This report aims to inquire into the meaning of the energy security concept. It is argued in the report that although the “multidimensional” and “polysemic” na- ture of the energy security concept makes it hard to define it uniformly, a framework can be formed to understand the very mean- ing of the term through analyzing the com- mon dimensions and components and dif- ferent components of various definitions. In this respect, the 4A’s of APERC’s ener- gy security definition are used to provide a framework for combining different dimen- sions and components of the diverse defini- tions and to lay the groundwork for devel- oping a framework to eliminate differences among various energy security definitions to some extent. That framework defines en- ergy security more widely as “having energy autonomy from the absence of any threat” in the form of a better understanding of the concept. Nevertheless, it is also argued in the report that redefining the energy secu- rity concept would not be sufficient to in- quire about its meaning since the concept remains incompatible with the internation- al system and the anthropogenic energy sys- tem of the era.
For this reason, it is argued in the re- port that although energy security literature is rich enough, the necessity to reframe it reveals that the concept is approached and defined mainly through fossil fuels when the necessities of the 20th and 21st centuries are considered. In this regard, the provid- ed framework is strengthened by reframing dimensions of energy security by including “renewable energy” as a fundamental ele- ment, securitizing “renewable energy,” and initiating its integration with the trends of capitalism to understand the energy secu- rity concept fully. Finally, it is concluded in the report that the energy security con- cept should be reframed and de-fossilized to make it more relevant to the current era.
The full text of the report is available at the link below.
