Click here to view submission system details
SUBMISSION
Huang Yunyong
(School of International Political Economy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)
Citation
Huang Yunyong. “Embedded Security: The Political Logic of America’s Energy Transition” [J]. International Petroleum Economics, 2025, 33(01): 11-28.
Abstract The security aspect of America’s energy transition exhibits “embedded” characteristics. Although the process of energy transition fluctuates with changes in the U.S. presidency, the main logic surrounding energy issues remains unchanged. The reasons for embedding security logic into America’s energy transition primarily include the traditional U.S. security ideology, the power attributes of energy issues, and the inertia of U.S. institutions. Currently, the U.S. primarily achieves cognitive, political, and economic embedding of security through three pathways: “linking climate issues to construct survival security,” “setting threat scenarios to bind core interests,” and “coupling green economy to expand multidimensional connections,” thereby ensuring that security logic effectively influences the entire process of America’s energy transition. The embedding of security logic into America’s energy transition will have multidimensional and multifaceted impacts, including accelerating the U.S. energy transition process, promoting the “securitization” of energy issues, triggering changes in global governance pathways, and fluctuations in carbon emissions. Under the combined effects of decarbonization and geopolitical shocks, this trend is expected to persist for a considerable time in the future. Understanding this issue is beneficial for predicting the direction of U.S. energy policy. China should objectively recognize this phenomenon, emphasize the positive role of “security” tools in energy transition, while maintaining strategic resolve to avoid falling into the “over-securitization” trap in competition with the U.S.
This article was originally published in the journal “International Petroleum Economics” (2025-1), under the title “Embedded Security: The Political Logic of America’s Energy Transition,” and represents the author’s views, provided for readers’ reference.
1. Security Issues in America’s Energy Transition
Energy issues have always attracted widespread attention from countries around the world. Energy constitutes the material foundation for social operation and is a crucial factor in national development. Morgenthau defined power as the ability to control and influence other countries. In the context of globalization and interdependence, energy transcends geographical boundaries and becomes a tool for controlling other nations. This energy power advantage is primarily reflected in three dimensions: abundant energy resources, control over key energy transport routes, and a strong energy market. Since the oil crisis of the 1970s, discussions on energy issues have transcended purely economic paradigms, intertwining energy issues with national security, power, and status, leading countries to attribute political significance to energy issues and redefine the relationship between energy and security.
Currently, the importance of energy transition centered on clean energy is increasingly prominent. Discussions on energy transition are rooted in two contexts: first, the increasingly evident negative impacts of climate change, where climate security and energy security are closely related. Energy transition shapes a green energy landscape by adjusting energy usage structures, becoming an important pathway for reducing carbon emissions. Second, the Ukraine crisis has triggered a new wave of concerns regarding energy issues, with the avoidance of weaponizing energy dependence prompting countries to mitigate risks through energy transition. Against the backdrop of decarbonization and geopolitical shocks, the U.S. is strategically advancing energy transition. This adjustment serves as a significant guide for global energy supply and demand balance, especially in addressing climate change, reducing carbon emissions, and promoting clean energy technology innovation. Moreover, it is closely linked to the U.S.’s position in international geopolitics, providing it with more leverage in global competition. Notably, the energy transition process in the U.S. has a strong security undertone, which manifests as an “embedded” characteristic. This is primarily reflected in: first, making energy security a core objective. The U.S. aims to expand economic benefits through energy transition, reduce external dependencies, and mitigate the impacts of international energy market fluctuations on domestic economy and security, thereby enhancing U.S. energy resilience and strategic autonomy. Second, the deep coupling of energy transition with national security strategy. The U.S. government links energy transition with core national interests and presents it in the “National Security Strategy,” promoting it through a series of policy measures, including developing clean energy, building clean energy alliances, creating a clean energy development system, and enacting clean energy support legislation. It is important to clarify that although there are contradictions in the discourse on energy transition between the two U.S. parties, their attitudes towards clean energy as a core element are consistent, essentially reflecting only slight differences in degree and specific actions. Based on this, this article introduces the concept of “embedding” to systematically elaborate on the security logic in America’s energy transition and discusses the internal logic and pathways through which security is embedded in the U.S. energy transition process. Understanding this issue is beneficial for grasping the deeper logic behind U.S. energy policy and provides clues for predicting the future direction of U.S. energy policy, as well as insights for global energy governance.
2. Literature Review: Research on Security in America’s Energy Transition
Energy transition refers to the shift from a fossil fuel-dominated energy system to a low-carbon and renewable energy-dominated system, involving a broad transformation of technologies and behaviors required to replace one energy source with another. Currently, there is a wealth of literature in academia studying security issues in America’s energy transition, primarily focusing on the following three aspects.
2.1 Research on the Drivers of America’s Energy Transition
This type of research focuses on the role of security in energy transition, arguing that the pursuit of security is the fundamental driver of America’s energy transition. The concept of energy security formally emerged after the oil crisis of the 1970s, where the chain reaction triggered by oil insecurity made security a strategic priority for the U.S. During the evolution of global climate change and geopolitical dynamics, the strategic significance of renewable energy has become prominent, and energy transition is viewed as a new form of security. Representative viewpoints include the “transformational geopolitics” and “green power” theories. Raman argues that renewable energy may replace the role of fossil fuels, stating that “in some sense, technology has become similar to the political economy of fossil fuels.” The “transformational geopolitics” theory understands this from the competition over resources and geographical power among nations, suggesting that renewable energy can reconstruct inter-state energy dependency relationships, reducing U.S. reliance on external countries and mitigating geopolitical risks. In the process of energy transition, dependence on fossil fuels shifts to dependence on critical materials, with competition for critical minerals becoming a new manifestation of U.S.-China competition. The pursuit of critical materials may trigger geopolitical competition in regions known to contain abundant mineral deposits. The representative of the “green power” theory is Babette Never, who argues that in the process of developing renewable energy to address the climate crisis, nations can acquire new forms of power. Similar viewpoints have also appeared in the research of Chinese scholars, suggesting that energy transition is a pathway for shifting power among nations. In the energy transition process, the U.S. has the opportunity to promote national and global interests by leading the strengthening of international institutions, addressing climate change, and investing in clean energy innovation, indicating a transition of U.S. hegemony towards a new regime of “green growth.” In summary, based on long-term security considerations, energy transition has become an inevitable option.
2.2 Instrumentalism in America’s Energy Transition
This type of research primarily involves the securitization of energy transition. This perspective mainly derives from the Copenhagen School’s constructivist framework for security studies, arguing that “security” is a tool for constructing energy transition issues. Securitization refers to the process by which actors redefine and label an issue using the rhetoric of existential threats, thereby transforming conventional political issues into “security” issues. The success of securitization does not depend on whether a threat truly exists; rather, the key is to provide an effective discourse for the current situation. Successfully securitized issues often receive disproportionately more attention and resources. Some scholars point out that securitization is a characteristic of the U.S. response to crises, providing strong strategic and security justifications for U.S. foreign energy policy. In the research of Chinese scholars, securitization is often linked to studies of U.S. hegemony, suggesting that securitization reflects both anxiety over the decline of U.S. hegemony and serves as a means to uphold it. Some studies have examined the practice of securitization, noting that environmental activists supporting renewable energy have utilized security terminology, mimicking the securitization efforts of the natural gas industry to portray renewable energy as a solution to national energy security issues, thereby promoting the energy transition process. With the acceleration of energy transition, critical minerals for clean energy have become an important area of securitization for the U.S. Research indicates that by binding securitization discourse practices with policy practices, the U.S. has created a composite securitization mechanism, thereby promoting the formation of a critical minerals alliance led by the U.S. Of course, there are also critical voices regarding the tendency to securitize energy issues. Jonna Nyman points out that energy securitization is problematic as it links energy with the national security scenarios of “us versus them,” hindering cooperation and encouraging strategic or economic competition over energy supplies.
2.3 Tensions between Energy Transition and Energy Security in the U.S.
This type of research focuses on the relationship between America’s energy transition and energy security. Traditionally, U.S. energy security has been defined by increasing domestic fossil fuel production and reducing external energy dependence. Under the current energy levels, energy transition faces vulnerabilities, manifested in the instability of renewable energy, insufficient reserves of key technologies, and a high dependence of global supply chains on strategic energy resources. Discussions on this issue primarily stem from the significant impacts accompanying energy transition, involving both security paradigms and economic structures. Some studies indicate that energy transition will ultimately disrupt the carbon paradigm that has supported energy security policies since the 1970s, producing starkly different impacts on energy-exporting and importing countries. In terms of economic structure, renewable energy transition may resemble the “Great Transformation” of the 19th century, leading to a deeper structural transformation of the political economy underlying the world order. Therefore, under the combined effects of strategic considerations and uncertainties, tensions between energy transition and energy security are inevitable, as reflected in some scholars’ research. Some studies suggest that energy transition will exacerbate existing energy security issues, emphasizing the need to strengthen international cooperation and invest in renewable energy infrastructure and technology, while also preparing for responses to emergencies. Other studies explore how external shocks, such as the Ukraine crisis, have prompted countries to reassess their energy security policies, suggesting that the war may lead to a short-term rebound in fossil fuels but simultaneously create opportunities for accelerating global energy policy transformation, particularly in renewable energy investment and technology research and development. To explore solutions, some scholars view the tension between energy security and energy transition as a systemic risk, introducing corresponding measurable indicators to promote the transition to renewable energy without compromising current energy security.
In summary, existing research provides an overview of the security research landscape in America’s energy transition, offering some explanations for the role of security in this process and laying a foundation for this article’s research. However, the author believes that there are still two areas that can be further improved: first, existing research has not considered internal factors within the U.S., separating security and the U.S. energy transition process as independent elements, and has not explored the “embeddedness” of security, thereby neglecting the internal mechanistic logic of how security can smoothly enter the U.S. energy transition process and be incorporated into the highest political agenda of the nation. Through what pathways does security exert its influence in this process? Second, existing research lacks attention to the impact of “embedded” security in the global governance agenda during the U.S. energy transition process. Currently, there is little systematic research in academia on the “embeddedness” of security in the U.S. energy transition process, and this issue has rarely been addressed in the global governance agenda. However, America’s energy transition is not only a domestic policy issue but also an important component of global climate and energy governance. Under the dual influence of advancing global climate governance and changing geopolitical situations, energy transition is an inevitable trend for the future. As the world’s only superpower, the impacts brought by embedded security will inevitably spill over globally, thereby affecting global climate and energy governance. In light of this, this article introduces the sociological concept of “embedding” to study the underlying logic, pathways, and impacts of security embedded in America’s energy transition from a micro perspective, deeply analyzing the mechanisms behind this phenomenon.
3. “Embedded” Security: The Logical Mainline of America’s Energy Transition
The concept of “embedding” originated from new economic sociology. As an important component of the substantialist approach, Polanyi formally proposed the concept of “embedding” in “The Great Transformation,” becoming an important perspective for understanding social integration from the levels of social relations and social systems. Polanyi argued that “all economies are embedded and entangled in social relations and institutions,” and differences in economic types can be explained by the “embedding” of economic activities in other social institutions, indicating that the economy cannot become an independent and autonomous domain relative to society as a whole. Subsequently, Mark Granovetter further developed the term “embeddedness.” Granovetter used network theory as a way to connect economic and social relations, focusing on the relationships between actors and forming an explanatory framework of structural and relational embeddedness. He argued that economic behavior is rooted in social structures, and “most actions are tightly embedded in interpersonal networks,” meaning that actors do not act like atoms outside of social contexts; their actions are embedded in specific, ongoing social relational systems. Sharon Zukin and Paul DiMaggio, critiquing neoclassical models, proposed four “embeddedness” characteristics of economic behavior: cognitive, cultural, political, and structural, respectively introducing four types of embedding: cognitive embeddedness, cultural embeddedness, political embeddedness, and structural embeddedness, all of which are “socially constructed frameworks” for embedding mechanisms of economic actions. These studies generally follow the core structure of Polanyi’s concept of “embedding,” with specific differences mainly in the structural levels of economic and social relations and the breadth and depth of boundary spaces.
The concept of “embedding” used in this article is based on existing research’s core definitions, combined with security-related ideas, to extract the connotation of “embedded” security based on the energy transition process. This concept can be defined as follows: first, security is part of the entire energy transition system. Security is the background knowledge of energy transition, arising alongside the sovereignty of nation-states, continuously integrating with the energy transition process and thus internalizing as its formal component. Second, security occupies a key node in the energy transition network. The participants and policy actions related to security and energy transition are interconnected, forming the network structure of energy transition, with security positioned centrally, capable of shaping the agency of actors and constituting the logical starting point for new pathways. Third, security connects the concepts and actions of energy transition, achieving their interaction. Security, as an important driving force of energy transition, runs through the entire process from top-level design to specific execution.
The U.S. energy transition process has fundamentally achieved deep embedding of security within it. Strategic documents within the U.S. defense and intelligence systems play a pivotal role in examining the role of security in America’s energy transition; documents released by the U.S. Department of Energy also hold significant value. Based on the intensity of clean energy transition development and the results achieved, this article takes the Obama administration as a starting point, examining the discussions on energy transition in relevant documents from the U.S. defense and intelligence systems and the U.S. Department of Energy from the Obama administration to the present (see Table 1), exploring the logical mainline of America’s energy transition.
Table 1: Discussions on Energy and Climate in U.S. Strategic Documents Related to Security
The aforementioned strategic documents’ considerations regarding energy transition indicate that security is the logical mainline in the U.S. energy transition process, possessing three attributes: objectives, means, and outcomes, meaning that the U.S. energy transition process follows the logic of “for security – utilizing security – achieving security.” After President Obama took office, he initiated a new energy strategy, examining energy transition from a security perspective. He pointed out that America’s long-term prosperity and security cannot rely on consumptive resources, and renewable energy is crucial for America’s security and future. With the introduction of the “Clean Energy Plan,” “Clean Power Plan,” and the “American Clean Energy and Security Act,” energy transition has been incorporated into U.S. strategic considerations and daily policy practices. Although President Trump reversed some of the clean energy policies of the Obama administration, he did not abandon energy transition. To some extent, during Trump’s administration, climate factors showed signs of being reinforced in U.S. national security, with wind and solar power generation continuing to grow during his term. Under the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical shocks, energy transition has advanced further during the Biden administration, with clean energy becoming a national security issue. According to the 2022 “National Security Strategy,” the climate crisis has surpassed non-traditional security categories, becoming a national security challenge alongside geopolitical challenges. Concerns about a potential reversal of America’s energy transition future arose following Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election, but Republican states in the U.S. have largely remained the biggest beneficiaries of Biden’s clean energy plans, contributing 70% of the nation’s wind power in 2022. Based on considerations of the economic and security aspects of renewable energy, as well as the bipartisan consensus on the “Inflation Reduction Act” (IRA), the changes brought by the new government are likely to be more about adjustments in details rather than disruptive shocks, and the inertia generated by “embedded” security in the U.S. energy transition process will continue to play a role.
4. The Underlying Logic and Pathways of Security Embedded in America’s Energy Transition
4.1 The Underlying Logic of Security Embedded in America’s Energy Transition
The energy transition in the U.S. is profoundly influenced by security logic, which is reflected not only in the policy discourse of the U.S. government but also validated in policy practices. The reasons for this can be explored from three aspects: the traditional U.S. security ideology, the power attributes of energy, and the inertia of U.S. institutions.
4.1.1 Traditional U.S. Security Ideology
The embedding of security logic in the U.S. energy transition process aligns with traditional U.S. security ideology and is a projection of American security ideology. The U.S. has always placed great importance on national security and has developed a three-in-one national security system of “ideology-institution-tool.” U.S. national interests often manifest in the form of security and threats, rooted in the practices of national construction and the process of political change, emphasizing internal coordination and external threat perception, leading to a strong strategic concern and preventive awareness in U.S. security ideology. The process of transitioning from fossil energy to clean energy is inherently a strategic shift, often signifying a spatial reconstruction of global energy distribution, the shaping of energy power, and the expansion of national comprehensive strength, making it an important arena for future national competition. The strategic nature of energy transition aligns with the U.S. security ideology’s tradition of foresight, naturally leading the U.S. government to incorporate energy transition into its security agenda and promote it through security logic, making energy security, including clean energy, an important subset of U.S. security strategy.
Security possesses a tool attribute, often utilized by the U.S. government as a policy means. In international politics, “security has become a flag that flutters, a label that is used,” and imprecise terminology surrounding energy security is frequently exploited by politicians to promote specific policy choices. The U.S. national security ideology has not formed a clear concept or defined limits, granting the U.S. government significant autonomy and agency in defining security. Applying security logic to America’s energy transition reflects the continuation of U.S. security means, where the government uses security as a tool to promote or hinder the energy transition process based on its positive or negative perceptions of the issue.
4.1.2 The Power Attributes of Energy
The power attributes of energy prompt the U.S. to consider energy issues from a security perspective. For a long time, the U.S. has been a major producer and consumer of energy globally, with energy intertwined with U.S. hegemony. The rise and fall of the international energy system led by the U.S. correspond with the rise and fall of U.S. hegemony. The power attributes of energy issues manifest in two aspects: first, the scarcity of energy products. Fossil fuels are non-renewable resources, and their uneven global distribution creates asymmetries between demand and supply, making them an important resource in international political competition. Second, the generative role of energy advantages in domain power. Power consists of tangible material power and intangible non-material power, with energy, represented by oil, constituting a nation’s tangible power. Countries with abundant energy resources often occupy advantageous positions in this domain and rely on this resource to influence other nations, a capacity that will further expand in interdependent contexts. As Harvey O’Connor stated, “Whoever possesses oil possesses the world.” The oil embargo by OPEC countries in the 1970s, demanding Western countries to cease support for Israel, and Russia’s use of oil and gas to leverage European countries during the Ukraine crisis are typical examples of energy power utilization.
This power attribute continues into the energy transition process, closely related to geopolitical changes. Clean energy still possesses the capacity to shape power, with its core essence unchanged, only its manifestations varying. First, the threshold for acquiring power has risen. The power advantage in energy transition is no longer reflected in resource quantity but rather in leading clean energy technologies and the ability to establish regulations, requiring higher barriers for acquiring new power advantages. Second, the points of power contention have shifted. Energy transition will lead to a shift from dependence on fossil fuels to dependence on critical materials, with green minerals such as copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, and rare earths becoming new points of contention, triggering new geopolitical risks and becoming the focus of competition among nations.
4.1.3 The Inertia of U.S. Institutions
The U.S. electoral system and presidential emergency powers provide the possibility for embedding security logic into the energy transition process.
First, the U.S. electoral system emphasizes the role of rhetorical strategies. The U.S. is the most powerful yet feels the least secure country in the world, and security factors only gain particular attention from the public when they reflect domestic social security issues. This characteristic is projected into the U.S. electoral system, where candidates often gain strength by speaking about “security.” In the politics of voting, security threats do not arise naturally; language of fear and threat often attracts voters, and discourse related to security increases the potential for candidates’ claims to resonate with voters’ beliefs, feelings, and emotions, thus becoming a means of political mobilization.
Second, presidential emergency powers provide institutional guarantees for seeking clean energy transition in the name of security. A state of emergency signifies insecurity, and the U.S. has historically followed the logic of “setting threats – taking action – achieving security” when declaring a state of emergency to address national security issues. The presidential emergency powers, established in institutional form, underscore the importance of security within this context. In 1976, the U.S. Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act (NEA), granting the president the power to declare a national emergency based on laws authorized by Congress. However, the National Emergencies Act does not clearly define what constitutes a “national emergency,” granting the president broad discretion in this regard. In the absence of a statutory definition, the meaning of a national emergency is simply defined as “an unforeseen combination of circumstances requiring immediate action or the resulting state.” The climate crisis falls within the category of emergencies, and the range of emergency actions derived from it is broad, primarily exploring actions in the energy sector. The National Emergencies Act, the Defense Production Act (DPA), and the Stafford Act establish legal emergencies and set the defense framework, serving as the basis for the legality of presidential actions. These laws expand the president’s powers regarding energy and climate issues—under a state of emergency, the National Emergencies Act authorizes the president to prohibit crude oil exports, halt oil and gas drilling, and restrict international trade and investment in fossil fuels; the Defense Production Act authorizes the president to expedite the production and construction of energy critical to national security, including the production of clean energy products, utilizing federal purchasing power and federal loans to support clean energy deployment; the Stafford Act pertains to the establishment of resilient distributed renewable energy systems.
4.2 Pathways for Security Embedded in America’s Energy Transition
Incorporating security logic into the energy agenda is a systematic and holistic project. The U.S. primarily achieves the successful embedding of security logic into its energy transition through the following pathways.
4.2.1 Cognitive Embedding of Security: Linking Climate Issues to Construct Survival Security
In discourse and practice, the U.S. government constructs a consistency dimension between energy transition and climate security, transferring the threat attributes of climate to energy transition issues, thereby concluding that if the U.S. can successfully achieve a renewable energy transition, the survival threats posed by climate change may disappear, and vice versa. This can be glimpsed in the statements and actions of the U.S. government, think tanks, and media.
First, from the perspective of the U.S. government, the recognition of the threat posed by climate change to national security has generally been strengthening. Although there are significant differences between the two U.S. parties regarding climate change, the threats posed by climate change have been directly or indirectly acknowledged and emphasized in official documents. The 2015 National Security Strategy released by the Obama administration mentioned the term “climate change” 13 times, stating that “climate change poses an urgent and increasingly severe threat to national security,” highlighting the importance of climate threats in the top-level design of U.S. security. The 2017 National Security Strategy released by the Trump administration removed climate change from the list of national security threats, but this does not mean that the U.S. government abandoned climate change management. Notably, during the Trump administration, the Department of Defense continued its firm stance on climate change, with the coupling of climate factors and the Department of Defense deepening during this period. Then-Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis insisted that climate change is real and poses a threat to U.S. overseas interests and Pentagon assets worldwide; the Department of Defense released a series of documents related to climate change, such as the “Climate Risk Analysis,” “Addressing the Climate Crisis,” and the “2022 Climate Adaptation Plan Progress Report,” with the “Defense Strategy” and “Quadrennial Defense Review” also incorporating discussions on climate change. Subsequently, the importance of climate change in the Biden administration’s policy agenda has continuously increased. Since taking office, President Biden and his national security team have referred to climate change as a “survival threat” to the U.S. and the world. The 2022 National Security Strategy confirmed this positioning, listing climate change as the primary security threat facing the U.S. and placing it at the center of policy formulation regarding China, the Arctic, and many other regions globally. Concerns about a potential reversal of America’s energy transition future arose following Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election, but Republican states in the U.S. have largely remained the biggest beneficiaries of Biden’s clean energy plans, contributing 70% of the nation’s wind power in 2022. Based on considerations of the economic and security aspects of renewable energy, as well as the bipartisan consensus on the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the changes brought by the new government are likely to be more about adjustments in details rather than disruptive shocks, and the inertia generated by “embedded” security in the U.S. energy transition process will continue to play a role.
Second, from the perspective of U.S. think tanks, they reaffirm the consistency between climate change, energy transition, and national security. Mainstream think tanks focus on the relationship between climate change and U.S. national security. The U.S. Navy Center has released a series of reports assessing the impact of climate on national security, with the first report being the 2007 “National Security and Climate Change Threat,” which stated that climate change poses a serious threat to U.S. national security, acting as a “threat multiplier” exacerbating conflicts in vulnerable countries. The second report, released in 2014, titled “National Security and Climate Change Risks,” further confirmed the security threats posed by climate change, stating that climate change is not a future threat but a current reality that will negatively impact the U.S. economy, domestic infrastructure, and military capabilities. The Army Research Office has expressed similar views in its reports, asserting that climate change poses direct and indirect threats to U.S. national security. The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) released a briefing in 2017 on the impacts of climate change on national security, emphasizing that the threats posed by climate change are widespread and require attention from the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Think tanks often view energy transition as a pathway to address climate threats. The Federation of American Scientists acknowledges the role of energy transition in climate action, asserting that the shift from fossil fuels to clean energy is key to the U.S.’s efforts to mitigate climate change. Based on the 2007 climate assessment, the U.S. Navy Center subsequently released reports titled “The Arrival of the Renewable Energy Era,” “The Nation’s Energy Dependence,” and “America’s International Competitiveness,” exploring the possibilities and specific strategies of clean energy as a pathway to address the security threats posed by climate change. In 2009, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) stated in its report “Security, Low-Carbon Energy Economic Roadmap: Balancing Energy Security and Climate Change” that to address climate change, a thorough transformation of the energy system is necessary, including improving energy efficiency, developing low-carbon technologies, and diversifying energy sources. The Brookings Institution discussed the dual challenges of energy security and global climate change in its report “Building a Secure Energy Future,” emphasizing the need to view climate protection as an inherent aspect of energy security and reduce the use of carbon-intensive technologies.
Finally, from the perspective of U.S. media, media discourse consistently plays a significant role in cognitive reflection and shaping, influencing government policy, public attitudes, and climate agendas. The quantity of media coverage on climate change in the U.S. has been steadily increasing, with the tone of discourse becoming more intense. The Media and Climate Change Observatory (MeCCO) has tracked data on climate change or global warming coverage in major U.S. newspapers such as The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times, revealing a basic map of mainstream media coverage on climate. Data shows that U.S. news coverage of climate change reached a historic high in 2021. Over the past 15 years, the language used in media coverage of climate change has shifted from “global warming” and “greenhouse effect” to more emotionally charged terms like “climate emergency” and “climate disaster.” Between 2020 and 2021, the use of the term “climate disaster” in U.S. news media increased by half, indicating that “climate change is no longer just a scientific story; it has become a political, economic, social, and cultural story.” Regarding the relationship between climate change and energy transition, existing mainstream media have reached a basic consensus that energy transition is an effective pathway to address climate change. Opinions in The New York Times affirm the positive role of renewable energy in addressing climate change, suggesting that increasing renewable energy production can lower the costs associated with preventing climate change. The Washington Post argues that the climate change crisis is among the top priorities for Americans, and efforts by countries to subsidize renewable energy are still far from sufficient. The Wall Street Journal primarily discusses the economic factors hindering energy transition but does not deny the potential economic significance of energy transition.
In summary, the positioning of climate change, energy transition, and national security by the U.S. government, think tanks, and media has shaped American society’s understanding and judgment of the relationship among these three elements, equating energy transition with security and providing a rational basis for embedding the security framework into America’s energy transition process.
4.2.2 Political Embedding of Security: Highlighting Threat Scenarios and Binding Core Interests
The U.S. government emphasizes the challenges posed by “others” in the energy transition process by defining external threats, binding energy transition to America’s core interests, thereby making the security framework a key to winning long-term competition among great powers.
First, defining external threats stimulates domestic threat perceptions. Here, the external threat primarily refers to China. The identity framework of traditional “American exceptionalism” inherently embeds a binary opposition of “self-other” identity. In terms of energy transition, victim narratives become an important means of U.S. “security mobilization.” On one hand, the U.S. highlights the “threatening” nature of China in the clean energy sector. U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan stated that China is the only country with both the willingness to reshape the international order and the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological capabilities to achieve this goal. China produces 80% of the world’s solar panels and about two-thirds of electric vehicles, wind turbines, and lithium-ion batteries, and is the world’s largest producer of rare earth elements (REE), possessing over half of the global processing capacity for aluminum, indium, lithium, silicon, and rare earth elements. The U.S. emphasizes China’s “dominant” position in the clean energy supply chain, with the composite identity of “adversary” and “capable” making China’s actions inherently threatening. By linking energy transition and new energy to geopolitics, the U.S. activates traditional security imaginations regarding fossil fuels and geopolitics, ultimately transforming concerns about energy transition into actions related to U.S. national security. On the other hand, the U.S. emphasizes the damage it suffers. The U.S. government accuses Chinese-produced electric vehicles, solar panels, and other products of harming the U.S. economy and workers. In February 2024, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley proposed the “Protect American Auto Workers from Chinese Harm Act,” stating, “We must put American workers first, bring jobs back to American soil, and protect American auto workers from the survival threats posed by China.” Similar statements have also been made by U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who stated that China’s massive investments in clean energy products and advanced manufacturing create an unfair competitive environment, putting U.S. workers and businesses at risk. Such accusations of “insecurity” posed by China carry significant implications for garnering support from the American public.
Second, binding energy transition to U.S. core interests. The only solid foundation for U.S. sustainable foreign policy is a clear understanding of U.S. national interests. A report released by the Belfer Center defines U.S. national interests, identifying five crucial interests: preventing large-scale weapons of mass destruction from being used against the U.S. homeland or its overseas forces; ensuring the survival and cooperation of U.S. allies, shaping a favorable international system; preventing hostile great powers or failed states from emerging on U.S. borders; ensuring the viability and stability of major global systems, including trade, financial markets, energy supply, and the environment; and establishing productive relationships with countries that may become strategic adversaries. Correspondingly, energy transition fundamentally aligns with the hierarchy of U.S. national interests. On one hand, the U.S. government positions energy transition as the greatest common denominator for uniting allies’ consensus; on the other hand, it serves as the primary pathway for stabilizing the global energy system. The competition for leadership in clean energy profoundly reshapes global geopolitics and the security and economic interests of the U.S. and its allies, making actions against climate change and energy a key matter for U.S.-ally cooperation. The joint statement released in May 2023 by the Quad leaders (the U.S., Japan, India, and Australia) emphasized strengthening cooperation to ensure the Indo-Pacific region has affordable, reliable, and secure clean energy, accelerating the clean energy transition in the region. In May 2023, G7 members reached a consensus on enhancing cooperation and coordination in clean energy supply chains, releasing the “G7 Clean Energy Economic Action Plan,” with the U.S. actively promoting the establishment of clean energy partnerships with India and the UAE. Furthermore, energy transition has become an important means for the U.S. to mitigate the impacts of traditional energy crises and stabilize the global energy system. The overlapping of geopolitical conflicts and global economic fluctuations has triggered a global energy crisis, highlighting the tension between the socio-technical system based on fossil fuel technology and that based on low-carbon technology. The changing roles of countries in energy transition are conducive to breaking the locked advantages of traditional fossil fuel powers in the energy chain, with renewable energy serving as a domestic alternative option that can reduce dependence on fossil fuels, thereby enhancing the resilience of the energy system.
In summary, the “embedded” characteristics of security in the U.S. energy transition process are closely related to the U.S. government’s construction of “insecurity,” emphasizing the threats posed by China in the clean energy sector, expanding the spectrum of interests involved in energy transition. Although there are subjective judgments and actions involved, this is significant for mobilizing social resources and pushing energy transition into the U.S. national security agenda.
4.2.3 Economic Embedding of Security: Coupling Green Economy and Expanding Multidimensional Connections
The U.S. energy transition process is always accompanied by economic considerations. The U.S. government links energy transition to the U.S. economy, positioning clean energy as a lever for driving U.S. economic growth, expanding deep connections with the U.S. economy from multiple dimensions, and leveraging the strong appeal of economic issues in American society to elevate the importance of energy issues in the U.S. social context, thereby enhancing the priority of energy transition in the U.S. political and economic security agenda.
First, highlighting the role of clean energy in U.S. economic recovery and development. Clean energy represents a new growth area for the global economy, and its economic significance becomes increasingly prominent amid a downward trend in the global economy. Research by the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicates that a new clean energy economy is emerging, with clean energy accounting for 10% of global GDP growth in 2023, adding approximately $320 billion to the world economy. By 2030, the transition to clean energy is expected to create 10.3 million new jobs globally. The U.S. is a country with a strong “merchant attribute,” and economic-related issues possess strong mobilization power in the U.S. From the outset, the U.S. government has regarded economic factors as the intrinsic driving force behind energy transition, with economic revival and climate change mitigation always accompanying each other in the U.S. energy framework. President Biden stated, “When I think of climate change, I think of jobs.” In the long run, stronger manufacturing capabilities and clean energy deployment mean low emissions, low costs, high security, and strong economic growth and resilience. The Biden administration has positioned the development of clean energy to address climate change as a crucial measure for revitalizing the middle class, committing to reducing greenhouse gas pollution by over 1 billion tons by 2030, significantly investing in clean energy to promote energy economic development, thereby lowering energy costs for the public and creating high-quality job opportunities. The Inflation Reduction Act and related infrastructure employment bills have already helped the private sector generate $200 billion in new investments in clean energy, creating over 211,000 new jobs, making the green economy created by energy transition highly significant for U.S. economic development and job growth.
Second, emphasizing the role of energy transition in the U.S.’s international economic standing. This role manifests both in product competitiveness and national economic sovereignty. In terms of product competitiveness, as a relatively new industry, clean energy represents a new economic track, implying greater uncertainty and malleability, with fixed advantages in national domains yet to be established, allowing countries to more easily gain influence in the field through the development of technologies and products. Former President Obama stated, “Renewable energy is key for America to win the future great power economic competition,” and energy transition provides an alternative option for the U.S. to maintain its hegemony. As a traditional power, the U.S. possesses a first-mover advantage in the global clean energy transition chain, with its strong economic strength and robust technological capabilities quickly translating into actual productivity, enhancing the competitiveness of clean energy-related products in the international community and accelerating the capture of global market share. Regarding national economic sovereignty, national economic sovereignty means that a country should have independent control over the key components of its economic operation and development. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the vulnerabilities of U.S. supply chains, and the weaponization of energy during the Ukraine crisis revealed a scenario similar to the oil crisis of the 1970s, with security and resilience once again becoming focal topics in the U.S. energy sector. The green energy transition, as a necessary choice, can effectively enhance the U.S.’s self-control over energy, limiting the coercive influence of other countries on the U.S.
Finally, enhancing market participation and utilizing market tools to promote U.S. energy transition. To fully leverage market forces in the U.S. energy transition, the U.S. government has introduced a series of bills, including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the Inflation Reduction Act, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (BIL). In 2009, the Obama administration passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, intending to stimulate U.S. economic recovery through investment, with renewable energy development and greenhouse gas emission reduction as important components written into the act, planning to provide $58 billion in funding support for climate and energy sectors to optimize energy efficiency, promote carbon reduction technology research and deployment of clean energy in the U.S. To quickly recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Biden administration launched an economic recovery plan, with the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act being key components. The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, plans to provide $375 billion for U.S. climate and clean energy investments over the next decade, supporting U.S. electric vehicles, solar energy, clean hydrogen, etc., representing the largest climate investment in U.S. history, involving five aspects: reducing energy costs, promoting energy justice, ensuring energy security, decarbonizing infrastructure, and reducing carbon emissions. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides $65 billion for upgrading and modernizing the U.S. power grid, aiming to enhance grid resilience and expand clean energy deployment.
It is evident that the U.S. government deepens the connection between energy transition and the U.S. economy and market through a series of actions, expanding the network topology of energy transition issues in American society, thereby elevating its significance in the U.S. security agenda.
5. The Multidimensional Impacts of “Embedded” Security in America’s Energy Transition
Based on the internal logic of America’s security ideology tradition, the power attributes of energy issues, and the inertia of U.S. institutions, as well as the external efforts of the U.S. government, security logic has been embedded in the U.S. energy transition process through various pathways, inevitably leading to a series of impacts. Given the spillover effects of this issue, discussions often need to consider multiple dimensions, not only limited to the U.S. domestic context but also involving global implications, producing both positive and negative effects.
5.1 Accelerating the U.S. Energy Transition Process
Currently, the role of security logic embedded in America’s energy transition is beginning to manifest. The U.S. government seeks social support, expands government power, and reduces transition resistance in the name of “security,” significantly promoting the U.S. energy transition process. This is primarily reflected in the following three aspects.
5.1.1 Increasing Public Approval
Securitization is an important driving force for political mobilization in a nation or country. Securitization is not purely a negative concept; it helps mobilize social attention and resources. Once energy transition issues are imbued with “security” connotations, they tend to gain more attention and support from the American public. A national opinion poll conducted by the American Clean Power Association (ACP) revealed that American voters have a strong intention to support clean energy development, with 93% of American voters stating that clean energy is important for the nation’s energy future. A 2022 survey by the Pew Research Center showed that 69% of Americans believe that developing renewable energy is a more important energy priority, and 72% believe that the federal government should encourage wind and solar production. A May 2023 Pew Research Center survey indicated that a significant proportion of Americans support renewable energy development, with 67% of American adults believing that the development of alternative energies such as wind, solar, and hydrogen should be prioritized over increasing fossil fuel production. Under the security framework, the public exhibits higher support for the development of clean energy and greater tolerance for government energy transition initiatives.
5.1.2 Successive Policies Related to Energy Transition
The U.S. government actively issues executive orders and documents related to energy transition. During the Obama administration, renewable energy was incorporated into the policy agenda, with the release of the “Public Lands Solar Development Roadmap,” the “Clean Energy Plan,” and the passage of the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” laying the foundation for the U.S.’s long-term climate strategy to address threats. During the Biden administration, actions related to clean energy development have further deepened, including the following documents: the “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,” the “Inflation Reduction Act,” the “Supply Chain Security Strategy for Achieving Clean Energy Transition in the U.S.,” the “U.S. National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap,” the “Building a Bridge to a More Resilient and Secure Solar Supply Chain,” and the “U.S. National Innovation Pathway.”
5.1.3 Continuous Advancement of Clean Energy Deployment
The Biden administration stimulates the development of clean energy through funding and policy tools. In 2023, the U.S. achieved historic accomplishments in clean energy investment and deployment. Since January 2021, private enterprises have announced over $500 billion in new investments, with investments related to clean energy reaching $360 billion. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts that the U.S. is expected to have 338 GW of solar installed capacity and 300 GW of wind turbine capacity by 2030.
5.2 Promoting the “Securitization” of Energy Issues
Due to its extraordinary political model, securitization inevitably institutionalizes rapid decision-making while producing adversarial outcomes. Under the logic of security, energy transition carries more political implications, with U.S. considerations often revolving around national interests, security, and competition. Under the shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine crisis, this characteristic has become more pronounced, with energy issues facing a trend of “securitization.”
5.2.1 Intensified Great Power Geopolitical Competition
Under the logic of security, competition among great powers over critical materials and technologies related to clean energy will intensify, with issues related to clean energy becoming increasingly sensitive, resembling a new “Balkans.” Existing research reveals an undeniable understanding that renewable energy transition is a process involving geopolitical and strategic restructuring, during which new winners and losers will emerge. Critical materials for clean energy, due to their scarcity, and clean energy technologies, due to their disruptive nature, become key to “winning” in energy transition, attracting particular attention from great powers like China and the U.S. Regarding critical minerals, the U.S. government has linked critical minerals to national security and economic prosperity, viewing China’s “dominant position” in critical materials as a significant threat to U.S. national security. Through onshore production and alliance systems, the U.S. is increasingly competing for critical minerals, leading to intensified global competition between the U.S. and China in this field. Regarding clean energy technology, technology often signifies regulatory power, with both the U.S. and China hoping to gain an advantageous position in the clean energy sector through technological breakthroughs. The U.S. government has implemented a series of bans and restrictive measures to suppress China’s technological development, with competition over clean energy technology between the U.S. and China intensifying and spilling over into other fields, leading to a series of secondary harms.
5.2.2 Increased Local Conflicts over Clean Energy, Heightened Instability
Energy transition significantly impacts two types of countries: first, great powers represented by China and the U.S., which, due to their strong comprehensive strength, become the main actors in the energy “battlefield”; second, mineral-rich countries in Africa and South America, which, although often small nations, hold significant importance in the global energy transition process due to their abundant mineral reserves, making them targets of competition among great powers. Transparency International’s corruption index and the Fund for Peace’s fragility index indicate that mineral-rich countries in Africa and South America are often fragile and corrupt. The U.S. views acquiring minerals from these small countries as an important means to achieve supply chain security, taking more strategic actions towards these countries, while great powers intensify their actions towards these mineral-rich nations to achieve their security objectives, which may impact the political situations in these countries, potentially exacerbating violence and conflict behaviors and reinforcing tendencies towards “resource nationalism.”
5.2.3 Strengthening the Process of De-globalization
The embedding of security logic in America’s energy transition process will exacerbate U.S. concerns about the weaponization of interdependence, promoting “decoupling” and “de-risking.” Interdependence means that actors can leverage their positions within embedded networks to gain bargaining advantages in closed systems. Security is always linked to threats and vulnerabilities; when an issue is elevated to the security domain, zero-sum games often become the starting point for thinking, and resource transfer becomes a means of competition. Under this logic, the U.S. prioritizes avoiding losses as its primary national goal, transferring clean energy manufacturing to reduce external dependencies. Additionally, the U.S. government actively builds a clean energy ally system, constructing a group centered on developed Western countries, differentiating itself from China in terms of clean energy technology, standards, and resources. Such actions will hinder the development of globalization.
5.3 Triggering Changes in Global Governance Pathways
Effective global governance relies on cooperation as its foundation. The framework formed by the U.S. emphasizing security as the logic of energy transition highlights competition, creating inherent contradictions with global governance. Due to the U.S.’s strong influence and radiation power, this contradiction is projected onto the global level, prompting changes in global governance logic, making cooperation in this field more challenging, and exacerbating governance fragmentation, with local cooperative governance between regions becoming the primary governance method. The U.S. influences global governance pathways through three main avenues: first, global governance platforms represented by the United Nations; second, the U.S. ally system; and third, the imitation of other countries.
5.3.1 Cooperation Becomes More Difficult, Great Power Politics Become More Prominent
Interdependence is one of the effective conditions for the operation of global governance networks, often involving the interests of various countries. As energy transition is imbued with more security connotations, discussions among nations in this field become more cautious. The model of complex interdependence under the “de-risking” and “decoupling” framework is challenged, with national self-interest tendencies often prevailing, and cooperative governance facing more constraints. The U.S. stance on clean energy transition significantly impacts international institutions like the United Nations and the entire international cooperation landscape. The U.S.’s security operations in energy transition will exacerbate concerns and competition among countries regarding green industries, green supply chains, and green technologies, with global green governance yielding to great power competition, hindering the implementation of global governance actions and the passage of governance documents and frameworks.
5.3.2 Regional Governance Becomes the Primary Governance Method
In the context of globalization being obstructed, regional governance constitutes an important component of global governance. Although the policy power regarding global governance issues belongs to nations, the solutions to these issues lie at transnational, regional, and global levels, with regional levels undertaking much of the work of global governance. In the context of the securitization of energy issues, achieving global governance cooperation on this issue becomes challenging, making regional cooperation a more effective option for promoting global governance, with the EU and ASEAN being typical representatives. Regional cooperation has certain advantages in governing global issues: first, governance within regions involves fewer countries, making it relatively easier to reach consensus; second, countries within regions face more common threats, leading to stronger relevance of interests; third, countries within regions possess a stronger sense of identity and cohesion, resulting in higher mobilization levels.
5.4 Triggering Fluctuations in Global Carbon Emissions
Energy security and climate security are not always aligned; transitioning to renewable energy does not mean abandoning fossil fuels. Under the discourse of security, climate security sometimes needs to yield to U.S. economic development or national interests, making the guarantee of fossil fuel supply a short-term priority, while military emissions issues are long obscured, leading to fluctuations in carbon emissions globally.
5.4.1 Fossil Fuels Align More with Short-Term National Interests
The energy crisis caused by the Ukraine crisis has altered politicians’ narratives regarding energy, with cheap fuel and stable supply becoming the primary concerns for politicians. “Rising gasoline prices always frighten incumbent presidents, as they can undermine consumer confidence and the president’s approval ratings.” To address this crisis, the U.S. government has released strategic oil reserves while urging shale oil companies to fracture more wells and expand production to stabilize prices. U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm stated, “We are in a war, and even as we accelerate towards clean energy, we want to continue seeing fossil fuel production grow; we do not want oil prices to rise.” The phenomenon of increasing fossil fuel production is not limited to the U.S.; European countries have also restarted some fossil fuel production plans, with EU subsidies for fossil fuels increasing to €123 billion in 2022, more than double that of 2021. The increase in fossil fuel production by nations will inevitably lead to an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. The Global Carbon Project (GCP) estimates that global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels (including cement) will increase by 0.8% in 2024 compared to 2023, reaching 37.4 billion tons.
5.4.2 Military Emissions Issues Remain Long Obscured
The U.S. national security strategy is predicated on expectations and fears of war, and the current level of clean energy development cannot meet the military’s needs, with fossil fuels still constituting an important security component for the U.S. military. The U.S. military is the largest consumer of fossil fuels and energy in the U.S., accounting for 77% to 80% of federal energy consumption since 2001. From 2001 to 2017, the Department of Defense’s carbon dioxide emissions totaled approximately 1.2 billion tons, with annual emissions of about 51 million tons in 2021 and 2022, exceeding those of most countries. The military falls within the traditional security domain, and under the changing global landscape, the U.S. has intensified its military activities worldwide, ensuring the military’s use of fossil fuels aligns more closely with U.S. security interests. Although the military views the world from a threat perspective and supports energy transition and climate mitigation, it does not consider its role in increasing greenhouse gas emissions as part of the problem. Based on self-assessment, the U.S. is likely to suppress the military emissions issue on the international agenda for a long time, preventing effective proposals or institutionalization of solutions.
6. Conclusion
The security logic embedded in America’s energy transition possesses “embedded” characteristics, playing a unique role in the U.S. energy transition. Many energy policies and actions implemented by the U.S. can be traced back to “security.” Since the Obama administration, energy transition has increasingly gained importance at the U.S. government level, peaking during the Biden administration. Although the Trump administration reversed some aspects, it did not halt the trend of clean energy development. Regardless of changes in U.S. administrations, the shadow of “security” always looms behind considerations of energy transition, and the security logic in energy issues has not changed, as evidenced by speeches from U.S. presidents and strategic documents released by the defense intelligence system.
Embedding security logic into America’s energy transition is based on certain conditions, and research on this issue needs to start from the intrinsic attributes of energy issues, American cultural ideologies, and institutional structures. In fact, the incorporation of security logic into America’s energy transition is not a “natural” result; it is a product of the interplay of ideologies, institutional continuities, and external efforts, filled with constructed behaviors, rhetorical discourses, and political strategies. By linking climate issues, setting threat scenarios, and coupling green economy, the U.S. government ultimately achieves deep embedding of security in energy transition issues.
Embedding security logic into America’s energy transition will have significant impacts on both the U.S. and the world. On one hand, “security” as an effective tool can attract social attention and promote the introduction of energy transition-related agendas; on the other hand, prioritizing “security” in energy transition may lead to the inclusion of many issues that do not traditionally possess security attributes into the security agenda, resulting in the “over-securitization” of energy transition issues. China should pay attention to the impacts brought by this phenomenon, acknowledge the positive role of security tools in energy transition, while enhancing strategic resolve to maintain a clear understanding of the competition and cooperation between China and the U.S. in the clean energy sector, avoiding falling into the “over-securitization” trap.
Countries need to recognize the potential impacts of the phenomenon of security logic embedded in America’s energy transition on global governance and greenhouse gas emissions. These impacts are more subtle but should not be overlooked. With the U.S.’s strong influence, the impact of security logic in U.S. energy actions is projected globally, leading to changes in global governance pathways. The U.S. is the largest cumulative carbon emitter globally, and under the logic of security, fossil fuels will long occupy a place in the U.S. energy structure. This mixed energy structure is likely to be the mainstream structure of future energy transition. Under external stimuli, fossil fuel usage may rise, leading to periodic fluctuations in global carbon emissions, as exemplified by the carbon emission fluctuations caused by the Ukraine crisis. The global governance under the influence of security logic faces greater challenges, and countries should seek more effective cooperation methods, with major powers like China needing to uphold the core position of the United Nations in global governance and actively participate in, promote, and lead global governance cooperation.
Swipe left and right to view the table of contents for the first issue of 2025
Reviewed by: Ming Shuang
Initial Review: Qi Yongying
Edited by: Yang Jiachun
View Recent Articles
1. Zhou Shuhui: China’s Energy Conservation and Carbon Reduction Green Transition Policies Intensively Released, Carbon Peak Goals Expected to be Achieved Ahead of Schedule | International Petroleum Economics 2. Zhang Yanyun: The “Belt and Road” Green Energy Cooperation Action Plan Released, Green Energy Cooperation Aiding Global Sustainable Development | International Petroleum Economics
3. Chang Yuwen: China’s Deep Earth and Deep Water Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Continues to Create New Records, “Seven-Year Action Plan” Achieves Remarkable Results | International Petroleum Economics
4. Wang Pei: The New Energy Industry Flourishes, Finished Oil Consumption Reaches Peak, Accelerating China’s Energy Transition | International Petroleum Economics
5. Xu Dong: International Oil Companies’ Transformation Development Strategies Readjusted, Oil and Gas Business Shows Clear “Core Re-integration” Characteristics | International Petroleum Economics
International Petroleum Economics
New Issue Released in January 2025
Core Journal of Chinese Science and Technology
(Social Science Volume)
Subscription Phone (WeChat):
18601968665
International Petroleum Economics
Postal Issue Number: 82-307
 |
International Petroleum Economics Every article is worth savoring · Every issue is worth collecting Scan the QR code to follow us |