Journal
RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
Volume 189, Issue -, Pages -Publisher
PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2023.113974
Keywords
Energy justice; Normative uncertainty; Principles of justice; Energy ethics; Policy recommendations; Normative assumptions
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Energy justice is often approached through the four tenets of procedural, distributive, restorative and recognition justice, but further normative substantiations are needed. The scholarly literature largely ignores normative uncertainties in energy justice, leading to different normative conclusions. A revisited energy justice framework is proposed to articulate the normative uncertainties in principles and tenets, ultimately improving the quality and legitimacy of normative conclusions and policy recommendations.
Energy justice is often approached through the four tenets of procedural, distributive, restorative and recognition justice. Though these tenets are important placeholders for addressing what type of justice issues are involved, they require further normative substantiations. These are achieved by using principles of justice to specify why - normatively speaking - something is just or unjust within each category or tenet of justice. In addressing the principles of justice, it is important to acknowledge normative uncertainties, or the fact that different (incompatible) conceptions of justice might be morally defensible, leading to different normative conclusions or policy recommendations. This paper reviews the definitions of tenets in energy justice scholarship, the occurrence of normative claims, and how these claims are justified. The review shows that the scholarship ignores to a large extent normative uncertainties. In response, we propose a revisited energy justice framework, focusing on four aspects that help us to articulate the normative uncertainties in both the principles and the tenets of energy justice. These aspects are (i) the scale of justice (i.e. whether justice is considered at a local, national, regional, multinational or global scale), (ii) the subject of justice, (iii) the body of knowledge that is assumed and (iv) the time frame in which justice issues are being considered. We hope to provide a conceptual framework that make explicit the different types of normative assumptions underlying claims of justice, which will ultimately improve the quality and legitimacy of normative conclusions such as policy recommendations that follow.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available