Decarbonization and its discontents: a critical energy justice perspective on four low-carbon transitions

By Benjamin Sovacool, Mari Martiskainen, Andrew Hook, Lucy Baker. Climatic Change, 2019

373 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Low-carbon transitions are often assumed as positive phenomena, because they supposedly reduce carbon emissions, yet without vigilance, there is evidence that they can in fact create new injustices and vulnerabilities, while also failing to address pre-existing structural drivers of injustice in energy markets and the wider socio-economy. With this in mind, we examine four European low-carbon transitions from an unusual normative perspective: that of energy justice. Because a multitude of studies looks at the co-benefits of renewable energy, low-carbon mobility, or climate change mitigation, we instead ask in this paper what are the types of injustices associated with low-carbon transitions? Relatedly, in what ways do low-carbon transitions worsen social risks or vulnerabilities? Lastly, what policies might be deployed to make these transitions more just? We answer these questions by first elaborating an “energy justice” framework consisting of four distinct dimensions—distributive justice (costs and benefits), procedural justice (due process), cosmopolitan justice (global externalities), and recognition justice (vulnerable groups). We then examine four European low-carbon transitions—nuclear power in France, smart meters in Great Britain, electric vehicles in Norway, and solar energy in Germany—through this critical justice lens. In doing so, we draw from original data collected from 64 semi-structured interviews with expert participants as well as five public focus groups and the monitoring of twelve large internet forums. We document 120 distinct energy injustices across these four transitions, including 19 commonly recurring injustices. We aim to show how when low-carbon transitions unfold, deeper injustices related to equity, distribution, and fairness invariably arise.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Pollution, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b15277ce9a316b7f786617358608976073c27c8d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

  1. Benjamin Sovacool

In Pollution

  1. Benjamin Sovacool
  2. Kirsten E. H. Jenkins
  3. D. McCauley
  4. Mary-Kate Burns
  5. Niek Mouter
  6. Nicholas Hacking
  7. Ralitsa Hiteva
  8. Vlado Vivoda

In Sociology and Political Science

  1. Benjamin Sovacool
  2. Kirsten E. H. Jenkins
  3. D. McCauley
  4. Ralitsa Hiteva

Citations in the corpus