


































Advances in Politics and Economics 
ISSN 2576-1382 (Print) ISSN 2576-1390 (Online) 

Vol. 5, No. 4, 2022 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape 

31 
 

Original Paper 

Energy Crisis, Global Warming and Wildavsky’s Thesis 

Jan-erik Lane 

 

Received: September 24, 2022    Accepted: October 15, 2022   Online Published: October 17, 2022 

doi:10.22158/ape.v5n4p31            URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/ape.v5n4p31 

 

Abstract 

The now surging energy crisis with huge electricity prices add to the already ongoing climate crisis. 

Cheap electronic power would have made energy transition out of global warming a viable policy 

alternative. While the Wildavsky thesis offers a nice explanation of the energy crisis, it fails to account 

for global warming.  

Keywords  

Global warming, cost of living crisis, electricity, Wildavsky thesis, Lomborg 

 

1. Introduction  

The energy crisis is real now nobody denies. But many people still deny the reality of climate crisis. 

And some claim climate will deliver real consequences first 2030 or 2050 or even 2100. What then is 

the link between the energy crisis and the climate crisis? 

The aim here is to discuss this question of energy and climate crises from the point of view of A. 

Wildavsky’s thesis about fears in policy-making. The argument is that it explains rather well the retreat 

on nuclear power resulting in the energy crisis. However, it fails to account for the climate conundrum 

that he regarded as the mother of environmental scares. First some words on energy and two different 

perspectives on global warming.  

1.1 Energy  

Physics define ―energy‖ as potential or actual capacity to do work. There is a variety of energy that 

resources can deliver. Humans and societies want these different resources. Figure 1 shows the major 

kinds of energy today. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape                 Advances in Politics and Economics               Vol. 5, No. 4, 2022 

32 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Figure 1. Energy Consumption by Source (EEA, 2022) 

 

The energy profile in Figure 1 indicates two of the fundamental facts for early 21th century, namely: 

enormous growth in energy consumption and almost 90 reliance on fossils that result in CO2s, the 

predicament of heating Earth.  

 

2. Humans and Energy  

Energy is so essential to humans. All need its functions, and current total consumption of energy is 

roughly 70 Gigajoules per capita. Yet, the differences in per capita energy access are enormous. 

 

Table 1. Per Capita Energy Consumption in GJ (BP, 2021) 

 
2010 2019 

Africa 15,4 15,2 

Asia Pacific 50,7 60,9 

Australia 240,5 233,2 

Brazil 56 58,9 

China 76,2 99,1 

Germany 169,6 156,3 

India 18,2 24,8 

Japan 164,2 144,8 

Middle East 135,3 146,2 

Russia 195,1 204,9 

South Korea 218,3 239,1 

Sweden 229,8 223,4 

United States 300,7 288,4 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape                 Advances in Politics and Economics               Vol. 5, No. 4, 2022 

33 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

A human needs about 10 mega joules per day to survive healthy, or 3,8 GJ annually.  

2.1 Fossils and Nuclear Power 

World energy is not only very huge in consumption but also heavily skewered towards fossils. 

Although the reliance upon renewable energy resources keeps increasing, so does energy demand, 

meaning that fossils still supply most energy resources. And they give rise to the enormous spreading of 

CO2s. COP22 tried to ban coal as energy source by 2030 against China and India’s objections and 

ultimately veto. However, burnings of wood and charcoal without replanting give more CO2 emissions. 

2.2 Retreat on Atomic Power 

It was once believed that fission energy would play a major role in total energy supply. It would 

produce electricity in large quantity when fossils would have shrunken or make too much CO2s. 

However, events have made atomic power less attractive among the rich OECD countries. Some rich 

countries embarked on a policy of reducing atomic power stations or nuclear reactors, like for instance 

Sweden, Germany and the US. Here the Wildavsky thesis is relevant, as the Russian gas delivering 

dried up, raising prices and provoking the energy crisis. 

It may be pointed out that some ecologists saw atomic power stations as the necessary step when 

moving from fossil dependence to renewables. Building much renewable energy sources would take 

time, but reducing fossil dependence was to be quick, especially coal dependence (Lovelock, 2015). 

Atomic energy power has always been contested, but after the Fukushima disaster energy policy started 

to shift away from reliance upon nuclear options, especially among OECD nations. 

2.3 Cost of Living Crisis 

In the Winter, Spring and Summer of 2022 energy prices soured in the EU. The rise in electricity prises 

accounted to from a mere doubling to a ten times doubling. Against the background of strong general 

prices inflation this meant a cost of living crisis for the first time within the EU. Here is not the place to 

discuss the causes of inflation in the EU such the war in Ukraine, and expansion of fiscal and especially 

monetary policies. The emphasis was upon the policy retreat in energy policy away from the nuclear 

option. It led to the burning of oil and even coal. 

Sweden is a good example. It closed down several nuclear reactors partly for fear of dangers, just to 

face now severe electricity shortages. 

2.4 Energy Policy: The Wildavsky Effect 

Sweden, Germany and the UK altered their atomic power policy in the wake of the Fukushima 

catastrophe. Why or for what reasons? Election considerations apart, the Wildavsky thesis points out 

the search for safety (Wildavsky, 1988). Nuclear power stations are highly complex with possibilities 

that something may go wrong. The worst would be the spreading of radioactivity. 

Operating nuclear power station involves unresolved issues. What to do with the waste materials – in 

short or long terms? Radioactivity takes hundreds of years to diminish, and nuclear accidents may 

release lethal amounts of it. Thus, reliance upon nuclear energy involves the handling of a number of 

very serious threats. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape                 Advances in Politics and Economics               Vol. 5, No. 4, 2022 

34 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Now how are there risks with nuclear power to be evaluated against the positives of this the strongest 

source of energy? And here is Wildavsky’s main point: the post-industrial society gives priority to the 

threats ahead of the opportunities in its search for safety. The changes in political cultures with 

emergence of environmentalism and civil society have underlined the role of safety in policy debates, 

emphasizing that threats must be confronted now and not hived off to the future. The attitudes towards 

risk and opportunities as well as dangers and gains explain the retreat on atomic power, resulting 

together with the Ukraine war in a dismal energy crisis. 

The Wildavsky thesis centers around the search for safety and not upon bounded rationality, as in his 

budget theory. Fears or dangers have not been theorized in this way before ìn policy research. 

2.5 Dire Consequents for Climate Policy   

The sharp rise in energy prices, especially the price of electric power, has provoked an abandonment of 

climate policy goals. With renewable energy far from fully expanded and little national gas from Russia, 

the shortfall in electric power has been met by e.g., Sweden by going back to burning oil for electricity. 

Sweden will not meet its goal of reducing CO2s this year or maybe not even by 2030. The energy crisis 

makes the climate crisis worse in the short run, although countries like Sweden, Germany and France 

are reevaluating nuclear power, i.e., what is left of it. Faster expansion of renewables is necessary for 

COP goals of reducing CO2s. 

2.6 The Basic Difficulty in Global Climate Coordination: Reneging 

In the book ―Is it Reaĺly True‖ (Wildavsky, 1997) Wildavsky cĺaimed to have found several more 

examples of ―environmental scares‖, but he has been proven wrong about the climate crisis. 

Why is global coordination on climate policy so ineffective? The present energy crisis in the EU shows 

that fossils will be resorted to when electricity is wanting. 

The COP of the United Nations has gathered a wide club of states for the goal of reducing CO2s. At the 

COP reunions governments promise energy transformation reducing fossils by some future date. But a 

promise without the sword is worth nothing stated Hobbes 1651. 

Lomborg has repeatedly stated that the current approach is ineffective (Lomborg, 2007). Lomborg is 

not a climate denier but he ridiculous the COP approach. 

The main problematic when arriving at a club decision when to eliminate CO2 emissions is to come to 

an agreement which state is to decrease emissions most: the most polluting countries totally or the 

countries with highest CO2 per capita. Figure 2 and 3 show the difference implications for 

governments in the COP club. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape                 Advances in Politics and Economics               Vol. 5, No. 4, 2022 

35 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Figure 2. Total CO2 Emissions 2020 (Our World in Data, 2022a) 

 

 

Figure 3. Per Capita Emissions 2020 (Our World in Data, 2022b) 

 

Whatever accord is found within the COP, it can always be reneged upon, like now with electric power 

shortages.  

 

3. Conclusion  

The present energy crisis or electric power shortages is very negative for climate policy-making 

according to COP standards. At lease in the short run fossils replace atomic power in several countries. 

In the long run renewables may be built up more rapidly. But what to do now when the needs for 

energy are strong? A good example is Japan besides Sweden and Germany. Finland is an exception, 

trusting nuclear power and telling about final storage.  

The abandonment of nuclear power fits the cultural theory of risk by Douglas and Wildavsky (1983). 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape                 Advances in Politics and Economics               Vol. 5, No. 4, 2022 

36 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Confronted with the surge in evidence for global warming, this theory of risk in policy-making can 

only be saved assuming myopia—Why bother about temperature 2050 when the energy crisis today 

leads to a severe cost of living crisis? 

 

References 

British Petroleum (BP). (2012). BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Retrieved from 

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.htm

l 

Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1983). Risk and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520907393 

European Environment Agency (EEA). (2022). Global Total Primary Energy Consumption by fuel. 

Retrieved from 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/global-total-primary-energy-consumption-by-fu

el-1 

Lomborg, B. (2007). Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming. New York: 

Alfred A. Knopf. 

Lovelock. (2015). A Rough Ride to the Future. London: Penguin Books, Ltd.  

Wildavsky, A. (1988). Searching for Safety. Transaction Books 

Wildavsky, A. (1997). Is it Really True. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.  

 


