Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
[This chapter bridges the gap between the consistency of pro-market ideas and narratives in the face of various challenges, which we saw in chapter 4, and chapter 6 where the PEPP undergoes more profound alteration. This period from 2004 to 2007 can be characterised as one in which a security of supply crisis became widely perceived – that is, in public, elite and some academic circles – but not one in which the PEPP was rejected. It is argued here, however, that the security of supply crisis and the degree to which it dominated crisis debates did lead to a politicisation of energy, certainly of a momentary nature. The crisis narrative that emerged, based on geopolitical ideas about national energy dependence and vulnerability, stood in direct contrast to recent pronouncements about ‘benign’ international energy and positive energy interdependence in the 2003 Energy White Paper (DTI 2003).]
Published: Nov 4, 2015
Keywords: Energy Policy; Energy Sector; Energy Security; Caspian Basin; Climate Target
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.