The relationship between justice and acceptance of energy transition costs in the UK
The relationship between justice and acceptance of energy transition costs in the UK
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.165
复制
发表时间：
2018-07
期刊：
影响因子：
11.2
通讯作者：
D. Evensen;Christina Demski;Sarah Becker;N. Pidgeon
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Evensen;Christina Demski;Sarah Becker;N. Pidgeon
相对而言，很少有能源研究涉及到公正的考虑。现有的有限的能源公正调查侧重于与能源生产、消费和政策的影响有关的公正，这些政策要么加剧，要么寻求减轻分配和程序问题。旨在促进所谓“能源转型”的方案对能源公正具有重大影响。例如，减少能源消耗和/或碳排放的努力，提高能源安全的政策，以及提高能源获取和负担能力的方案，都解决了分配问题。然而，与实现这些目标和执行这些方案有关的费用也涉及司法问题，应与上述其他规范性问题一起视为能源司法的一个方面。在这里，我们研究了公众对谁应该资助旨在促进向更可持续和更公平的能源系统过渡的项目的看法，发现大部分责任分配给了能源公司，以及对程序正义的信念有意地影响了谁应该支付的想法。我们基于英国的混合方法调查显示，虽然我们的受访者（调查）和参与者（焦点小组）接受一些针对政府计划的个人成本，这些计划可以减少能源不公正，但接受程度取决于几个因素，包括分配正义的重要性以及能源系统是否表现出程序正义。规范因素对成本接受的影响影响到促进能源公正的政策的可行性。我们进行了一项调查（N = 3,150），随后在英国进行了五个焦点小组（N = 6-9），调查受访者进一步探索他们的答案并解释我们的一些定量发现。最后，我们为政府提出了切实可行的政策建议，例如根据公众接受程度，可行的环境和社会税的数量（成本）和类型，以及为能源转型提供资金的其他方法的建议，以避免超出公众接受的限度。
Relatively little energy research has attended to justice considerations. The limited energy justice inquiry that exists focuses on justice in relation to impacts of energy production, consumption, and policies that either exacerbate or seek to mitigate distributive and procedural concerns. Programmes aimed at facilitating the so-called ‘energy transition’ have strong implications for energy justice. For example, efforts to reduce energy consumption and/or carbon emissions, policies to increase energy security, and programmes to increase energy access and affordability all address distributive concerns. Nevertheless, the costs associated with meeting such goals and running such programmes also have justice implications and should be viewed alongside the other aforementioned normative issues as an aspect of energy justice. Here, we examine public perceptions ofwho shouldfund programmes designed to ease the transition to a more sustainable and equitable energy system, finding most responsibility assigned to energy companies, and beliefs about procedural justice meaningfully shaping thoughts on who should pay. Our UK-based mixed methods inquiry reveals that whilst our respondents (survey) and participants (focus groups) accept some personal costs directed towards governmental programmes that could reduce energy injustices, acceptance is dependent on several factors, including perceived importance of distributive justice and whether the energy system exhibits procedural justice. The influence of normative factors on cost acceptance has implications for feasibility of polices to promote energy justice. We conducted a survey (N = 3,150), followed by five focus groups (N = 6–9 each) throughout Great Britain with survey respondents to explore further their answers and explain some of our quantitative findings. We conclude this paper with tangible policy recommendations for government, such as the amount (cost) and types of environmental and social levies that are viable, based on their public acceptance, and suggestions for other approaches to funding energy transitions, so as not to exceed the limits of public acceptance.