Social Acceptance for Renewable Energy Technologies: The Role of the Energy Justice Framework

Abstract

Moving from fossil fuels to renewable energy is a key part of creating sustainable energy systems for the future. Governments worldwide are implementing policies and frameworks to facilitate this transition, albeit at different levels. The public also recognizes the importance of this shift and the need to address climate change by adopting renewable energy sources. However, despite such public acceptance, there are still local communities that resist the deployment of renewable energy technologies. As renewable energy projects become more prevalent, they are increasingly facing resistance from local communities. This challenges the earlier assumption that the construction of new renewable energy facilities would only accelerate when renewable energy costs became more competitive with fossil fuels. Surprisingly, many renewable energy projects still face resistance, even when they are cost-effective. This highlights the need for a holistic approach to policy design during the energy transition. In addition to technical and economic considerations, it is crucial to understand social acceptance initiatives for renewable energy technologies within the context of the energy justice framework. To fully comprehend the issue of social acceptance in the light of the energy justice framework, it is essential to consider all principles of energy justice simultaneously, without sacrificing one for another.

1 Introduction

Moving from fossil fuels to renewable energy is a key part of creating sustainable energy systems for the future. Governments worldwide are implementing policies and frameworks to facilitate this transition, albeit at different levels. The public also recognizes the importance of this shift and the need to address climate change by adopting renewable energy sources.¹ However, despite such general public acceptance, there are still local communities that resist the deployment of renewable energy technologies (RET hereafter).²

As renewable energy projects become more prevalent, they are increasingly facing resistance from local communities.³ It reveals that the previous belief that the construction of new renewable energy facilities would accelerate only when the cost of renewable energy became cheaper than that of fossil fuels was mistaken, as many renewable energy projects are still facing opposition despite cost-effectiveness.⁴ It means that at the policy designing stage for the energy transition besides considering technical and economic factors, it is crucial to take into account also the social aspects around the adoption of RET.⁵

2 Renewable Energy Technology and Energy Justice: Understanding Local Resistance

With this background, there is a growing trend of research in the field of social acceptance of RET, with a primary aim of comprehending this apparent contradiction (general public acceptance against local resistance).⁶ There have been so many qualitative⁷ and quantitative⁸ studies conducted to identify drivers and barriers to social acceptance. Various forms of opposition have been identified, which depend on the type of RET implemented, the geographical location, and historical context.

Reviewing the data from various studies reveals that some of the most important and frequently cited sources of local opposition include, but are not limited to, property devaluation, environmental impact, health concerns, inadequate public participation, disregard for tribal rights,⁹ loss of livelihood,¹⁰ visual and aesthetic impacts,¹¹ and distrust in industrial and governmental actors and/or responsible agents.¹²

The majority of these oppositions are closely associated with energy (in) justice. The energy justice framework breaks down justice into four fundamental components: distributional, procedural, recognitional, and restorative.¹³ It is both evaluative and normative, with the aim of identifying and reducing injustices in society by asking where they occur, how benefits and drawbacks of energy activities are distributed, which demographics are disregarded, and which procedures can be implemented to rectify them. Distributive justice relates to the fair distribution of both benefits and drawbacks associated with energy-related activities.¹⁴ The unequal distribution of socio-economic benefits from RET results in distributive injustices. For instance, despite some communities lacking access to high-quality energy services or experiencing property devaluation, which are common issues in some renewable energy projects, a majority of the electricity generated by wind farms in certain areas is consumed by large private companies outside the region.¹⁵

Generally, renewable energy is often seen as a spatial and temporal disjuncture. While it may provide advantages such as clean energy, energy security, and investment, it is perceived as having immediate and more tangible negative effects in local communities.¹⁶ In this context, procedural justice emphasizes the inclusive engagement of communities in decision-making process.¹⁷ It has been frequently reported that series of procedural injustices linked to the absence of formal consultation processes based on the principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent has led to a local opposition.¹⁸ Several studies have highlighted the importance of citizens’ trust in project planners, operators, or local authorities in the renewable energy sector, emphasizing their competence, impartiality, and fairness.¹⁹ It is important to note that procedural justice plays a vital role in establishing trust as it encourages cooperation and participation and provision of adequate information ultimately leading to the development of trustworthy relationships.

3 Community Benefits as a Solution or a Part of the Problem

The idea of community benefits has emerged as one that encompasses some elements of distributive justice, in which collaboration with community stakeholders is promoted to create a plan for community benefits that outlines the specific ways in which the project will provide measurable advantages to the communities involved at each stage of the project.²⁰ However, one criticism of this idea describes it as a way to bribe or ‘buy’ planning permission.²¹ One reason for calling it ‘bribery’ could be that by providing benefits to potentially affected communities, the responsible party (either a company or individual(s)) can easily circumvent other energy justice principles, including recognition, procedural, and restorative justice.

It is worth mentioning that recognition and restorative justice can be easily sacrificed when the majority of a community becomes satisfied with the project either through receiving benefits from the project or by participating in the decision-making process.²² It means there is always a possibility that voiceless minority groups or no-humans in the same community are not involved in the process or some harms remain unrestored only because the majority get benefit from it.

However, some more developed ideas like energy community have been introduced to promote both procedural and distributive justice issues to those potentially affected citizens and their communities and subsequently increase local acceptance of RETs.²³ Energy communities come in various forms such as ‘Renewable Energy Community’²⁴ or ‘Citizen Energy Community’.²⁵ They are typically legal entities that prioritize open and voluntary participation, effective citizen control, and primarily provide environmental, economic, or social benefits for members and shareholders located near renewable energy projects instead of financial gains.²⁶ Clearly, it is a more elaborated idea with a higher degree of local involvement and a more diverse approach in terms of distributive justice. However, there is still a risk to restorative justice and recognition justice can be either overlooked or understood in a narrow term.

However, it seems that the current political and economic system, which prioritizes (green) economic growth and (renewable) technological advancements, perceives people and local oppositions as an obstacle for adoption RETs and fostering the energy transition. In this view, any initiative that can satisfy the majority of local communities to accept RETs and not make delay on ‘transition programmes’ is welcomed. This reductionist approach in local acceptability can reduce everything (including intentions for persistence) to egoistic values, and simply overlook other source of persistence.²⁷

4 Conclusion

In conclusion, energy transition in the midst of the climate crisis is not just an option among others, but the only way forward for humankind. However, we must not forget that the current crises are a result of either a lack of attention to human rights and ecological limits or have been worsened by such neglect. The energy transition should not solely be driven by an acceleration of the (green) growth paradigm, where local opposition is seen as a hindrance to the adoption of RETs and a source of increased project costs.

If ‘just transition’ is to become more than just rhetoric, RETs social acceptance initiatives must be understood in line with the energy justice framework. To full comprehend the issue of social acceptance of RETs in the light of energy justice framework,²⁸ it is essential to see all principles of energy justice including distributive, procedural, recognition cosmopolitan and restorative justice at the same time and not sacrifice each of them for another, as ‘the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests’.²⁹ In addition, to achieve just transition, it is crucial to move beyond achieving local acceptance at any cost and must take a more holistic approach that considers social, gender, economic, ecological, historical, material, and structural injustices through the energy justice framework. This holistic approach to social acceptance is aligned with the emerging trend of calls for a new social contract among energy stakeholders in which energy justice has been placed at the centre.³⁰