4.7 Article

Ethical and legal challenges in bioenergy governance: Coping with value disagreement and regulatory complexity

Journal

ENERGY POLICY
Volume 69, Issue -, Pages 326-333

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.02.013

Keywords

Biomass; Ethics; EU; Law; Regulation; Sustainability

Funding

  1. Subproject International and national governance of bioenergy: trade, environment and integration of energy systems under the Research Alliance Enabling and Governing Transitions to a Low Carbon Society - Danish Council for Strategic Research [09-067275/DSF]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The article focuses on the interplay between two factors giving rise to friction in bioenergy governance: profound value disagreements (e.g. the prioritizing of carbon concerns like worries over GHG emissions savings over non-carbon related concerns) and regulatory complexity (in terms of regulatory measures and options). We present ethical and legal analyses of the current stalemate on bioenergy governance in the EU using two illustrative cases: liquid biofuels for transport and solid biomass-based bioenergy. The two cases disclose some similarities between these two factors, but the remaining differences may partly explain, or justify, contrasting forms of governance. While there seems to be no easy way in which the EU and national governments can deal with the multiple sustainability issues raised by bioenergy, it is argued that failure to deal explicitly with the underlying value disagreements, or to make apparent the regulatory complexity, clouds the issue of how to move forward with governance of bioenergy. We suggest that governance should be shaped with greater focus on the role of value disagreements and regulatory complexity. There is a need for more openness and transparency about such factors, and about the inherent trade-offs in bioenergy governance. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available