Conference Agenda

In recent years, the ambivalent role of material infrastructures, especially energy technologies, in planetary crises has attracted increasing scholarly attention: on the one hand, they are seen as the “production mills of the Anthropocene”, and as means by which social exploitation and environmental load displacement is enabled, sustained and legitimized. On the other hand, they can be important leverage points for socio-ecological transformations towards sustainability and alternative energy futures. Under certain conditions, energy infrastructures can therefore also be understood as promises, as possible starting points for justice, re-democratization and a stronger orientation toward the common good. Originating from this paradoxical, two-faced characterization, this contribution discusses the relevance of infrastructures for debates on energy transitions, not only as a research object but also as a specific conceptual lens that provides deeper insights into their spatialities and justice dimensions. In a first step, it theorizes the fundamental political and normative character of energy infrastructures and their role in transition processes. In a second step, drawing on Science and Technology Studies and Anthropology, it introduces the notion of ‘infrastructuring’ and discusses the benefits of an infrastructural lens for research on energy-related environmental justice issues. Finally, reflections on ‘convivial infrastructures’ are presented, which aim not only to overcome and decolonize control-oriented sociotechnical imaginaries of Western modernity, but also to achieve greater autonomy and environmental justice directly through infrastructures.

Spatial justice is a theoretical framework which is increasingly used, both implicitly and explicitly, to explore issues of equity in the low carbon transition (LCT), particularly in how the benefits and burdens of transition are distributed geographically. We synthesise insights from three pieces of recent research to highlight the value of ‘spatially just transitions’ as a conceptual approach.

We first present insights from a ‘semi-systematic review’ (n=75) on spatial justice, as it relates to issues of equity in regional decarbonisation pathways. This review of the academic literature suggested that there is an ongoing research gap in exploring the fairness implications of the LCT beyond the issue of regional employment impacts. It also found that administrative fragmentation and a lack of coordination of net zero emissions policy risk introducing new, or exacerbating old regional inequalities. We also outline the value of this novel interdisciplinary review approach. The review provides a broad framework for the study of spatially just transitions, as well as a number of policy recommendations, with transferable application to many country contexts.

Secondly, we operationalise the concept of spatial justice in a case study of the UK’s transition to net zero greenhouse gas emissions. The UK is the most regionally unequal of all large developed states. We identify how delivering the LCT could work synergistically with other policy agendas, particularly those concerning regional development, including the recent political commitment to ‘Level Up’ the UK’s regional inequalities. In this vein, we present results from a quantitative analysis of net zero targets set by local government in England (n=311), assessing variation in regional mitigation ambition. We develop composite indicators of ‘ambition’ and ‘capability’ to explore whether regions are taking action proportionate to their capabilities. This analysis provides insight into the equity of burden-sharing of mitigation efforts at the subnational scale.

Finally, we present a series of insights from interview research with stakeholders (n=33) from across the countries and regions of the UK, and across scales of government, on how net zero could be more fairly and effectively coordinated. The UK presents a singular case in terms of subnational governance, given its noted lack of a ‘regional level’ of government. We draw out policy and governance insights specific to the UK context, as well as reflecting more broadly on how transitions to net zero can be rendered spatially just in any jurisdiction.

The policy coherence literature has become increasingly criticized for being apolitical, and for assuming a rather technocratic approach to policy-making, coordination and integration. Indeed, new studies are employing comparative politics concepts – such as those around ideas, interests and institutions (the 3 I’s) - to assess the inherently political nature of policy (in)coherence. Missing from this focus are the political inequalities that may arise between individuals and actors that lead to policy trade-offs to begin with. These, in turn, may present negative consequences, particularly inequality-reinforcing outcomes. This paper’s framework links political inequality – as manifested by inequality of voice, treatment, representation and influence - with policy (in)coherence, and applies it to the energy transition in Germany, also known as the Energiewende. To this end, the paper analyses key interactions between 20 relevant policies through a policy matrix approach, and presents insights collected from 25 interviews with policy-makers, civil society and other experts, on the political nature of policy (in)coherence.

As a first step, the policy matrix explores some of the major synergies and trade-offs in the Energiewende, focusing on policies at the federal level, and, regionally, in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia. The paper analyses 400 interactions between policies seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy availability and affordability, reduce social inequalities and protect biodiversity. Half of these interactions are centered around new policies rolled out as part of the ‘Easter Package’, which was enacted in May 2022 due to rising energy insecurity and to implement Germany’s climate goals. In this regard, the matrix reveals some important discrepancies, for example, between climate policies and renewable energy restrictions (especially on-shore wind) that threaten the entire Energiewende process.

As a second step, the 25 semi-structured interviews explore the political nature of such trade-offs, many of which have been exacerbated by Germany’s new energy situation compounded by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The interviews demonstrate that political inequality is apparent in Energiewende-related policy processes (in coal, wind, and also biodiversity) and at various stages of decision-making. Furthermore, the speed at which the ‘Easter Package’ has been developed and passed into law has left many civil society actors out of consultation processes. Other insights include the temporal and interpretative nature of policy (in)coherence; where one actor might see incoherence at one point in time, another might not. In addition, the interviews reveal that policy incoherence can deepen inequalities, particularly spatial, economic and inter-generational ones.

In many countries the renewable energy transition is getting up to speed because of the urgency of mitigating climate change. Especially in Europe, this transition is accelerated because of the war in Ukraine combined with energy policies at domestic and European level. In the Netherlands the energy crisis overall leads to greater societal and political legitimacy for renewable energy policies, however, underprivileged households become extra vulnerable for changes in energy supply and the energy market. These households often reside in less energy efficient housing, and high energy prices affect them more, while they have problematic access to solutions and lower degrees of participation. People cannot reap the benefits of these transitions, while still having to bear the costs. The focus in this research is revealing (in)justices within (changing) household energy practices in sight of realizing a just energy transition.

In this paper we look more closely at considerations of justice in different dimensions: distributive, procedural, recognition and intergenerational justice. What consequences do certain technical interventions (e.g. district heating networks, renovating/ retrofitting measures) and related policy measures (e.g. adjusted tax systems, subsidies, compensation schemes etc.) have for changing social practices of households and how would this in turn affect conceptions of justice? This is placed in light of a ‘just and effective’ energy transition. Especially relevant is the spatial configuration of infrastructures, appliances, and systems of provision. Although the research is situated at homes, the social practices shaped by material arrangements inside the home stretch into the neighborhood and far beyond. This means taking into account the social-spatial distribution of practices.

While referring to established theories of energy justice, we keep an open mind to encounters and interpretations of energy and justice on the ground. In the Dutch city of Nijmegen and the village of Gemert (North-Brabant), we will take an inside out perspective: starting at a household level and then zooming out – from the bottom-up. The project will use ethnographic and participatory methods to explore the needs and in-house practices of residents (in cooking, laundering, keeping warm and cool) in relation to new technologies, including their design, and investigate the conceptions of justice of residents, policy makers, housing associations and installers.

Non-state and subnational climate action could lead to unintended outcomes, including higher greenhouse gas emissions. The broad spectrum of climate action, ranging from emissions reductions to efforts to help communities adapt to climate change impacts, begs the question of how disparate interventions interact and whether they result in synergies and tradeoffs. This study examines synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation efforts by International Cooperative Initiatives (ICIs) in the agriculture, forestry, and land use (AFOLU) sector. A combination of quantitative, interpretative, and qualitative techniques is used sequentially to gain a systematic understanding of synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation efforts by ICIs. We propose an assessment framework that proceeds in five steps. First, we sample a subset of ICIs that seek to take climate action in the AFOLU sector. Second, we disaggregate these initiatives by their activities and cluster these into broader intervention categories. Third, we conduct a review of the literature to determine potential trade-offs and synergies between mitigation and adaptation associated with these intervention categories. Results of the review are systematically captured in a matrix rendering theoretical synergic and conflicting outcomes between adaptation and mitigation by types of intervention. Fourth, we return to our sample of ICIs and relate their activities to potential synergies and trade-offs, producing an overview of possible synergies and trade-offs per initiative. Fifth, we revisit individual ICIs to understand to which extent they take efforts to maximize synergies and avoid trade-offs. This five-step method can help systematically gauge the effectiveness of ICIs as well as strengthen their interventions.

The application of our framework shows how interventions have both synergistic linkages and trade-offs for adaptation and mitigation. For instance, interventions that are primarily focused on mitigation can have synergistic adaptation effects by improving adaptive capacity through better access to electricity and reducing dependence on centralized energy systems, but they can also reduce labor demand and result in the loss of livelihoods. By linking these potential synergies and tradeoff effects to specific activities, ICIs can better integrate approaches towards synergies and avoid conflicts between adaptation and mitigation.