While the number of definitions and metrics of energy security have expanded rapidly (Ang et al. 2015; Sovacool and Mukherjee 2011), surprisingly little attention has been paid to its core concern: the fear of doing without. Shortages and scarcities are the problem to be solved, hardly ever the object of study itself. Inspired by critical energy security studies and the scarcity, abundance and sufficiency literature, this paper problematises the fears behind energy security through a theoretical review that discloses not one but four conceptualisations of scarcity: shortages, absolute scarcity, relative scarcity and scarcification. Subsequently, this paper makes two arguments. First, that goal-oriented definitions of energy security tend to defend the demand and supply of existing energy systems and hence reperform its exclusions, injustices, inequality and exploitations. Second, that in order to break this cycle it is necessary to re-imagine energy security from a goal into a set of security practices that fall within larger practices of scarcification, paying special attention to the unlimited desire behind relative scarcity that drives most of these practices. The paper concludes with a call for energy security scholars to take up the politics of energy security and recognize their role in reproducing and naturalising particular scarcities.

尽管能源安全的定义和度量标准的数量迅速增加（Ang等，2015； Sovacool和Mukherjee，2011），但令人惊讶的是，人们很少关注其核心关注点：担心不这样做。短缺和稀缺是要解决的问题，几乎从来不是研究的对象。受关键的能源安全研究和稀缺性，丰富性和充足性文献的启发，本文通过一项理论综述对能源安全背后的担忧提出了质疑，该理论综述仅揭示了一种稀缺性的概念，而不是四种：稀缺性，绝对稀缺性，相对稀缺性和稀缺性。随后，本文提出了两个论点。首先，以目标为导向的能源安全定义往往会捍卫现有能源系统的需求和供应，因此会重新执行其排除，不公正，不平等和剥削。其次，为了打破这一循环，有必要将能源安全从目标重新构想为属于较大规模的稀疏化实践的一组安全性实践，尤其要注意驱动相对应的稀缺性背后的无限欲望。实践。本文最后呼吁能源安全学者关注能源安全的政治问题，并认识到他们在特定稀缺性的繁殖和自然化中的作用。