Welcome to the new version of CaltechAUTHORS. Login is currently restricted to library staff. If you notice any issues, please email coda@library.caltech.edu
Published August 2024 | Published and Corrected
Journal Article Open

Renewables but unjust? Critical restoration geography as a framework for addressing global renewable energy injustice

  • 1. ROR icon University of Oklahoma
  • 2. ROR icon University of Arizona
  • 3. ROR icon University of Cambridge
  • 4. ROR icon California Institute of Technology

Abstract

A global transition toward a sustainable energy system, incorporating for example Renewable Energy Technologies (RETs), is essential for decarbonizing electricity production, meeting energy demands, and mitigating the impacts of climate change. However, the growing scale of renewable energy development has exacerbated local environmental and social challenges; improper assessment of RETs has led to recorded conflicts and resource injustice in transitioning communities. The purpose of this study is to analyze global cases of renewable energy development resulting in conflict and environmental injustice, and to propose Critical Restoration Geography (CRG) as a framework strategizing for pre-emptive avoidance of RET-related injustices. Evidence of global environmental injustice in RET development was explored using recorded conflicts from the Global Atlas of Environmental Justice (EJAtlas). We synthesized global variations in affected demographics, land area and conflict resolution with respect to achievement of environmental justice by RET type (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal). Based on analysis of GEJA's 102 recorded cases of RET-related environmental (in)justice from 2001 to 2021, justice was either not achieved or ambiguous in 55 and 20 cases. Drivers for these injustices include displacement of Indigenous communities, exclusion of communities from decision making processes, and protection of business interests over biodiversity and community needs. The proposed CRG framework details seven principles for avoiding environmental injustice in global RET development; including recognition and deconstruction of power dynamics, incorporation of multiple knowledge systems, and promotion of social justice. These principles serve to inform environmentally just approaches to policymaking for future RET development in any geographical context.

Copyright and License

© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. under a Creative Commons license.

Errata

Referred to by: 
Energy Research & Social Science, Volume 115, September 2024, Pages 103634
Chinedu C. Nsude, Rebecca Loraamm, Joshua J. Wimhurst, God'sgift N.. Chukwuonye, Ramit Debnath.
 
The authors regret an error in Section 3.1 regarding the origin and funding sources of the Global Atlas of Environmental Justice (EJAtlas) where it says “EJAtlas is an online tool created by the Rosa Luxemburg and Heinrich Boll Foundations” The correct sentence is “EJAtlas is an online tool created and directed by Prof Joan Martínez Alier and Dr. Leah Temper and coordinated by Dr. Daniella del Bene. The EJAtlas was initially supported by the European Commission through the Environmental Justice Organizations, Liabilities and Trade (EJOLT) project. EJAtlas has continued to receive support from volunteers worldwide and various research projects and collaborators, particularly the International Academic and Activist co-production of knowledge for Environmental Justice (ACKnowl-EJ) research project and the ENVJUSTICE European Research Council (ERC) award”.
 
Finally, the authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused. We would also like to thank Professor Joan Martínez Alier and the entire EJAtlas team for kindly alerting the authors of this error, and for their invaluable suggestions on the modification of the origin, funding, and appropriate citation of the EJAtlas.

Acknowledgement

Financial Support was provided by the University of Cambridge Gold Open Access Fund. We also thank Dr. Laurel Smith (OU-DGES) for the guidance provided in shaping the critical restoration geography framework, and Dr. Xin (Selena) and Dr. Natalie Letsa for serving on Chinedu's disseratation committee and for the guidance they provided in this research.

Contributions

Chinedu C. Nsude: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Rebecca Loraamm: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Investigation. Joshua J. Wimhurst: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal analysis. God'sgift N. Chukwuonye: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis. Ramit Debnath: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Investigation.

Files

1-s2.0-S2214629624002007-mainext.pdf
Files (2.7 MB)
Name Size Download all
md5:c991bd8e28d22fdfdef51f6685802e35
2.4 MB Preview Download
md5:6b9d0eacbe95d8ea21864e1c4ab01e44
281.3 kB Preview Download

Additional details

Created:
October 23, 2024
Modified:
October 23, 2024