Energy Communication: Theory and Praxis Towards a Sustainable Energy Future

This essay comments and expands upon an emerging area of research, energy communication, that shares with environmental communication the fraught commitment to simultaneously study communication as an ordinary yet potentially transformative practice, and a strategic endeavour to catalyse change. We begin by defining and situating energy communication within ongoing work on the discursive dimensions of energy extraction, production, distribution, and consumption. We then offer three generative directions for future research related to energy transitions as communicative processes: analysing campaigns’ strategic efforts, critically theorizing energy’s transnational power dynamics, and theorizing the energy democracy movement.     

Virgil, Vigilance, and Voice: Agrifood Ethics in an Age of Globalization

Some 2000 years ago, Virgil wroteThe Georgics, a political tract on Romanagriculture in the form of a poem. Today, as aresult of rising global trade in food andagricultural products, growing economicconcentration, the merging of food andpharmacy, chronic obesity in the midst ofhunger, and new disease and pest vectors, weare in need of a new Georgics that addressesthe two key issues of our time: vigilance andvoice. On the one hand, vigilance must becentral to a new Georgics. Enforceablestandards for food safety, food quality,environmental protection, worker health andsafety, sanitary and phytosanitaryrequirements, animal welfare, and appellationsmust be addressed. On the other hand, a newGeorgics must increase the range of persons whohave voice in the democratic governance of anew global agrifood system. New organizationsand institutions will be needed to accomplishthis task.     

The limits of democracy in tackling climate change

Previous research has shown that democracies exhibit stronger commitments to mitigate climate change and, generally, emit less carbon dioxide than non-democratic regimes. However, there remains much unexplained variation in how democratic regimes perform in this regard. Here it is argued that the benefits of democracy for climate change mitigation are limited in the presence of widespread corruption that reduces the capacity of democratic governments to reach climate targets and reduce CO₂ emissions. Using a sample of 144 countries over 1970–2011, the previously established relationship between the amount of countries’ CO₂ emissions and their level of democracy is revisited. It is empirically tested whether this relationship is instead moderated by the levels of corruption. The results indicate that more democracy is only associated with lower CO₂ emissions in low-corruption contexts. If corruption is high, democracies do not seem to do better than authoritarian regimes.     

Conceptualizing energy democracy

‘Energy democracy’ epitomizes hopes in energy transformation, but remains under-defined, a political buzzword rather than a real concept. After presenting its activist roots and mapping its usage, ‘energy democracy’ is positioned in relation to similar normatively derived concepts: environmental, climate, and energy justice, and environmental democracy. Drawing on insights from political theory and political sociology, it is shown what is democratic in energy democracy. Referencing the question of experts and democratic publics in complex technological areas, the paper explains why it is desirable for energy governance to be more democratic. To show what is unique in ‘energy democracy’ beyond increased participation in energy policy, the prosumer is introduced as the ideal-typical citizen, highlighting the importance of the energy transition, the agency of material structures and a new emergent governmentality. ‘Energy democracy’ is conceptualized as an analytical and decision-making tool, defined along three dimensions: popular sovereignty, participatory governance and civic ownership, and operationalized with relevant indicators.     

From consultation to deliberation? Tracing deliberative norms in EIA frameworks in Swedish roads planning

This paper presents the results of an analysis of deliberative norms in the framework for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in roads planning in Sweden. The more specific question is how this framework has responded to the shift towards more deliberative approaches to planning and decision making, advocated in planning theory and policy literature over the last decade. The analysis, which compares the current framework and guidance with an earlier iteration, identifies a shift towards deliberation; deliberative norms are present, and even dominate recent guidance. However, an instrumental norm permeates both the former and the current guidance, suggesting that even as a language of consultation is replaced by one of deliberation, the intention remains to secure and legitimise a smooth development pathway. Evidence from interviews with professionals working in the Swedish EIA system highlights the difficulties of navigating these uncertainties in practice. By opening up critical analysis of deliberative norms as they shape the conditions for practice, this study contributes to the continuous development of planning practice, by supporting a more normatively reflexive approach to framework-design.     

From authoritarian enclave to deliberative space: governance logics in post‐disaster reconstruction

One would be hard‐pressed nowadays to find any practitioners and scholars in the field of post‐disaster reconstruction who would argue against the virtues of community participation. In practice, however, the legacy of community participation has been mixed. This paper pursues this line of inquiry by examining the manifestations of participation in three communities affected by Typhoon Haiyan that struck the Philippines on 8 November 2013. The findings suggest that different governance logics emerge in each of the three case studies: authoritarian; communitarian; and deliberative. These logics promote particular understandings of who should participate in the reconstruction process and the appropriate scope of action for citizens to express discontent, provide feedback, and perform democratic agency. The paper contends that design interventions in participatory procedures, as well as contingencies in wider social contexts, shape the character and legacies of community participation. It concludes by comparing the legacies of these three ‘governance enclaves’ and imagining possibilities for participatory politics in post‐disaster settings.     

Risk and the neoliberal state: why post-Mitch lessons didn't reduce El Salvador's earthquake losses

Although El Salvador suffered light losses from Hurricane Mitch in 1998, it benefited from the increased international aid and encouragement for advance planning, especially mitigation and prevention interventions. Thus, one would have supposed, El Salvador would have been in a very advantageous position, able more easily than its economically crippled neighbours, Honduras and Nicaragua, to implement the 'lessons of Mitch'. A review of the recovery plan tabled by the El Salvador government following the earthquakes of early 2001 shows that despite the rhetoric in favour of 'learning the lessons of Mitch', very little mitigation and prevention had actually been put in place between the hurricane (1998) and the earthquakes (2001). The recovery plan is analysed in terms of the degree to which it deals with root causes of disaster vulnerability, namely, the economic and political marginality of much of the population and environmental degradation. An explanation for the failure to implement mitigation and preventive actions is traced to the adherence by the government of El Salvador to an extreme form of neoliberal, free market ideology, and the deep fissures and mistrust in a country that follow a long and bloody civil war.     

“Consent and Consensus in Policies Related to Food – Five Core Values”

When formulating a policy related to food in a heterogeneous context within a nation or between nations, oppositional positions are more or less explicit, but always have to be overcome. It is interesting to note, though, that such elements as culture and religion have seldom been the focus in discussions about methods of decision-making in food policy. To handle discrepancies between oppositional positions, one solution is to narrow differences between partners, another to accept one partner or position as dominant. In a solid and lasting policy, any of these options has to be agreed upon by all the partners involved. In this article, I argue that context sensitivity and a shared picture of the situation are necessary bases for a solid food policy. Two methods for policy discussion are elaborated on and religious slaughter is given as an example of a heterogeneous setting with strongly diverging ideals. Several aspects have to be respected from the outset, such as culture, religion, and value systems. This condition is partly met in a model of informed consent and in a consensus model. The informed consent model is regarded as insufficient, because it lacks both methods of dealing with hierarchies and the goal of finding a shared and nuanced picture of the situation. A consensus model meets these tasks but might on the other hand, among other things, be too difficult to follow and to administer. For both models, some difficulties with justification of decisions arise. Five essential elements emanating from a combination of these models are suggested as a basis for a decision process regarding food policies: respect for each discussion partner, context sensitivity, respect for arguments including emotions, a shared picture of the situation, and finally relating theory and practice.     

Corporate Responsibility: The Stakeholder Paradox Reconsidered

Is it legitimate for a business to concentrate on profits under respect for the law and ethical custom? On the one hand, there seems to be good reasons for claiming that a corporation has a duty to act for the benefit of all its stakeholders. On the other hand, this seems to dissolve the notion of a private business; but then again, a private business would appear to be exempted from ethical responsibility. This is what Kenneth Goodpaster has called the stakeholder paradox: either we have ethics without business or we have business without ethics. Through a different route, I reach the same solution to this paradox as Goodpaster, namely that a corporation is the instrument of the shareholders only, but that shareholders still have an obligation to act ethically responsibly. To this, I add discussion of Friedman’s claim that this responsibility consists in increasing profits. I show that most of his arguments fail. Only pragmatic considerations allow to a certain extent that some of the ethical responsibility is left over to democratic regulation.