Mixed-methods discourse analysis reveals shifting energy policy priorities in German parliamentary debates across recent crises, highlighting how systemic disruptions elevate energy supply...
Background The ongoing threat of climate change necessitates a comprehensive restructuring of national energy systems, shifting them from a fossil-fuel basis toward low-carbon pathways to achieve substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In this context, this work examines the effects of national and global events on climate change mitigation policy, taking the German energy transition, also known as “Energiewende” as a case study. By tracing shifts in political discourse, this study examines changing prioritizations among energy policy targets and explores the circumstances that shaped discourse developments during periods of crisis and transformation, as well as the role of key triggers or pre-existing “windows of opportunity” presented by political and social events. The analysis places particular emphasis on specific systemic factors, including the Fridays For Future demonstrations, the 2021 government change, the COVID-19 Pandemic, and the war in Ukraine. Results Using a mixed qualitative/semi-quantitative discourse analysis of Bundestag plenary sessions from 2017 to 2022, the study evaluates the ongoing relevance of the energy triangle approach’s qualitative targets. The energy triangle retained its focus on the three primary energy policy objectives despite the occurrence of various significant systemic events. However, the relative prominence of these targets changed over time and temporally coincided with major systemic developments. Within the energy triangle approach, security of supply in particular assumed a distinctive role within the evolving discourse framework. Conclusions Examining Germany’s political discourse provides insight into the dynamics of energy policy debates during periods of crisis and transformation. Furthermore, the study demonstrates how analyzing parliamentary debates can inform comparative assessments of energy policy developments in various European countries and beyond.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Venghaus et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: