(Not) talking about justice: integrating justice principles into renewable energy siting decisions

Renewable-energy siting decisions often provoke heated debate on climate change, energy security, economic regeneration, and residents’ right to have a say over developments in their area, but only rarely are the justice dimensions of these issues discussed openly. In this paper, we argue for greater attention to the justice implications of renewable-energy siting and to establishing consistent distributive, participatory and procedural fairness principles for siting decisions. Such principles may play an important role in countering resistance to the broader idea of low-carbon transitions caused by perceived injustices within the UK’s present case-by-case system of determining applications. A crucial first step is to address the lack of studies investigating how justice arguments are currently invoked in planning debates on renewable energy. To achieve this, we examine justice arguments used to support or object to single wind-turbine projects in Cornwall, a key site for renewable energy in the UK. Textual analysis of public responses to applications reveals that justice and fairness were rarely discussed explicitly. Debates instead focused implicitly on distributive justice issues related to local aesthetics, with objectors using local economic arguments and questioning of the efficacy of turbines to strengthen the factual basis of submissions to local planning committees. Supporters instead emphasised the selfishness of objectors and global issues like climate change while also stressing local economic benefits. Also striking was a dearth of discussion on procedural or participatory justice except where objectors sought to cast doubt on assessments by developers, despite concerns about the government’s market-led policies for small-scale renewables. The findings reveal important justice absences in debates on renewable energy. In particular, lack of explicit deliberation on justice concerns hampers the establishment of negotiated principles for acceptable impacts (for individual developments and cumulative effects), standards of information, and procedures for public participation and adjudicating (un)fairness claims. We conclude by arguing that, as governments take increasingly radical action to meet emissions targets, integrating procedural justice into low-carbon energy siting decisions is particularly essential for ensuring energy transitions maintain momentum and are as fair and consensual as possible.