The whole systems energy injustice of four European low-carbon transitions

Sovacool, Benjamin K.; Hook, Andrew; Martiskainen, Mari; Baker, Lucy

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101958

Cited by 136 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Apart from limiting climate change, benefits include reduced air pollution 6 , 7 , chances for economic development and new employment 8 , 9 , additional revenues for local communities and landowners 10 , 11 , and decreased dependence from imported fossil fuels 12 . On the other hand, burdens include increased electricity system costs 13 , 14 , adverse impacts on ecosystems and wildlife 15 , visual and sound annoyance 16 , 17 , threats to employment due to phase-outs of fossil fuels 18 , 19 , land use conflicts 20 , and decreased property values 9 , 21 . Until now, renewable capacity was being unevenly deployed across European regions 22 , 23 , indicating that the associated regional impacts are unevenly distributed as well.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regional impacts of electricity system transition in Central Europe until 2035

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Achieving current electricity sector targets in Central Europe (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Poland and Switzerland) will redistribute regional benefits and burdens at sub-national level. Limiting emerging regional inequalities would foster the implementation success. We model one hundred scenarios of electricity generation, storage and transmission for 2035 in these countries for 650 regions and quantify associated regional impacts on system costs, employment, greenhouse gas and particulate matter emissions, and land use. We highlight tradeoffs among the scenarios that minimize system costs, maximize regional equality, and maximize renewable electricity generation. Here, we show that these three aims have vastly different implementation pathways as well as associated regional impacts and cannot be optimized simultaneously. Minimizing system costs leads to spatially-concentrated impacts. Maximizing regional equality of system costs has higher, but more evenly distributed impacts. Maximizing renewable electricity generation contributes to minimizing regional inequalities, although comes at higher costs and land use impacts.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regional impacts of electricity system transition in Central Europe until 2035

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Energy justice scholarship has, for the largest part, paid limited attention to the ways in which people and communities might contribute towards an energy just future from the ground-up (Forman 2017). The need for multi-scalar analysis of energy and low-carbon systems is becoming more apparent as a way to assess the holistic socioeconomic and environmental impacts of energy transitions across a variety of scales (Sovacool et al 2019). The importance of justice issues to community and local energy initiatives in a time of energy transition is an emerging strand of energy justice research.…”

Section: Social Sustainability and Energy Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Just energy transitions? Social inequities, vulnerabilities and unintended consequences

Axon

Morrissey

2020

Buildings and Cities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The transitions literature has framed energy transitions as a process involving material and social consequences. Such radical changes can also be viewed as constituting discursive dimensions, involving debate, idea exchange and value positioning. The implementation of a biomass energy system in residential buildings in a socioeconomically deprived community near Liverpool, UK, is investigated for its acceptance by, and impacts on, the community. A mixed-methods approach involving questionnaire, focus group and interview data reveal how practical, on-the-ground energy transitions are understood at the community level. Given the changes to how residents pay for their energy in the study community, from prepayment meters to pay-as-you-use methods, considerations of 'efficiency' are debated and framed on the cost of energy rather than from an environmental performance perspective. Although the intention of low-carbon energy transitions in low-income communities is to deliver economic and environmental benefits, many unintended social consequences arose from top-down decision-making choices and implementation mechanisms. These processes exacerbate economic inequalities and inequities. Justice implications arising from this study have clear repercussions for future implementation of similar, and additional, sustainability interventions that attempt to address climate change in the built environment. Practice relevance The successful implementation of a decentralised energy system requires more than a technological approach. This case study emphasises the need for extensive community engagement when undertaking local energy transitions. In particular, attention needs to be given to how vulnerable people are affected by pricing and given clear information on how to use the new system. Policy recommendations include: the choice of energy technologies should not disrupt vulnerable residents' daily routines and ability to pay; the provision of substantial pre-, during and post-installation community engagement is needed to improve familiarity with new energy systems; and adequate opportunities for listening and responding to residents' concerns prior, during, and after the installation of low-carbon energy systems.

show abstract

“…To examine specific low-carbon transitions, we selected three case studies: smart meters in Great Britain, EVs in Norway and solar PV in Germany. The cases were selected based on them being prominent examples of low-carbon transitions in terms of scale and diversity (detailed in Sovacool et al 2019aSovacool et al , 2019b.…”

Section: Case Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, we treated respondents' perceptions of injustices as equally valid, even if they differed in their severity or scope. This was critical to meet the energy justice principle of 'recognition' and not exclude any particular viewpoints (Jenkins, Heffron, and McCauley 2016b;Sovacool et al 2019a;2019b).…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%