Leveraging tensions of the triple transition for future-fit energy pathways: Interdisciplinary analysis and response strategies
トリプルトランジションの緊張を活用した将来に適合したエネルギーパスウェイ：学際的分析と対応戦略 (AI 翻訳)
Vitaliy Soloviy, Gudrun Haindlmaier, Klaus Kubeczko, Surya Knöbel, Michael J. Bernstein, Michael Dinges
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本研究は、グリーン・デジタル・ジャストのトリプルトランジションにおける政策間の緊張を分析し、5つの視点（現実構築、移行ガバナンス、意味交渉、数字による推論、移行の再想像）を提示する。28の実例に基づき、各視点の長所と限界を比較し、政策立案者や実務者が多様な知識を活用して戦略的選択肢を評価する方法を示す。
English
This study analyzes tensions among green, digital, and just transitions, presenting five perspectives: constructing realities, governing transitions, negotiating meanings, reasoning by numbers, and reimagining transitions. Based on 28 real-world examples, it compares insights across perspectives and outlines their prospects and limitations for informing energy transition pathways, offering guidance for policymakers and practitioners.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本では、GX推進戦略やエネルギー基本計画の策定において、脱炭素と経済成長・国民生活の調和が課題となっており、本研究の緊張分析は政策設計に示唆を与える。また、SSBJ開示や有報での戦略的コミットメント検討にも参考になる。
In the global GX context
Globally, this study contributes to the discourse on just transitions and policy coherence, relevant to ISSB and CSRD reporting where companies must articulate transition plans. It offers a framework for navigating tensions between climate goals and other policy priorities, useful for policymakers and corporate strategists.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a multi-perspective framework for analyzing energy transition tensions, expanding theoretical and methodological approaches.
🏢実務担当者:Offers insights for engaging with diverse knowledge types to identify and compare strategic policy options in transition planning.
🏛政策担当者:Highlights the need to consider tensions among green, digital, and just transitions when designing energy pathways.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Energy transitions operate at the intersection of multiple policy priorities, such as green, digital, and just transitions. While the policy discourse treats those priorities as synergetic, the real-world transition processes may feature tensions among different ideas, demands, or outcomes. Understandings of tensions and ways to address them differ across research fields. Yet, such differences are seldom considered in science-policy interfaces that tend to prioritize a relatively narrow set of methods and vocabularies. This study argues that different assumptions, theories, and methods provide important alternative standpoints for identifying, analyzing and navigating tensions. Building on an analysis of 28 real-world examples from peer-reviewed studies and complementary literature, we present five perspectives on energy transition tensions: constructing realities, governing transitions, negotiating meanings, reasoning by numbers, and reimagining transitions. The paper compares and contrasts insights across those perspectives and outlines their prospects and limitations for informing the design and governance of energy transition pathways. Researchers can benefit from the study by identifying opportunities to expand their theoretical and methodological apparatus for addressing energy transition challenges. Policymakers and practitioners can benefit from the study by considering how to engage productively with various types of knowledge to identify and compare strategic policy options.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.3389/fsuep.2026.1686783first seen 2026-08-15 05:01:34
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。