Decolonizing energy justice from the ground up: Political ecology, ontology, and energy landscapes

Abstract

The purpose of the paper is to expand the concept of energy justice by considering the struggles over coloniality and cultural identity in the Global South and their interactions with the spatial and historical development of energy systems and the ongoing forms of energy transitions. The article argues that the current conceptualizations of energy justice cannot be separated from the politics of incumbency as, without a decolonial critique, they tend to reproduce rather than transform hegemonic power relations. To be transformative, energy justice must be articulated from the politics of actually existing unsustainability. In other words, the starting position for energy justice must be that energy injustices are already embedded in existing energy systems and energy policies. Drawing on Latin-American decolonial thought, and the work of political ecologists around energy, this article advocates looking beyond a universalized conception of justice towards an approach where justice is based on a sense of place and is informed by the community’s relationship with the land. Using the concept of energy landscapes, the article puts forth an alternative way of understanding energy systems and conceptualizations of justice in decolonial settings.

Decolonizing energy justice: Identity politics, attachment to land, and warfare

“…Carlos Tornel’s (2022) recent review article, “Decolonizing energy justice from the ground up,” finally holds energy justice accountable. Energy justice, by emphasizing energy, creates its own niche and avoids the criticisms and self-reflections made on environmental justice.…”

“…Energy justice, by emphasizing energy, creates its own niche and avoids the criticisms and self-reflections made on environmental justice. Critical (Pellow, 2016), decolonial (Álvarez and Coolsaet, 2020; Rodriguez, 2020; Temper, 2019), and anarchist (Dunlap, 2023) critiques of environmental justice thereby reinforce Tornel’s (2022) concerns. Liberal academia—prioritizing modernist lifestyles and ignoring recalcitrant political tensions in environmental conflicts (Dunlap, 2021a)—along with the Sustainable Development Goals (Menton et al, 2020), among them Goal 7 that aims to “[e]nsure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all,” makes Tornel’s (2022) article highly valuable in energy, geography, and political ecology research.…”

“…4–5). Tornel (2022: 3–5), then, shows that even with great self-reflection by energy justice scholars (e.g., Sovacool, Jenkins, Newell, and Heffron) that “[w]ithout decolonial critique, energy justice tends to reproduce rather than transform hegemonic power relations.” In approximately five points, Tornel (2022: 2–6) shows how “[a]cademic formulations of energy justice (EJ) often rely on Western and universalistic notions of justice” (p. 2), which tends towards reproducing “a Western system of thought.” Energy justice, secondly, fails to account for other ontologies and epistemologies when understanding the function and harm of energy development, which—thirdly—stands on ontological assumptions that reinforce specific knowledge hierarchies. Energy justice, as it stands, implicitly engages in “epistemic discrimination” (Dunlap, 2022b: 342–3).…”

“…Finally, drawing on the work of Daggett (2019) and Lohmann (2021), energy justice ignores the ideological subjectivities and reductive simplifications of thermodynamics. Overall, Tornel (2022: 6) makes the cogent point that “concepts like recognition, distribution, participation, cosmopolitanism, and restorative justice often affirm, rather than transform, the underlying conditions of social and environmental injustice embedded in the energy system.”…”

“…Cultural studies, or academic decolonial theory (Dunlap, 2022a), as opposed to anti-colonial struggle on the ground, tend to portray a simplistic dichotomy of Indigenous people good versus non-Indigenous people bad, viewing the former as exterior of colonialism/statism/capitalism (Wilson, 2022). This influence from academic decolonial theory generates two problematic effects on Tornel’s (2022) article: essentializing identity and reducing the complexity of conflict. Identity politics fail when recognizing Indigenous (and non-Indigenous) peoples who embrace capitalism, various authoritarian politics (fascism, Leninism, Stalinism, etc.…”