Abstract
Access to affordable energy is a core dimension of energy justice, with recent work examining the relation between energy use and well-being in these terms. However, there has been relatively little examination of exactly which energy uses should be considered basic necessities within a given cultural context and so of concern for energy justice. We examine the inclusion of energy-using necessities within the outcomes of deliberative workshops within members of the public focused on defining a minimum-standard of living in the UK and repeated biannually over a six year period. Our secondary analysis shows that energy uses deemed to be necessities are diverse and plural, enabling access to multiple valued energy services, and that their profile has to some degree shifted from 2008 to 2014. The reasoning involved is multidimensional, ranging across questions of health, social participation, opportunity and practicality. We argue that public deliberations about necessities can be taken as legitimate grounding for defining minimum standards and therefore the scope of ‘doing justice’ in fuel poverty policy. However we set this in tension with how change over time reveals the escalation of norms of energy dependency in a society that on climate justice grounds must radically reduce carbon emissions.
Highlights
Energy justice has recently emerged as a normative concept and frame for academic work focused on the relation between justice principles and energy concerns of many different forms, across different scales of analysis (Sovacool and Dworkin, 2015)
We have argued and demonstrated that there is significant value in looking to a participatory process involving deliberations by ordinary people, to both ground and contribute to the growing body of theoretical accounts of how energy use can be seen as a matter of justice (Walker and Day 2012; Sovacool et al 2014)
In so doing we have aligned ourselves with perspectives that see material necessities and associated energy uses in culturally relative terms rather than amenable to some form of universal determination
Summary
Energy justice has recently emerged as a normative concept and frame for academic work focused on the relation between justice principles and energy concerns of many different forms, across different scales of analysis (Sovacool and Dworkin, 2015). Over the last eight years, this research has used a consensual, deliberative approach to ascertain the goods and services that members of the public consider to be the basic necessities that everyone in the UK should be able to afford and have present in their everyday lives We use this data to identify which energy using technologies and services are implicated in shared expectations of a minimally decent living standard in the UK, and the reasoned grounds on which these judgements are being made. We are able to see through this data how, where and for what reasons energy uses are implicated in people’s expectations of a minimum standard of living, rather than explicitly deemed to be necessary in these terms This gives the data a particular character that is distinct from studies where members of the public have been asked to engage directly with questions of energy, climate change or fuel poverty (Wolf and Moser, 2011, Pidgeon et al, 2014, Druckman et al, 2011). Following further discussion of the dynamics of change and the processes involved in these, we draw out implications for fuel poverty policy in the UK, and more generally for energy demand reduction related to climate mitigation, and for further development of the participatory approach we have advocated
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
