Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Political Economy of Energy Justice: A Nuclear Energy Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of the International Political Economy of Energy

Part of the book series: Palgrave Handbooks in IPE ((PHIPE))

Abstract

Energy justice has recently emerged as a new crosscutting social science research agenda. In this chapter, its core tenets are explored: distributional justice, procedural justice, and justice as recognition. Using a case study approach of nuclear waste in Canada, nuclear reactors in the UK, and uranium mines in Australia, the manifestations of energy justice in practice are illustrated from a political economy perspective through analysing the nuclear energy sector. This focus allows us to identify both winners and losers with regard to energy justice throughout the nuclear energy system. Through promoting the application of this triple-pronged approach across the energy system and within the global context of energy production and consumption, recommendations for its operationalisation are advanced. Of significance, the political economy focus highlights the key areas for conflicts and trade-offs amongst the core tenets of energy justice as the concept makes policy ground.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See both: Volume 1 and 2 from the Environmental Audit Committee just published on 2 December 2013, available from: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvaud/61/61.pdf and www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvaud/61/61vw.pdf accessed 30 July 2015.

References

  • Acuna, R. M. (2015). The politics of extractive governance: Indigenous peoples and socio-environmental conflicts. Extractive Industries and Society, 2(1), 85–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alley, W. M., & Alley, R. (2014). The growing problem of stranded used nuclear fuel. Environment Science and Technology, 48, 2091–2096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, B. S. (2000). Whose land is it anyway? National interest, indigenous stakeholders, and colonial discourses: The case of the Jabiluka uranium mine. Organisation & Environment, 13(1), 3–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, J., Ellis, G., & Robinson, C. (2008). Cool rationalities and hot air: A rhetorical approach to understanding debates on renewable energy. Global Environmental Politics, 8(2), 67–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BERR. (2008). Meeting the energy challenge: A white paper on nuclear power. London: Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, The Stationary Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickerstaff, K. (2012). Because we’ve got history here: Nuclear waste, cooperative siting, and the relational geography of a complex issue. Environment and Planning A, 44, 2611–2628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouzarovski, S., & Petrova, S. (2015). A global perspective on domestic energy deprivation: Overcoming the energy poverty-fuel poverty binary. Energy Research & Social Science, 10, 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulkeley, H., Carmin, J., Broto, V., Edwards, G., & Fuller, S. (2013). Climate justice and global cities: Mapping the emerging discourses. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 914–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullard, R. (2005). Environmental justice in the 21st century. In J. Dryzek & D. Schlosburg (Eds.), Debating the earth (pp. 322–356). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canfield, C., Klima, K., & Dawson, T. (2015). Using deliberative democracy to identify energy policy priorities in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 8, 184–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamaret, A., OConnor, M., & Rechche, G. (2007). Top-down/bottom-up approach for developing sustainable development indicators for mining: Application to the Arlit uranium mines (Niger). International Journal of Sustainable Development, 10(1), 161–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Climate Change Act. (2008). Chapter 27. London: The Stationary Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • CO. (2002). The energy review. London: Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit, The Stationary Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowell, R., Bristow, G., & Munday, M. (2011). Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: The role of community benefits in wind energy development. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54(4), 539–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A. (2006). Environmental justice as subtext or omission: Examining discourses of anti-incineration campaigning in Ireland. Geoforum, 37, 708–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DECC. (2011). Planning our electric future: A white paper for secure, affordable and low-carbon electricity. London: Department of Energy and Climate Change, The Stationary Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • DTI. (2003). Energy white paper: Our energy future—Creating a low carbon economy. London: Department of Trade and Industry, The Stationary Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • DTI. (2006). The energy challenge: Energy review report 2006. London: Department of Trade and Industry, The Stationary Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durant, D. (2009). Responsible action and nuclear waste disposal. Technology in Society, 31, 150–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eames, M., & Hunt, M. (2013). Energy justice in sustainability transitions research. In K. Bickerstaff, G. Walker, & H. Bulkeley (Eds.), Energy justice in a changing climate: Social equity and low-carbon energy. London: Zed books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Energy Act. (2008). chapter 32. London: The Stationary Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Energy Act. (2013). London: The Stationary Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, M. (2006). Nuclear waste facilities on tribal land: The Yamis struggles for environmental justice. Local Environment, 11, 433–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, N., & Lyons, S. (2015). Who should pay for renewable energy? Comparing the household impacts of different policy mechanisms in Ireland. Energy Research & Social Science, 7, 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flüeler, T., & Blowers, A. (2007). Quality of decision-making processes: Decision-making processes in radioactive waste governance—Insights and recommendations (COWAM2—Work package 3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (1999). Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition and participation. In L. Ray & A. Sayer (Eds.), Culture and economy after the cultural turn. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graetz, G. (2015). Energy for whom? Uranium mining, indigenous people, and navigating risk and rights in Australia. Energy Research & Social Science, 8, 113–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerra, M. C. G. (2002). Community relations in mineral development projects. CEPMLP Internet Journal, 11, 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurung, A., & Oh, S. E. (2013). Conversion of traditional biomass into modern bioenergy systems: A review in context to improve the energy situation in Nepal. Renewable Energy, 50, 206–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, K. J., & Vivoda, V. (2014). International political economy: A field born of the OPEC crisis returns to its energy roots. Energy Research & Social Science, 1, 206–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heffron, R. J. (2013). Lessons for nuclear new build in the USA 1990–2010: A three state analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(5), 876–892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heffron, R. J., & McCauley, D. (2014). Achieving sustainable supply chains through energy justice. Applied Energy, 123, 435–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heffron, R. J., McCauley, D., & Sovacool, B. K. (2015). Resolving society’s energy trilemma through the energy justice metric. Energy Policy, 87, 168–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heltberg, R. (2004). Fuel switching: Evidence from eight developing countries. Energy Economics, 26, 869–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holifield, R., Porter, M., & Walker, W. (2009). Introduction spaces of environmental justice: Frameworks for critical engagement. Antipode, 41(4), 591–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, G. C., Gray, T., & Bell, D. (2013). Environmental justice of nuclear waste policy in Taiwan: Taipower, government and local community. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15, 1555–1571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEA, OPEC, OECD, & World Bank Joint Report. (2010). Analysis of the scope of energy subsidies and suggestions for the G-20 initiative. www.iea.org/weo/docs/G20_Subsidy_Joint_Report.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2015.

  • Jenkins, H. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and the mining industry: Conflicts and constructs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 11, 23–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron, H., & Hannes, S. (2013). Energy justice, a whole systems approach. Queen’s Political Review, 2(2), 74–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, P., & Stirling, A. (2015, June). Comparing nuclear power trajectories in Germany and the UK: From regimes to democracies in sociotechnical transitions and discontinuities (Science Policy Research Unit working paper series, SWPS 2015-18). https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2015-18-swps-johnston-stirling.pdf&site=25

  • Karlsson, G. B. (2009). Nuclear lives: Uranium mining, indigenous peoples, and development in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(34), 43–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kojo, M., & Richardson, P. (2014). The use of community benefits approaches in the siting of nuclear waste management facilities. Energy Strategy Reviews, 4, 34–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krütli, P., Stauffacher, M., Pedolin, D., Moser, C., & Scholz, R. W. (2012). The process matters: Fairness in repository siting for nuclear waste. Social Justice Research, 25, 79–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuletz, V. L. (2001). The tainted desert: Environmental ruin in the American West. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaDuke, W. (2004). The dumping ground: Big utilities look to native lands to house nuclear waste. Multinational Monitor, 25(11), 21–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Alier, J. (2001). Mining conflicts, environmental justice, and valuation. Journal of Hazardous Material, 86, 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maugis, V., & Nuttall, W. J. (2008). Metapolicy options for energy in England (EPRG working paper 0818). Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCauley, D., Heffron, R. J., Stephan, H., & Jenkins, K. (2013). Advancing energy justice: The triumvirate of tenets. International Energy Law Review, 32(3), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, P., & Mulvaney, D. (2013). The political economy of the just transition. The Geographical Journal, 179(2), 132–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NWMO. (2005). Choosing a way forward: The future management of Canada’s used nuclear fuel (Final study). Toronto: Nuclear Waste Management Organisation.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2008). Denying citizens their rights? Indigenous people, mining payments and service provision. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(2), 42–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, S., & Driffill, L. (2008). How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context of energy. Energy Policy, 36, 4412–4418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramana, M. V. (2013). Shifting strategies and precarious progress: Nuclear waste management in Canada. Energy Policy, 61, 196–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravenhill, J. (2005). Global political economy (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, N. (1996). The Mescalero Apache Indians and monitored retrievable storage of spent nuclear fuel: A study in environmental ethics. Natural Resources Journal, 36, 881–912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosberg, D. (2003). The justice of environmental justice: Reconciling equity, recognition, and participation in a political movement. In A. Light & A. De-Shalit (Eds.), Moral and political reasoning in environmental practice. London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool, B. K., & Dworkin, M. H. (2014). Global energy justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool, B. K., Sidortsov, R. M., & Jones, B. R. (2014). Energy security, equality, and justice. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sze, J., & London, J. K. (2008). Environmental justice at a crossroads. Sociology Compass, 2(4), 1331–1354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taebi, B. (2012). Intergenerational risks of nuclear energy. In S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of risk theory: Epistemology, decision theory, ethics and social implications of risk (pp. 295–318). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Taebi, B., Roeser, S., & van de Poel, I. (2012). The ethics of nuclear power: Social experiments, intergenerational justice, and emotions. Energy Policy, 51, 202–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd, H., & Zografos, C. (2005). Justice for the environment: Developing a set of indicators of environmental justice for Scotland. Environmental Values, 14(4), 483–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UK Renewable Energy Roadmap. (2011). Department of Energy and Climate Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, G. (2009). Beyond distribution and proximity: Exploring the multiple spatialities of environmental justice. Antipode, 41(4), 614–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingast, B. R., & Wittman, D. A. (2006). Political economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitton, J., Parry, I. M., Akiyoshi, M., & Lawless, W. (2015). Conceptualising a social sustainability framework for energy infrastructure decisions. Energy Research & Social Science, 8, 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK

    Kirsten Jenkins

  2. Energy and Natural Resources Law Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    Raphael J. Heffron

  3. Department of Geography and Sustainable Development, University of St Andrews, Edinburgh, UK

    Darren McCauley

Authors
  1. Kirsten Jenkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raphael J. Heffron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Darren McCauley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ghent Institute for International Studies, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Thijs Van de Graaf

  2. University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom

    Benjamin K. Sovacool

  3. Council on Energy, Environment and Water, New Delhi, India

    Arunabha Ghosh

  4. University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom

    Florian Kern

  5. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA

    Michael T. Klare

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jenkins, K., Heffron, R.J., McCauley, D. (2016). The Political Economy of Energy Justice: A Nuclear Energy Perspective. In: Van de Graaf, T., Sovacool, B., Ghosh, A., Kern, F., Klare, M. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of the International Political Economy of Energy. Palgrave Handbooks in IPE. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55631-8_27

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation