Tapping the Conversation on the Meaning of Decarbonization: Discourses and Discursive Agency in EU Politics on Low-Carbon Fuels for Maritime Shipping

Abstract

EU politics on decarbonizing shipping is an argumentative endeavor where different policy actors strive try to influence others to see problems and policy solutions according to their perspectives to gain monopoly on the framing and design of policies. This article critically analyzes, by means of argumentative discourse analysis, the politics and policy process related to the recent adoption of the FuelEU Maritime regulation, the world’s first legislation to set requirements for decarbonizing maritime shipping. Complementing previous research focusing on the roles and agency of policy entrepreneurs and beliefs of advocacy coalitions active in the policy process, this paper dives deeper into the politics of the new legislation. It aims to explore and explain the discursive framing and politics of meaning-making. By analyzing the political and social meaning-making of the concept “decarbonizing maritime shipping”, this paper helps us understand why the legislation was designed in the way it was. Different narratives, storylines and discourses defining different meanings of decarbonization are analyzed. So is the agency of policy actors trying to mutate the different meanings into a new meaning. Two discourses developed in dialectic conversation framed the policy proposals and subsequent debates in the policy process, focusing on (i) incremental change and technology neutrality to meet moderate emission reductions and maintain competitiveness, and (ii) transformative change and technology specificity to meet zero emissions and gain competitiveness and global leadership in the transition towards a hydrogen economy. Policy actors successfully used discursive agency strategies such as multiple functionality and vagueness to navigate between and resolve conflicts between the two discourses. Both discourses are associated with the overarching ecological modernization discourse and failed to include issue of climate justice and a just transition. The heritage of the ecological modernization discourse creates lock-ins for a broader decarbonization discourse, thus stalling a just transition.