Fair fracking? Ethics and environmental justice in United Kingdom shale gas policy and planning

The exploitation of shale gas resources is a significant issue of environmental justice. Uneven distributions of risks and social impacts to local site communities must be balanced against the economic benefits to gas users and developers; and unequal decision-making powers must be negotiated between local and central governments, communities and fracking site developers. These distributive and procedural elements are addressed in relation to UK policy, planning, regulatory and industry development. I adopt an explicitly normative framework of policy evaluation, addressing a research gap on the ethics of shale gas by operationalising Shrader-Frechette’s Principle of Prima Facie Political Equality. I conclude that UK fracking policy reveals inherent contradictions of environmental justice in relation to the Conservative Government’s localist and planning reform agendas. Early fracking policy protected communities from harm in the wake of seismic risk events, but these were quickly replaced with pro-industry economic stimulation and planning legislation that curtailed community empowerment in fracking decision-making, increased environmental risks to communities, transferred powers from local to central government and created the conditions of distributive injustices in the management of community benefit provisions. I argue that only by “re-localising” the scale of fracking governance can political equality be ensured and the distributive and procedural environmental injustices be ameliorated.     

“It's easy to throw rocks at a corporation”: wind energy development and distributive justice in Canada

In places like Canada, fast-paced wind turbine development combined with policy that limits local decision-making power has resulted in strong opposition to specific projects. Some studies suggest that anti-wind sentiment is tied to inadequate financial benefits – especially sharing at the local level. Thus, ideas of distributive economic justice have received traction, particularly in the form of praise for community-based development models. This paper reports on the findings from a mixed-methods study concerning preferred distributive justice elements in rural communities in Ontario (technocratic-based model) and Nova Scotia (community-based model) living with turbines. Residents’ perceptions of economic benefits are nuanced, but unlike other studies, this empirical work shows that both the fair distribution and the amount of local benefits are important predictors of project support. Yet, concerns around the fair distribution of benefits dominate in a regression on the adequacy of those benefits. A variety of interview and survey findings further point to the strength of traditional, profit-sharing community-based models for distributing benefits, but also more novel ideas including lowered electricity bills and tax rebates in areas home to turbines.     

“It's optional,not mandatory”: Environmental justice in local environmental agencies in Germany

Environmental justice is increasingly becoming a subject of academic debate in Germany. However, the realisation that environmental goods and hazards as well as the impacts of environmental policies are unequally distributed among social groups has not had many practical consequences yet. There are scattered initiatives and pilot projects aiming to address issues of environmental justice. Nevertheless, in the design and implementation of environmental policies there is no systematic consideration of their social dimension. In this paper, we outline the perspective of employees in German local environmental agencies on environmental justice. For this purpose, we conducted six qualitative interviews, which focused on the example of low emission zones. We identified three crucial aspects in these interviews: problem perception, motivation to act and perceived scope of action. Our main finding is that environmental justice is hardly an issue for environmental agencies and that this is the case because there is no necessity for them to consider social aspects in their work as this is neither legally required nor demanded in the public debate.     

环境伦理视域下《生物多样性公约》的解构与阐释

作为国际法律框架的基石,伦理道德在国际法领域具有重要的作用。文章从两个方面论述了环境伦理和《生物多样性公约》的关系:一方面是伦理道德中的《生物多样性公约》,在分析道德的涵义和作为中级原则的正义的内涵和类别的基础上,以亚里士多德和罗马法的交换正义理论以及托马斯·阿奎那和约翰·洛克财产权分配正义理论为基础解构了《生物多样性公约》中的环境正义;另一方面是《生物多样性公约》中的伦理道德,从公约具体规范的角度阐释了隐含在其中的环境伦理,尤其是正义观念。     

我国天然气分布式能源产业政策发展及相关建议

天然气分布式能源具有能效高、清洁环保、安全性好、削峰填谷等诸多优点。发展天然气分布式能源是扩大天然气应用和实现资源就地转化的重要方向和选择,是我国能源发展战略的一部分,同时也能够提升天然气优化利用水平,提高能源利用效率,促进节能减排和绿色低碳发展,深化能源行业及电力行业供给侧结构性改革。对我国天然气分布式能源产业政策进行详细分析,对江苏、上海、浙江等重点地区天然气分布式能源项目调研基础上,系统提出当前天然气分布式能源存在的问题,并在合理布局、天然气价格市场化、经济政策、核心技术研发等多方面提出相关政策建议。     

Of firms and farms: agricultural ethics and the problem of compensation

Compensating farmers out of public funds for financiallosses due to adverse weather conditions and animaldiseases is fairly common in most Western countries.This government policy differs from that towardsentrepeneurs in other economic branches. Whatjustifies this differential treatment? In the firstpart of this article, three theories of justice arepresented that offer a general framework for dealingwith problems of compensatory justice. In the secondpart, the possibilities of justifiying differentialtreatment of agriculture within each of these theoriesare explored. It is concluded that compensatorypractices in agriculture require fundamentalrethinking in view of the changing technological,economic, and cultural conditions of agriculture.     

The Ethics of Burden-Sharing in the Global Greenhouse

The Kyoto Protocol on global warming has provoked great controversy in part because it calls for heavier burdens on wealthy countries than on developing countries in the effort to control climate change. The U.S. Senate voted unanimously to oppose any agreement that does not require emissions reductions in low-income countries. The ethics of this position are examined in this paper which shows that there are good moral reasons for supporting the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol. Such a conclusion follows easily from considerations of distributive justice but can also be supported by more narrowly self-interested arguments. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Re-politicising water governance: exploring water re-allocations in terms of justice

Contemporary socio-economic transformations in South Asia are creating increasingly serious water problems (scarcity, flooding, pollution) and conflicts. Conflicts over water distribution, water-derived benefits, and risks often play out along axes of social differentiation like caste, wealth, and gender. Those with least power, rights, and voice suffer lack of access, exclusion, dispossession, and further marginalisation, resulting in livelihood insecurity or increased vulnerability to risks. In this paper we propose analysing these problems as problems of justice – problems of distribution, recognition, and political participation. Drawing on wider environmental justice approaches, a specific water justice focus needs to include both the specific characteristics of water as a resource and the access, rights, and equity dimensions of its control. We argue that recognising water problems as problems of justice requires a re-politicisation of water, as mainstream approaches to water resources, water governance, and legislation tend to normalise or naturalise their – basically political – distributional assumptions and implications. An interdisciplinary approach that sees water as simultaneously natural (material) and social is important here. We illustrate these conceptual and theoretical suggestions with evidence from India.     

Shale We Drill? Discourse Dynamics in UK Fracking Debates

This article examines competing political discourses surrounding shale extraction in the UK. It asks how these meanings are communicated and why certain understandings of the issue gain prominence. Drawing on discourse analysis and framing studies, the article first distinguishes two competing coalitions (pro- and anti-shale) and their shared narratives or ‘storylines’ (shale opportunity versus shale threat). Through a systematic examination of press reports, websites and public documents, it identifies opposing discursive frames used to shape understanding, meaning and debates, and assesses their resonance and power. The article builds on existing interpretive studies by providing a finer-grained analysis of discourse success, and a greater emphasis on the coalition members who shape and deliver the agreed storyline. It argues that the anti-shale coalition in the UK has thus far enjoyed greater discourse success for two reasons: firstly, because the pro-shale coalition lacks trustworthy messengers; secondly, because shale opponents have successfully expanded the debate beyond economic or environmental concerns to include potent issues of local power and democracy.