corrupt practices, such as bribery, embezzlement, and nepotism, weaken institutional frameworks, hinder efficient resource allocation, and undermine investor confidence. These actions lead to reduced investment in critical energy infrastructure, inefficient resource utilization, and distorted market competition. Consequently, energy supply disruptions, volatile prices, and unreliable access to energy resources become prevalent, jeopardizing a nation’s energy security.

8. Demographic transition and energy security

For this text, we adopt the definition of demographic transition provided by Tulchinsky and Varavikova [53]. According to these authors, population transition refers to “a long-term trend of declining birth and death rates, resulting in substantive change in the age distribution of a population” ([53], p. 103). Demographic change can have significant implications for energy security. For instance, in sub-Saharan Africa, the large size of the population without access to clean cooking fuels and electricity is often attributed to the fact that the rate of population growth is higher than the annual percentage increase in electricity and clean cooking fuels and technology by organizations such as the International Energy Agency. However, [53] have provided five stages of population transition: namely, Traditional, Transitional, Low stationary, Graying the population, and regression stage. These stages, respectively, follow high and balanced birth and death rates, falling death rates and sustained birth rates, low and balanced birth and death rates, an increased proportion of older people as a result of decreasing birth and death, and low birth rates, migration, or rising death rates among young adults, respectively, according to [53]. Our world is typically characterized by the aforementioned stylized demographic transitions. It is therefore important to review the concept energy security from the above reality. Here are some ways in which demographic change can impact energy security.

First, is population growth. As commonly mentioned in the literature, especially economic development theories perspectives, as populations increase, there is a greater demand for energy to meet the needs of households, businesses, and industries. Arguably, while the mid-twentieth century marked the completion of the demographic transition, the same period marked the beginning of a population spurt in Asia, Latin America, and Africa [54]. Rapid population growth can strain energy resources and infrastructure, leading to challenges in ensuring a reliable and secure energy supply [55]. Secondly, and related to the above, is urbanization and energy security nexus. The process of urbanization, where people move from rural areas to cities, can result in concentrated energy demands. Urban areas tend to have higher energy consumption per capita than rural areas due to increased access to modern amenities, transportation needs, and higher population densities. Meeting the energy needs of rapidly growing cities requires robust and resilient energy systems to maintain energy security. Thirdly, demographic transition changes energy consumption patterns: Energy consumption is integral to social practices and social change [56, 57]. Thus, demographic changes, such as shifts in lifestyle, income levels, and cultural preferences, can influence energy consumption patterns. For example, as standards of living improve, there is often an increase in energy-intensive activities such as air conditioning, heating, and the use of electronic devices. These changing consumption patterns can place additional stress on energy systems, particularly if they are not adequately planned and managed.

As mentioned, graying of the population is one of the stages of population transition – or simply “aging population”. Based on the population pyramid, an aging population constitutes an increase in the over 65 years old people. Recent estimates show that the population aged 65 years and above will double in the next three decades, reaching about 1.6 billion by 2015. Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea are expected to have the highest population above 65 years. As populations in many countries continues to age, it can have implications for energy security. Older adults may have specific energy needs for heating or cooling due to health concerns, and ensuring their energy needs are met becomes crucial, especially in severe winters and summers. Additionally, an aging workforce in the energy sector can pose challenges in terms of knowledge transfer and maintaining the necessary expertise to operate and maintain energy infrastructure effectively.

In the context of low-middle-income countries, the aging population in advanced economies directly or indirectly impacts SDG 7.a – which calls for international public financial flows to developing countries to support clean energy and technologies. The aging population means increased demand for fiscal allocations to support the elderly population. This can lead to substantial cuts in financial aid to energy-poor economies to undertake infrastructure expansions and research activities. For instance, At the time of writing, Tokyo has announced 3.5 trillion yen ($25 billion) to finance the country’s pro-natal policy – policies intended to encourage more children or boost the fertility rate [58].

Policymakers and energy planners must consider these demographic factors when formulating energy policies and strategies. By understanding and addressing the specific energy needs and challenges associated with demographic change, countries can enhance their energy security and promote sustainable and inclusive energy systems.

9. Power systems harmonics and energy security

The term “power system harmonics”, denoted as “voltage and current distortions” [59], is a prime focus for physical scientists, especially electrical engineers [59]. Many researchers argue that the phenomenon of power system harmonic is not new, especially in the field of electrical engineering [60, 61]. For instance, while Salam [60] suggests that back in 1916, the scientist Steinmetz extensively examined and documented the impact of harmonics on three-phase power systems [60], Santoso et al., [62] the issues of power system harmonic and power quality “has become one of the most prolific buzzwords in the power industry since the late 1980s” ([62], p. 4). While the literature on system power harmonic might have matured, its integration into the analysis of energy security is under represented. Since our perspective on energy security largely falls in the social science domain, we decided to align our discussions with scholars who describe power system harmonic as one of the quality issues facing electric power systems. This view is significant that the energy goal of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (SDG 7) is dedicated to “access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all by 2030”. This means that beyond the question of expanding energy access through infrastructure networks, the quality of the energy services is equality, an energy security issue at both micro and macro levels. The literature agreed that there are two main types of power system quality problems: voltage-related problems (e.g., harmonic, swells, blackouts, sags, etc.) and current-related problems (e.g., current leakage, electromagnetic interference, etc.). It is probably within this context that [59] contextualized harmonic as “distortions in the form of voltage and current”. If we put the above in the lens of the reliability target of SDG 7, it makes sense to see the same as a threat to energy security. However, the authors [59] have expressed concern that despite clear harmonic impacts on power and system reliability, harmonics from renewable energy sources (RES) are poorly understood, and methods to eliminate them are underdeveloped.

In advanced economies, the dependability (reliability) of electricity provision, gauged by the frequency and duration of power supply disruptions, presently stands at a notably elevated level [63]. Low-middle-income and emerging economies, however, face energy insecurity from the phenomenon of harmonic distortions. This is primarily due to a weak infrastructure network system. For example, the authors [64] explore the quality of electricity services using open-ended interviews in Unguja (Tanzania). These researchers find that “Fluctuations result in dim lights at best and power outages and broken appliances at worst, denying many Unguja residents the expected benefits of access to modern energy”. If unresolved, power system harmonic may result in energy losses, reduce power quality, damage equipment and household appliances, interfere with communication network systems, and cause instability in renewable energy integration. To ensure a true resilience sustainable energy development, countries should develop their own power quality standard with measurable indicators to assess progress and project possible risks, therefore.

Amidst climate change and extreme weather events, power system harmonics can worsen power system challenges, causing heightened energy losses, equipment damage, and compromised power quality. These effects strain resources and hinder power restoration post-disruptions. Consequently, addressing harmonic concerns is pivotal for ensuring power system resilience and reliability amidst shifting climate patterns and severe weather occurrences.

10. Energy security in climate change and uncertainty regimes

So, how should we think about energy security in the era of Anthropocene that is marked by climate change and variability (extreme weather events), pandemics, geopolitical tensions in energy resource-rich countries, divergence demographic transition between the global South and North, high unemployment low-income economies, natural and human-induced disasters, cyberattack of critical energy infrastructure, terrorism, poverty in its multidimensionality and uncertainties? As this chapter demonstrates, energy security, traditionally defined as the assured availability of energy resources at affordable prices, has long been a paramount concern for nations and global entities. Academic literature on energy security is reasonably rich, with multiple conceptual and operational definitions [65]. However, in an era characterized by climate change, resource depletion, high energy inflation, fuel price fluctuation, and geopolitical uncertainties, the concept of energy security demands a profound reevaluation. The transition toward resilient and sustainable energy development emerges as a compelling paradigm shift, representing an intricate interplay between environmental, economic, and social dimensions. This chapter expounds upon the evolution of energy security into a resilience-based framework, emphasizing the imperative of sustainable energy practices. Toward the concluding part of this chapter, we should think about the science of the regime: that climate change amplifies the occurrence, severity, and erratic nature of perturbations and pressures, thereby bestowing notably adverse repercussions upon societies exceedingly reliant on natural endowments. Simultaneously, vulnerability is also on the rise, accompanied by an escalation in the multifaceted and intricate nature of violence. It is projected that by the year 2030, when the United Nations Agenda for Sustainable Development elapses, in excess of 60% of the global impoverished populace will reside within contexts characterized by fragility [66]. Although social protection has emerged as a consequential policy domain within numerous low- and middle-income countries that appears as interventions against the above growing uncertainties, a substantial portion of the global populace, accounting for about 55%, remains devoid of any social protection benefits. As the pre-COVID-19 pandemic and Russia–Ukraine war, this deficiency is highly pronounced in sub-Saharan Africa, where 87% of individuals lack coverage, and in Asia and the Pacific, where the corresponding proportion is estimated at 61% ([67], p. 1). An energy security worry is that these regions constitute more than 85% of the population without access to modern energy services [68]. Therefore, we should think about integrating the imperative of resilience in energy security thinking.

10.1 Rethinking energy security as resilience sustainable energy development

10.1.1 From security to resilience

The historical notion of energy security was entrenched in the assurance of a steady supply of conventional fossil fuels, often tied to geopolitical stability, as established by relevant literature in the text. This approach, while providing short-term stability, remains ecologically and economically unsustainable. With the realization of the finite nature of fossil fuels, energy poverty and vulnerability, and the escalating consequences of climate change, energy security must transcend the traditional definition. It must now encapsulate not only the popular 4 A’s – affordability, accessibility, acceptability, and availability [17], but also the capacity to adapt and rebound in the face of disruptions and shocks. While challenging, especially in the unique context of low-middle-income economies with inequitable energy and weak infrastructure network systems, it should integrate a framework of thinking about energy security and resilience as mutually reinforcing and interlinking variables. For instance, while energy security is largely a component of national security strategies, resilience communicates “the property of the energy systems”. According to [69], resilience refers to the ability of women and men to realize their rights and improve their well-being despite shocks, stresses, and uncertainty.

10.1.2 Resilience: The new energy paradigm

Resilience, defined as the ability of a system to withstand disturbances and recover its equilibrium, offers a comprehensive framework for rethinking energy security. A resilient energy system recognizes the multifaceted interdependencies among energy sources, infrastructure, ecosystems, and societal needs. It acknowledges the intricate web connecting energy, environment, and economy. By diversifying energy sources, incorporating distributed generation, and emphasizing local production, resilience-based energy systems reduce vulnerabilities to supply disruptions while fostering innovation and fostering localized economic growth. Against this logic, political economy compels the state to bear the duty of securing energy for all in a manner that is compatible with the health of the social-ecological systems’ health. Resilient sustainable energy development thinking questions policymakers the extent to which secured energy services for population can be sustained in the event of shocks to ecological, social, and economic systems – using fresh experiences from the COVID-19 and Russia-Ukraine geopolitical tensions.

10.1.3 Balancing act: Policy and innovation

The journey toward resilience-based sustainable energy development necessitates a strategic confluence of policy innovation and technological advancement. Governments and international bodies must foster regulatory frameworks that incentivize the adoption of renewable energy sources, promote energy efficiency, and encourage investment in research and development. Innovations in energy storage, smart grids, and demand-side management are pivotal in enhancing energy system flexibility and adaptability.

10.1.4 Sustainability: The bedrock of resilience

Central to the transition from energy security to resilience-based sustainable energy development is the integration of sustainability principles. Sustainable energy practices minimize environmental degradation, promote efficient resource utilization, and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy technologies, such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal, offer not only a dependable source of power but also a means to mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change. These technologies align with the Paris Agreement’s broader objectives, enhancing energy security and global environmental well-being.

10.1.5 Conclusion

In conclusion, the evolution of energy security from a narrow focus on supply reliability to a broader resilience-based approach represents a paradigm shift reflective of the contemporary global landscape. The imperative of sustainable energy development demands that nations and institutions reevaluate energy security through the lens of environmental stewardship, societal well-being, and economic robustness. By embracing renewable energy sources, enhancing energy efficiency, and bolstering technological innovation, the international community can forge a more secure, resilient, and sustainable energy future. This transition, while undoubtedly complex, holds the promise of not only safeguarding energy access but also fostering a harmonious coexistence between humanity and the planet.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to this academic paper.