Climate change, energy policy and justice: a systematic review

ANALYSE & KRITIK

Jahrgang 36 (2014) Heft 2

Contents

Gordon WalkerEditorial: Environmental Justice as Empirical and Normative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Richard Fil£ák and Tamara StegerGhettos in Slovakia. Confronting Roma Social and Enviromental Exclusion . . . 229

Éloi LaurentEnvironmental Inequality in France. A Theoretical, Empirical and Policy

Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .251

Stephanie MalinWhen Is `Yes to the Mill' Environmental Justice? Interrogating Sites of

Acceptance in Response to Energy Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

Christelle GramagliaNo Environmental Justice Movement in France? Controversy about

Pollution in Two Southern French Industrial Towns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .287

Jason Byrne and Chloe PortangerClimate Change, Energy Policy and Justice: A Systematic Review . . . . . . . . . . . .315

Fabian Schuppert and Ivo Wallimann-HelmerEnvironmental Inequalities and Democratic Citizenship: Linking Normative

Theory with Empirical Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .345

Angela Kallho�Water Justice: A Multilayer Term and Its Role in Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367

Richard Galvin and John R. HarrisIndividual Moral Responsibility and the Problem of Climate Change . . . . . . . . . 383

Anton LeistWhy Participate in Pro-Environmental Action? Individual Responsibility

in Unstructured Collectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .397

Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417

ANALYSE & KRITIK is devoted to the fundamental issues of empirical and normative

social theory. ANALYSE & KRITIK is directed at social scientists and social philosophers

who combine commitment to political and moral enlightenment with argumentative rigour

and conceptual clarity. ANALYSE & KRITIK develops social theorizing in connection

with analytical philosophy and philosophy of science. ANALYSE & KRITIK promotes

the dialogue between Anglo-American and Continental traditions in the social sciences and

ethics. ANALYSE & KRITIK publishes articles in English and German.

ANALYSE & KRITIK erörtert Grundfragen empirischer und normativer Theorien der

Gesellschaft. ANALYSE & KRITIK wendet sich an Sozialwissenschaftler und Sozialphi-

losophen, die Engagement für politische und moralische Aufklärung mit argumentativer

Präzision und begri�icher Klarheit verbinden. ANALYSE & KRITIK entwickelt sozial-

wissenschaftliche Theorien in Auseinandersetzung mit der analytischen Philosophie und

Wissenschaftstheorie. ANALYSE & KRITIK fördert den Dialog zwischen angelsächsischer

und kontinentaleuropäischer Sozialtheorie und Ethik. ANALYSE & KRITIK verö�entlicht

Beiträge in deutscher und englischer Sprache.

Please visit our homepage: abstracts and downloads 1979�2014

www.analyse-und-kritik.net

Editorial: Environmental Justice as Empirical

and Normative

Gordon Walker

In Why Things Matter to People Andrew Sayer reminds us that we are evalu-ative beings in which normative questions strongly �gure in our everyday lives�because while we are capable and can �ourish we are also vulnerable and sus-ceptible to various kinds of loss or harm� (Sayer 2011, 1). The `environment',understood in broad terms, provides one arena or frame within which evalua-tive questions necessarily �gure, because of its centrality to our individual andcollective �ourishing or su�ering, as well as to that of distant others�humanand non-human�in space and time. But evaluation about the environment andenvironment-society relations, in order to be practically meaningful, also requiresempirically knowing environments and our relationship to them. Only throughknowledge (of some form) we can understand and respond in informed ways tothe changing problems and possibilities of evidential and more hidden forms ofenvironmental `good' and `bad'.

The Empirical and the Normative

The relation between the empirical and the normative is an important con-cern of this journal, this special issue on environmental justice, and also tomuch of my own grappling with environmental justice. In Walker (2012) I pre-sented arguments about the `claim making' of environmental justice�as foundwithin environmental campaigning, political debate, academic research and pol-icy making�using this term to emphasise that there are many di�erent ways inwhich we can try to make sense of, or make claims about the world in justiceterms. One of the basic combinations that is often made within justice claim-making is to link evidence of a condition of inequality with a normative positionon what is just or unjust�the empirical claim linked with the normative claim.Such claim-making is as evident in the arguments of environmental justice ac-tivists as it is in those of industrialists or policy makers (when they implicitlyor explicitly deploy justice arguments), and it is often claims and counter claimsabout the empirical, the normative and crucially their interaction that are at thecentre of environmental disputes and con�icts. The literature on environmen-tal justice has though tended to either focus on analysing justice concepts andtheories�drawing on various philosophical and political traditions�or on the

222 Editorial

generation of evidence of patterns of inequality (in relation to pollution, wastes,greenspace, �ooding and so on). It is rare to �nd the linkages adequately ex-plored, or both elements being approached as forms of claim-making, takingneither as a matter of simple fact.

Here I explore these arguments and concerns a little further, �rst re�ectingon why it might be that the empirical and the normative have �gured separatelyin environmental justice writing and analysis; and second looking forward tosuggest how research and academic engagement might work more e�ectivelybetween the normative and the empirical in the future.

One place to look for explanation of the separation of the normative andthe empirical are academic disciplines and their distinct concerns, preoccupa-tions, ways of working and writing and much else that is disciplinary speci�c.The social-natural world is in�nitely complex and academic disciplines neces-sarily have to bracket out much of that complexity to centre on that which isboth important, but also that which is manageable and amenable to investi-gation, analysis and/or contemplation. Accordingly to be a philosopher is toengage with the world in particular ways and traditions, to generate and workwith certain styles and forms of knowledge, typically involving increasing de-tailed conceptual and normative re�ection. Similarly a sociologist, geographer,ecologist or political theorist, each working with distinct senses of purpose andmethod�with some (at least) showing an eagerness to stockpile empirical `facts'in a normatively disoriented and disengaged manner.

This is particularly relevant for Sayer's diagnosis of the division he sees be-tween �positive and normative thought� and �the estrangement of social sciencedealing with description and explanation, from philosophy and political theory,dealing with normative thinking� (Sayer 2011, 4�5). With his critique directedlargely at social science, Sayer argues that social scientist have become used toprioritizing positive questions over normative ones, asking what is and rarelywhat ought, and failing to give attention both to the interrelation between theìs' and the òught' and the role of reasoning in shaping values and evaluation.Hence the tendency in much of the body of social science work on environmentaljustice to fail to engage with how particular revealed patterns of pollution, risk,participation or involvement may or not be considered ùnjust'; or alternativelyto take the nature of injustice for granted, unproblematically equating an ob-served inequality with injustice, and/or following the justice claims of certainactors as necessarily those that have an a priori validity. Whilst the equating ofequality with justice may often work relatively satisfactorily in terms of equal-ity of status and recognition, it becomes far more problematic for matters ofenvironment-related distribution and procedure.

Those philosophical disciplines concerned primarily with normative thinking,in turn have a tendency to either fail to engage their abstract reasoning withgrounded empirical matters, or to work with evidence in selective and super�cialways�failing in particular to acknowledge the uncertainties and contingenciesof much that is apparently `known' about environmental matters. The step bystep, careful and considered reasoning, proposing and challenging of arguments

Editorial 223

that is characteristic of philosophical method, typically gives little or no spacefor careful attention to empirical concerns.

Disciplinary di�erences are important therefore, but disciplines are not mono-lithic or �xed in stone; they are internally heterogeneous and continue to be ar-gued about and to evolve over time. In the case of Geography, the discipline withwhich I am most familiar, there have been periodic calls for more careful andconcerned attention to be given to normative matters generally, and speci�callyto the application and mobilisation of justice concepts in empirical contexts (Ol-son/Sayer 2009; Smith 1994; 2007). Accordingly, we can now �nd examples ofgeographical scholarship�on both social and environmental matters�that hasengaged with normative theory in a more substantial way, �nding both valueand complexity in so doing.

This Issue

In this special issue we can also see authors from a range of disciplinary back-grounds bringing empirical and normative material together�to di�erent de-grees and from di�erent starting points�and grappling with the consequences.

The �rst �ve papers start from empirical cases and evidence, and then work tovarying degrees towards normative re�ection. Richard Filcak and Tamara Stegerconsider the case of the Roma population in Slovakia and the severe exclusion,segregation and ghettoization that they continue to experience in environmentalas well as in other terms. Evidence is collated from many di�erent sites inSlovakia, and across an extended time period, to provide the basis for stronglymade claims as how the environment plays into the construction of the Roma as acategorically subordinate group. Given the depth of discrimination involved theirconcern is less with establishing the grounds for claiming an injustice, than withexplaining the processes through which this is being produced and sustained.Eloi Laurent reviews the growing base of evidence of environmental inequalityin France, including how patterns of air pollution, chemical and noise pollution,access to environmental resources and exposure to social-ecological disasters aresocially di�erentiated. He explicitly draws on the capability framework to reasonhow and where these patterns of inequality can be seen as forms of injustice,providing the foundation for working with evidence in a more normative fashion.Jason Byrne and Chloe Portanger take on the complexities of justice related toclimate change and the various forms of interaction there can be between thedirect and indirect consequences of climate change, and the direct and indirectconsequences of action to respond to climate change through both mitigationand adaptation. Through undertaking a structured review of the literature theyidentify many gaps in the current evidence base as well as suggesting a frameworkwithin di�erent (potential) justice dimensions can be interrelated.

The papers by Stephanie Malin and then Christelle Gramaglia, coming re-spectively from sociological and anthropological backgrounds, both engage withcases (in the United States and in France) where the empirical socio-environ-mental setting would suggest (under the dominant narratives of the environ-

224 Editorial

mental justice frame) that the existence of environmental injustice, and politicalmobilisation in these terms, would be self-evident. They both however give care-ful attention to the reasons why `expected' patterns of justice claim-making didnot materialise in the communities of their case studies, demonstrating throughthis the basis on which evaluative reasoning is locally and historically grounded.Both cases thereby open up questions about the proper site or location of evalua-tion, the internal versus the external perspective and the degree to which locallygrounded evaluations should or should not be subject to critique and challenge.

The next four papers start from the `other end', coming from philosophicalbackgrounds, working through the detail of ethical frameworks and/or problemsas applied to broad environmental concerns or domains. Their arguments remaindetached from particular geographically situated cases, but to varying degreesdo engage with the complexities and particularities of environmental evidence.Fabian Schuppert and Ivo Walliman-Helmer take us through the measured stepsof how empirical �ndings on environmental inequalities can be related to di�erentnormative yard-sticks for assessing whether these inequalities are unjust. Theirconclusion is to �nd most value in a �moderately demanding social-egalitarianaccount of democratic citizenship and justice�. However in arriving at this endpoint they are careful to consider how the multidimensional and uncertain ge-ographies of exposure, vulnerability and risk make particular demands on theresolution that they arrive at. Evidence is taken as problematic rather thangiven. Angela Kallho� focuses on water ethics, considering four di�erent con-cepts of water justice�distributive, ecological, cultural and procedural�in orderto address the classic problem of the tragedy of the commons. A non-speci�cexample of a water reservoir whose access conditions provoke con�icts amongneighbours is taken as a case to work with and to demonstrate how the fourvarieties of justice can be integrated into a framework that supports cooperationand negotiation.

The papers by Richard Galvin and John Harris and by Anton Leist bothaddress a common philosophical problem, that of how to assign individual re-sponsibility for an environmental problem that is collectively produced throughthe unstructured actions of many people. If the speci�c cause-e�ect relation be-tween individual action and harmful consequence cannot be precisely established(a problem of evidence) then how can moral responsibility be individually as-signed (a problem of philosophy, and then maybe of politics)? Galvin and Harriswork their discussion through the problem of climate change, Leist through theproblem of local air pollution. Both identify similar conceptual di�culties, butLeist is more prepared to suggest that a resolution of the moral philosophicalconundrum is possible.

Looking Ahead

These papers, and others in this special issue, indicate in their own terms some ofthe interesting directions that a more integrated future pathway of environmen-tal justice research and writing could follow. There are broader considerations

Editorial 225

though, relating both to ways of working and to the content of investigationthat would serve to encourage moves in that direction. I suggest, therefore,three future directions.

1. Collaborating across disciplinary boundaries: multi and inter-disciplinaryworking is rarely straightforward, putting pressure on comprehension,meaning, ontological and epistemological positions and much else that canbe taken for granted within single discipline arenas. However it can un-doubtedly be a productive way to generate new research designs and in-sights and to begin to dissolve obstructive boundaries of the form identi�edby Sayer more generally. Within the �eld of environmental and climatejustice there are some interesting examples of collaborative teams beingput together that include both normatively and empirically oriented aca-demics. One case is a project funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundationin the UK focused on vulnerability to climate change impacts, which tookan `integrated approach' that involved bringing together philosophers (con-sidering the terms in which well-being and vulnerability can be understoodin relation to climate impacts) with geographers (processing and mappinglarge data sets to analysis patterns of risk and vulnerability to �ooding andheatwaves) (Lindley et al. 2011). Similar collaborations could be envisagedacross many other environmental justice domains.

2. Analysing claim-making in more even terms: as noted earlier my own par-ticular approach to engaging more evenly with the empirical and the nor-mative has been to (i) advocate an analytical focus on claim-making, seeingpositions about justice as claims, as well as positions on what constitutesrelevant and/or reliable evidence (thereby dissolving any easy assumptionabout fact-value distinctions), and (ii) to sustain a distinct separation be-tween inequality and injustice, taking the former to be a descriptive termand the latter to be evaluative, often of the former. Both of these moveshave not proved unproblematic or uncontroversial, with, for example, no-tions of inequality for some people carrying a priori meanings of injustice�for example in France where the notion of `égalité' carries considerableaccumulated political weight. However, in combination these moves haveproved bene�cial (for me) in challenging embedded or simplistic assump-tions about both what constitutes evidence and what constitutes justice,thereby opening up a greater �eld of possibilities and providing the spacefor exploring the counterfactual, the ambivalent and the problematicallyuncertain, that might otherwise be shut down. I therefore continue to ad-vocate in these ways and to encourage others to explore the possibilitiesand problems of approaching environment justice as claim-making, and ineven terms.

3. Finding environmental justice in new places: environmental justice schol-arship to my mind continues to �ourish in terms of its amount, its cre-ativity, its disciplinary scope, its geography and its substantive matters ofconcern in both social and environmental terms. There is evidence of �our-

226 Editorial

ishing in these terms in this special issue, with papers by authors workingat institutions in Australia, Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, NorthernIreland, Slovakia, Switzerland and the USA; from (at least) �ve di�er-ent disciplines, and concerned with some very di�erent substantive cases,both more abstractly and as situated in speci�c places. This substantivediversity re�ects a broader trend towards (explicitly) environmental jus-tice scholarship expanding its horizons beyond the USA, then beyond theGlobal North and into the Global South. There have accordingly beensome excellent recent contributions that have demonstrated the power ofbringing justice into a more direct relation with substantive matters thatare often talked about in other terms�ecosystems services (Sikor 2013),gold mining in Africa (Tschakert 2009; Childs 2014) and solid waste inAccra (Baabereyir et al. 2012), for example. We have not delved into suchcases in this special issue, but there is much scope for exploring the dif-ferences and commonalities between justice meanings and claim-makingacross such varied cases and global contexts.

This is all to be welcomed in terms of better representing the undoubted diversityand geography of where we might expect to �nd forms of environmental injustice(as claimed or unclaimed), but also provides again a bigger space in which tograpple with empirical-normative relations. Where, for example, assumptionsabout good democratic process do not, and cannot in any imaginable immediatematerial sense, apply, then justice reasoning that gives primary signi�cance togood process (as understood in Western liberal terms) will struggle to appearrelevant or useful. Where, the nature of what counts as good evidence and `truth'is not rooted in traditions of modern science, contested claim-making is likely totake an unfamiliar form (Vermeylen/Walker 2011). Hence encompassing more`geography' is not just a good thing, but also matters to the careful movingbetween the normative and the empirical that this special issue is concernedwith.

Bibliography

Baabereyir, A./S. Jewitt/S. O'Hara (2012), Dumping On the Poor. The EcologicalDistribution of Accra's Solid-waste Burden, in: Environment and Planning A44,297�314

Childs, J. (2014), From `Criminals of the Earth' to `Stewards of the Environment'.The Social and Environmental Justice of Fair Trade Gold, in: Geoforum 57, 129�137

Lindley, S./J. O'Neill/J. Kandeh/N. Lawson/R. Christian/M. O'Neil (2011), Justice,Vulnerability and Climate Change. An Integrated Framework, New York

Olson, E./A. Sayer (2009), Radical Geography and its Critical Standpoints. Embrac-ing the Normative, in: Antipode 41, 180�198

Sayer, A. (2011), Why Things Matter to People. Social Science, Values and Ethical

Life, CambridgeSikor, T. (2013), The Justices and Injustices of Ecosystem Services, London

Editorial 227

Smith, D. M. (1994), Geography and Social Justice, Oxford� (2007), Geography and Ethics. A Moral Turn? In: Progress in Human Geography

21, 583�590Tschakert, P. (2009), Digging Deep for Justice. A Radical Re-imagination of the Ar-

tisinal Gold Mining Sector in Ghana, in: Antipode 41, 706�740Vermeylen, S./G. Walker (2011), Environmental Justice, Values and Biological Di-

versity. The San and the Hoodia Bene�t-Sharing Agreement, in: Carmin, J./J.Agyeman (eds.), Environmental Injustice Beyond Borders: Local Perspectives on

Global Inequities, Boston, 105�128Walker, G. P. (2012), Environmental Justice. Concepts, Evidence and Politics, Abing-

don

Analyse & Kritik 02/2014 (© Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart) S. 315�343

Jason Byrne and Chloe Portanger

Climate Change, Energy Policy and Justice:A Systematic Review∗

Abstract: Energy e�ciency and energy security are emerging concerns in climate changepolicy. But there is little acknowledgment of energy justice issues. Marginalised andvulnerable communities may be disproportionately exposed to both climate changeimpacts (e.g. heat, �ooding) and costs associated with energy transitions related toclimate change mitigation and adaptation (e.g. particulate exposure from biofuel com-bustion). Climate change is producing energy-related impacts such as increased coolingcosts. In some cases it threatens energy security. Higher electricity costs associatedwith `climate proo�ng' energy network infrastructure may exacerbate `fuel poverty'�itself a form of injustice. In this paper we critically review the literature about multipleinterrelations between energy policy, justice and climate change. We identify key issues,illuminate knowledge gaps, and synthesise �ndings to develop a conceptual model. Wechart a research agenda and highlight policy implications.

1. Introduction

Energy generation from fossil fuels is a major driver of anthropogenic climatechange (Davis et al. 2010). The mining and combustion of fossil fuels such ascoal, oil and shale gas produce a range of environmental impacts, including airpollution, groundwater contamination, and greenhouse gas pollution�the lattercontributing to climate change (Jenner/Lamadrid 2013; Campbell et al. 2014).Climate change in turn produces environmental impacts such as increases in ex-treme weather events, �ooding, coastal erosion, drought and heat-waves. Theseimpacts have social consequences, including disease, death and economic dis-ruption (Byrne et al. 2009). Some climate change impacts also involve complexfeed-back loops (Hou et al. 2012). For example, climate change can increaseaverage temperatures, resulting in more energy consumption for cooling, in turndriving more fossil fuel use, exacerbating climate change (Dale et al. 2011).

E�ective climate change responses thus require both mitigation (reducinggreenhouse gas production and sequestering carbon) and adaptation�e.g. prepar-ing for future climate regimes. There is a spectrum of energy-related mitigation

∗ We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the reviewers in helping to improve this paper.

We are indebted to their patience and guidance. We are also grateful to the editors for their

understanding in the delays we experienced. While every attempt has been made to ensure

the manuscript is correct, any omissions, errors and inaccuracies, remain those of the authors.

316 Jason Byrne and Chloe Portanger

strategies, including sequestering carbon, more e�cient fossil fuel combustion(e.g. `cleaner' coal), improving energy e�ciency (thus reducing emissions), andtransitioning to alternative energy sources (e.g. solar, wind, geothermal, bio-fuel and nuclear) (Mathiesen et al. 2011). Responding to less than e�ectiveinternational e�orts to mitigate greenhouse gas pollution (i.e. carbon dioxideand methane), many nations have necessarily also focused on developing climatechange adaptation strategies (Ford et al. 2011). Energy-related adaptation re-sponses include upgrading network infrastructure to cope with higher energy de-mand and/or damage from natural hazards (e.g. �re and �ood), moving energyinfrastructure away from vulnerable locations (e.g. �ood-prone land), storing oilto minimise disruption from supply failures, and developing `smart-grids' thatenable `real time' re-routing of electricity and/or switching-o� high-consumptionappliances (Schae�er et al. 2012).

While there are burgeoning separate literatures on climate change mitiga-tion, climate change adaptation, and energy transitions, few researchers haveconsidered the combined e�ects of climate change mitigation, adaptation, andenergy policy. Moreover, the complex interconnections between energy, climatechange and socio-ecological outcomes are poorly understood, and knowledge isscattered across a range of disciplines with little synthesis. Few researchers haveassessed the consequences of these combined e�ects for marginalised and vul-nerable communities (Klinsky et al. 2012; Bulkeley et al. 2014b). This posesproblems for policy analysts and decision-makers concerned with redressing en-vironmental inequalities associated with climate change and energy. Bickersta�et al. (2013) have highlighted how climate change and energy generation producespatially uneven impacts that are inequitably distributed among marginalisedand vulnerable populations, driving what some have termed `climate justice' and`energy justice' imperatives to correct these inequalities (Walker/Day 2012).

Problems associated with the socially and spatially uneven distribution ofenvironmental harms and bene�ts are collectively referred to as environmentalinequalities. Environmental justice is an ethical approach aimed at redressingsuch issues. Arising from a social movement that began in the United Statesin the 1980s, environmental justice advocates espouse a type of `civil rightsenvironmentalism' (Bullard/Johnson 2000). The basic premise of environmentaljustice is that:

�Everyone has the right to inhabit clean, healthy and safe environ-ments, and to enjoy equal access to safe and healthy workplaces,schools, recreation areas and nutritious food, irrespective of race,ethnicity, gender, class, disability and other `axes of di�erence'.�(Byrne/MacCallum 2013, 165)

Impacts arising from environmental inequality include increased morbidity (dis-ease) and mortality (death), diminished education and employment prospects,reduced quality of life, and impaired livelihoods (Wolch et al. 2014). The causesof environmental inequality are varied, but include intentional targeting, unevenlaw enforcement, the operation of land markets, biased-decision-making, and lim-ited public consultation and participation (Steele et al. 2012; Byrne/MacCallum

Climate Change, Energy Policy and Justice: A Systematic Review 317

2013). Many environmental justice problems are attributable to industrial pol-lution, waste (mis)management, food production, and water resource protectionand management (Carruthers 2007; Schweitzer/Stephenson 2007). Although en-vironmental justice activists and researchers have also recently become attentiveto impacts stemming from energy generation and climate change, as separateissues (e.g. Adger 2001; Carruthers 2007; Barnett 2009; Wilson et al. 2010; Cor-ner et al. 2011), little attention has been given to the combined environmentaljustice e�ects of energy generation and management, energy policy, and climatechange (Walker/Day 2012).

The literature on energy and climate change has given substantially more at-tention to evaluating energy policies and strategies being developed in responseto climate change (both mitigation and adaptation) than to examining potentialenvironmental inequalities stemming from those policies. This paper addressesthat knowledge gap. We begin by reviewing and assessing the emergent liter-ature on energy, climate change and environmental (in)justice, illustrated withan example from an Australian perspective. Using a systematic quantitativeliterature review technique devised by Pickering and Byrne (2014), we analysethe key �ndings of the international literature to identify knowledge gaps. Wethen synthesise insights derived from the literature review to develop a concep-tual model to explain some of the interrelationships that we have identi�ed, andpoint to directions for future research.

Two primary research questions undergird this study: `What energy policiesand strategies are being developed in response to climate change?' and `Arethere any unintended environmental justice consequences stemming from thoseresponses?'. As we show in this paper, much of the research has been focused onEurope, with less attention on North America and Asia and very little attentionto continents such as Africa and Australia, where energy problems related toclimate change are likely to be severe. Less attention has also been given to thescales of the body, household and neighbourhood, where many environmentaljustice consequences will manifest strongest. Considerable attention has beengiven to energy security and energy e�ciency, but not to environmental jus-tice issues around these topics, and scant research has examined vulnerabilityassociated with race, ethnicity or household composition and family structure.

We recognise that nascent research has begun to address energy justice�aconcept referring to �the [uneven] social and spatial distribution of energy povertyand [. . . ] the justice dimensions of [. . . ] energy systems� (Bickersta� et al. 2013,2). But there are broader environmental justice concerns relating to who su�erspollution from energy, sovereignty of Indigenous communities, displacement ofharm, and imbricated sources of harm (e.g. food vs. fuel), that are yet to befully considered. This has implications for future research, policy-making andfor people's lives.


2. Background

The burning of fossil fuels has increased the concentration of greenhouse gasesin the atmosphere leading to climate change and variability (Ste�en et al. 2014,17). Between 1951 and 2010 for example, there was an average global surfacewarming of 0.5°C�1.3°C (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013, 20).The IPCC predict an increase in the average global surface temperature between0.3°C and 0.7°C for the period 2016�2035, with temperature increases likely toexceed 1.5°C by the end of the 21st century (IPCC, 2013 20). These increasesin average surface temperature are a major concern because they have the po-tential to shift global climate regimes and produce extreme temperatures, withimplications for food security, water security, and energy demand and supply(Ste�en et al. 2014, 17)�among other concerns.

The predicted impacts of climate change include: increased vector-borne dis-ease, storm intensity and �ooding, coastal erosion, prolonged drought, morefrequent wild�res and extreme heatwaves (Byrne et al. 2009; Ste�en et al. 2014).Heatwaves are an especially important environmental justice problem, with im-plications for climate change related energy policy. Climate change is makingheatwaves more frequent and intense, heightening their `impacts on people, prop-erty, communities and the environment' (Ste�en et al. 2014, 20), which in turn isdriving increased energy use for refrigeration and thermal comfort. While socio-politically marginalised and vulnerable populations are increasingly dispropor-tionately exposed to the impacts of heat, they also tend to lack the capacity toadapt to extreme heat.

Health impacts stemming from heatwaves include elevated core temperature,loss of concentration and coordination, dehydration, fatigue and lethargy, anddeath (Xiang et al. 2014, 93�4). These health impacts vary, depending on socialvulnerability, with the people most a�ected being elderly, children, those witha pre-existing illness, overweight people, low-income households, outdoor work-ers and Indigenous communities (Cutter et al. 2006; Hughes/McMichael 2011).During an extreme heatwave, poor people, elderly, migrants, and young chil-dren are di�erentially a�ected. They have the least ability to cope because theyhave reduced access to cooling, may live in poorly-designed buildings (e.g. noinsulation, little cross-ventilation), and have reduced personal mobility. Higherpopulation densities and urban heat island e�ects can magnify heatwave im-pacts. Denser cities have less vegetation, elevated surface temperatures, andrequire more electricity to cool households (Ste�en et al. 2014). Heatwaves canalso impact built environments by damaging critical infrastructure, leading tocascading social impacts.

For example, many Australian cities are at risk of power blackouts and in-frastructure failure during heatwaves (Loughnan et al. 2013). In January 2009,a heatwave in Victoria, Australia resulted in widespread power outages. Ma-jor disruptions occurred, including the failure of essential infrastructure such aswater provision, sewage treatment and public transport (ABC News 2009) aswell as the loss of refrigeration and air conditioning. Impacts were strongest feltby disadvantaged communities and older people (Loughnan et al. 2010; Tong et


al. 2014). In Sydney in 2011, a severe heatwave resulted in 13% higher rate ofmortality, mostly among the elderly (Scha�er et al. 2012). A more recent multi-day heatwave in January 2014 a�ected state-wide areas of southeast Australia,surpassing the 2009 record, with the average maximum temperature in Victo-ria exceeding 41°C on four successive days (Australian Government 2014). Yetheatwaves remain an underdeveloped area of research in energy policy, climatechange adaptation, and environmental justice (Maller/Strengers 2011). Much ofthe research has tended instead to focus on fuel poverty and extreme cold (Huy-nen et al. 2001; Hajat et al. 2007; Ma et al. 2013), leaving important knowledgegaps.

3. Methods

The research reported in this paper has employed a methodology devised byPickering and Byrne (2014). This method has proven to be robust and reliableacross a range of topics in the social and natural sciences (e.g. Steven et al.2011; Guitart et al. 2012; Roy et al. 2012). We have sought to answer two inter-related research questions, using this approach: `What energy strategies arebeing developed in response to climate change?' and Àre there any unintendedenvironmental justice consequences of these strategies?'. To answer these ques-tions, we systematically reviewed the literature, assessing: (i) who conductedthe research; (ii) when; (iii) the geographic distribution of the research; (iv) thetypes of methods used; (v) the types of subjects and variables examined; and(vi) the patterns or relationships found in the research. Scholarly databases weresearched between 8th August and 12th September 2014. The databases used in-cluded Google Scholar, Science Direct, ProQuest Central, Web of Science, SAGEPublications and Taylor & Francis Social Science and Humanities Library.

Keywords searched initially were `climate change' and ènergy' in combina-tion with ènvironmental justice', `social vulnerability' and/or `public health'.There were however, some di�culties with the broad de�nition of ènergy',which required narrowing the scope. This was achieved by searching additionaldatabases, and by pairing the word `climate change' with various energy-relatedterminology such as ènergy security', ènergy policy', ènergy demand', ènergyjustice', `climate justice', ènergy e�ciency', àlternative energy', `fuel poverty'or ènergy poverty'. Papers examined were limited to original peer-reviewed arti-cles reporting the results of empirical research. While we examined books, bookchapters, literature reviews and government publications, to gain a backgroundunderstanding of the topic, they were not included in the systematic review.

Data about each article was entered into a customised database that includedthe author, date, title, journal and location of research for each paper we as-sessed. In addition, the database also contained information about: the methodsused (qualitative or quantitative); the topic(s) of the research (and whether theyare described or demonstrated); the response measured; and the results obtained.After the preliminary database was constructed, the �rst 10 papers were enteredand the database was evaluated for its utility. This process enabled identi�ca-


tion of missing criteria, and checking of the database for coverage, scope andappropriateness. Categories were tested and revised, the database was modi�ed,and then the bulk of the papers were entered. Following this, summary tableswere produced and analysed (Pickering/Byrne 2014).

4. Results

We found twenty-two (22) peer-reviewed articles about energy strategies andclimate change, which at a minimum touched on environmental justice conse-quences. Re�ecting the nascent character of this research topic, over half ofthese articles (55%) were published between 2012 and 2014 (appendix 1 ). Whenconsidering the contributing factors potentially underpinning the environmentaljustice consequences of energy strategies, that is, spatial factors, social factorsand biophysical factors, it is possible to discern temporal, spatial and conceptualtrends within the literature. Patterns are also evident, based on: the geographicdistribution of the research, disciplines involved, methods used by researchers,recognition of potential climate change impacts, and how vulnerability has beenframed. And we can see trends related to how researchers have addressed corefoci of energy policy responses to climate change, that is: (i) governance consid-erations, (ii) spatial planning strategies, and (iii) socio-economic outcomes. Weexamine these in turn.

4.1 Geographical Scope of the Research

The research has primarily been focused on Europe (50%), with fewer studiesfrom Asia (27%) and North America (27%). There has been limited researchwithin South America (two papers), and Africa, Australia, and New Zealand (onepaper each), while three papers have examined energy strategies across multiplecountries (Bulkeley et al. 2014; Chakravarty/Tavoni 2013; Urge-Vorsatz/Metz2009). Some scalar patterns are also evident. Research was predominantly di-rected at the national scale (68% of papers), with the remaining papers focussedeither globally (14%) or at the city scale (18%). There were no articles discussingenergy strategies and their environmental justice consequences at other scales,such as the body, household, neighbourhood or region.

4.2 Disciplines Involved in the Research

The journals publishing papers on this topic were reasonably diverse. Broaddisciplinary �elds involved in the research included: energy (15 papers), policy (7papers), science and environment (6 papers), built environments and engineering(4 papers), sustainability (2 papers) and economics (2 papers). Surprisingly, noarticles were published from urban studies disciplines (Figure 1). An overlapbetween energy and policy disciplines was identi�ed. Papers were frequentlypublished in the journal Energy Policy (27%).


Figure 1: Distribution of articles by broad discipline area

Figure 2: Methods used in the research

0 5 10 15

Urban

Economics

Sustainablility

Building & Engineering

Science & Environment

Policy

Energy

Frequency in articles

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Focus groups

Field research

Observation

Case studies

Surveys

Interviews

Document analysis

Meta-analysis

Census analysis

Modelling

Frequency of articles

City Nation Worldwide


Methods used in the research

Researchers examining this topic used a variety of research methods, althoughsome methods were favoured over others, perhaps re�ecting the scale of the re-search. Quantitative methods (13 papers) were favoured over qualitative meth-ods (6), with only a few studies using mixed methods. Most studies employedvarious types of modelling (10 papers), followed by document analysis (6) andinterviews (4). Less common were surveys (3), case studies (3), observations (3)and census analysis (2). Meta-analysis and �eld research were only used on oneoccasion, and focus groups were not used by any studies.

When the scale of the research is considered, some patterns are more salient.Census analysis and meta-analysis were only employed by researchers examiningissues at the national scale. Document analysis (83%), interviews (75%) andsurveys (67%) were also primarily undertaken by researchers investigating theissue predominantly at this scale, albeit with some studies using these methodsat the city scale. Case studies and observations were split among research at thenational and city scales, whereas studies employing modelling were tran-scalar(Figure 2). These patterns show that there is considerable scope for innovativeresearch at more localised scales, which has yet to occur.




0 5 10 15

Urban

Economics

Sustainablility

Building & Engineering

Science & Environment

Policy

Energy


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Focus groups

Field research

Observation

Case studies

Surveys

Interviews

Document analysis

Meta-analysis

Census analysis

Modelling

Frequency of articles

City Nation Worldwide


4.3 Climate Change Impacts

All the papers we analysed identi�ed and discussed climate change impacts,but only three of those papers de�ned what was meant by impacts and notsurprisingly, just three demonstrated that actual impacts were occurring (Ürge-Vorsatz/Metz 2009; Bang 2010; Wang et al. 2010). Three main climate changeimpacts identi�ed in the literature were increased temperature (50%), extremeheatwaves (27%), and extreme weather events such as cyclones and thunder-storms (23%).

Articles reported that impacts vary considerably, depending on geograph-ical scale. The literature suggests that cities are predominantly exposed toimpacts from heightened storm intensity (67%), changes in rainfall (50%), ex-treme weather events (40%), and extreme heatwaves (33%). At the nationalscale, increased temperature was the most frequent impact identi�ed, followedby extreme heatwaves, increased �ooding and storm surge, and extreme weatherevents. In all papers assessed, the spread of vector-borne diseases and sea levelrise were only reported as city-scale impacts, whereas prolonged drought anddamage to ecosystems were identi�ed as national impacts. No articles identi�edcoastal erosion and wild�res as likely impacts (table 1 ).


Figure 4: Conceptual model illustrating domains of action in energy policy responses to climate change and their interconnections with factors contributing to environmental (in)justice

Table 1: Geographical scale of climate change impacts

Impact City Nation Worldwide

1 7 3

2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

1

3

2

1

1

Increased temperature

Heightened storm intensity

Changes in rainfall

Extreme weather events

Extreme heatwaves

Prolonged drought

Increased flooding and storm surges

Disruption/damage of ecosystems

Spread of vector-borne diseases

Sea level rise

Severe coastal erosion

Frequent wildfires


Insofar as policy responses are concerned, mitigation was identi�ed by just overhalf of the articles (59%), followed by both mitigation and adaption (23%), andadaptation alone (9%). Several articles did not identify any policy response(9%). Interestingly, the two articles discussing adaptation also discussed peakdemand for electricity, which was demonstrated by both those studies.

4.4 Social Vulnerability Assessment

Many articles addressed the issue of social vulnerability in the context of energytransitions related to climate change. The most frequently identi�ed form ofvulnerability related to geographic location (11 papers), followed by age, hous-ing condition, employment status, and type (7 papers each) and socioeconomicstatus (5 papers). Articles equally recognized sex, health status, and housingtenure as important forms of vulnerability (3 papers each). However, few papersidenti�ed ethno-racial background and family structure as indicators of vulner-ability. Contrary to our expectations, and to emerging research (Dale et al.2011), there were no articles addressing land use as a potential determinant ofvulnerability (�gure 3).


Figure 3: Framing of social vulnerability

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Land use

Family structure

Race/ ethnicity

Tenure

Health

Sex

Socioeconomic status

Employment

Housing condition

Age

Geographic location


Figure 3: Framing of social vulnerability

In the remainder of the results, we turn our attention to reporting on key issueswithin the research that are related to energy policy decision-making in responseto climate change. As we suggest in our conceptual model (at the end of thepaper), these issues cluster within three broad policy foci: (i) governance, (ii)spatial planning responses, and (iii) socio-economic concerns. In reporting theresults, we distinguish between instances where researchers simply discussed anissue and those instances where an empirical study actually demonstrated thatthe issue was occurring. For example, many articles discussed energy security,but far fewer de�ned what this term meant, and just four papers demonstratedthat energy security was a problem. This is a concern, which we return to inthe discussion section.


4.4.1 Governance

Governance is a term referring to `the process of governing' (Bulkeley et al.2014a). For those papers assessing governance issues related to energy andclimate change, we have identi�ed four issues that are most relevant - energysecurity, energy policy, energy demand and energy supply.

(i) Energy security

Energy security refers to how energy services are provided to end-users in areliable way. Brown et al. (2003, 7) de�ne energy security as a `resilient energysystem' which can supply secure and a�ordable energy. Speci�cally, energysecurity refers to: �unimpeded access or no planned interruptions to sources ofenergy, not relying on a limited number of energy sources, not being tied to aparticular geographic region for energy sources, abundant energy resources, anenergy supply which can withstand external shocks, and/or some form of energyself-su�ciency� (Chester 2010, 887).

Over half of the articles (55%) addressed energy security, but only two de-�ned what was meant by this term, and just four papers demonstrated energysecurity was a problem (table 2 ). Many energy security articles also discussed en-ergy policy (11 papers), which was predominantly focused at the national level,and directed towards climate change mitigation. Energy security papers alsoaddressed energy e�ciency and energy demand. And some papers mentionedalternative energy, fuel poverty, and energy poverty. Just one article mentionedenvironmental justice (Ürge-Vorsatz/Metz 2009), and no articles mentioned en-ergy justice and climate justice. These results show how environmental justiceis a neglected concern in energy policy, a point we return to in the discussion.

Eight papers discussing energy security highlighted a major economic riskassociated with climate change�dependency on imported energy resources�as a key concern for governance. For example, many economies depend uponimported oil and natural gas. If pipelines rupture due to climate change im-pacts such as �ooding or landslides, or shipping is disrupted due to a majorstorm event, critical services such as transportation, food delivery, and healthservices would be profoundly disrupted, resulting in cascading impacts. TheBrisbane Floods in 2011 illustrate the vulnerability of cities to imported energyresources. The �oods crippled petroleum re�ning, electricity supply and trans-port in Queensland; some cities were just days away from catastrophic failuresin essential services (Butler 2011).

Insofar as adaptation is concerned, �ve articles discussed fossil fuel depen-dency, and just three discussed issues associated with switching to renewableenergy. Some articles also identi�ed energy independence (5), securing access toenergy (3), and social resilience (2) as strategies to address energy security con-cerns. Just two articles demonstrated how a combined policy agenda addressingclimate change, air pollution, and energy security policies might enable coun-tries to both reduce dependency on fossil fuel imports and future energy demandwhile mitigating some health impacts associated with air pollution (Bollen et al.2010; van Vliet et al. 2012).


Table 2: Studied aspects in papers on energy strategies to address climate change

Studied aspect Number of papers Percent of papers

Climate Change 22 100%

Energy Efficiency 19 86%

Energy Policy 16 73%

Energy Demand 15 68%

Alternative Energy 13 59%

Energy Security 12 55%

Public Health 10 45%

Energy Poverty 6 27%

Fuel Poverty 5 23%

Peak Demand 3 14%

Environmental Justice 3 14%

Climate Justice 2 9%

Energy Justice 1 5%

Table 3: Strategy objectives to address energy efficiency and alternative energy

Strategy objectives Frequency in

papers Energy Efficiency

Adopting new tools, technologies and policies 16 Implementing building design via upgrades and retrofitting

10

Establishing building performance/ efficiency standards

6

Installing energy efficient appliances/ equipment

5

Increasing operating efficiencies of vehicles 4

Standardising indoor temperatures 2

Alternative Energy

Adopting renewable energy technologies 12

Promoting renewable energy diversity/mix 5 Shifting to carbon sequestration/ carbon capture and storage

3

Establishing renewable electricity standards 1 Improving access / availability of renewable energy

1


(ii) Energy policy

Energy policy is a term referring to o�cial statements of intent about how anorganisation will act, which are enshrined in organisational planning and man-agement documents (Jacobsson/Lauber 2006). Almost three quarters of thearticles (73%) discussed energy policy implications arising from climate change,but just �ve papers demonstrated energy policy issues. Most articles were fo-cused on the national level of policy-making and implementation (13 papers),followed by international, state, and local.

Although we can see that attention is being given to high-level policy re-sponses, the converse is not occurring. Few studies have addressed the reper-cussions of energy policy for individuals and households. There is a `disconnect'between how policy responses are framed and how climate change impacts willlikely be felt. Peak demand is an example. Policy responses aimed at reducingthe vulnerability of network infrastructure to climate change impacts (e.g. icestorms, �re and �ood), may paradoxically drive up the risk of fuel poverty formany households because cost-recovery for infrastructure investment typicallydrives up electricity prices.


(iii) Energy demand

The term energy demand refers to the existing and future requirements of endconsumers for energy (Pindyck 1979). A high proportion of articles discussed(68%) and demonstrated (32%) energy demand impacts in the research theyreported (table 2 ). As would be expected, most of these papers also discussedenergy e�ciency (14 papers). In all cases, multiple energy e�ciency strate-gies were suggested. The most frequently reported strategy was adopting newtools, technologies and policies (11 papers), followed by implementing new build-ing designs, and upgrading and retro�tting existing buildings, and establishingbuilding performance/e�ciency standards. Most articles predicted a decreasein heating demand associated with climate change impacts, and an increase incooling demand. Articles examining an increasing demand for cooling focusedon two climate change impacts�increased temperature and extreme heatwaves.

An important aspect of energy demand associated with climate change is`peak demand'. Peak demand is that time of the day when the demand forenergy peaks, and in many cases may exceed local supply capacity (Powellset al. 2014). While climate change may exacerbate problems associated withpeak demand, due to increased temperature, just three articles addressed peakdemand, and only two papers demonstrated a peak-demand impact. Researchwas focused on North America and Australia. Contrary to our expectations, nopapers addressing peak demand discussed energy justice, climate justice, energypoverty, environmental justice, or alternative energy.

(iv) Energy supply

Energy supply is de�ned as the mix of resources that are used to produce energyand how that energy is delivered to end-users (Armaroli/Balzani 2007). Therewas a limited discussion of energy supply. Articles reported a variety of renew-able and non-renewable energy sources to address climate change mitigation.The two most frequently examined forms of non-renewable energy were coal andoil (9 papers), whereas bioenergy was the most frequently reported renewableenergy source (5 papers). Within those articles addressing nuclear power (5papers), there was a consensus that the bene�ts of improved energy e�ciencyand energy security from nuclear power must be balanced against high construc-tion costs and long construction times (Bang 2010; Goldthau/Sovacool 2012).Yet there was no discussion of radioactive waste management or the potentialenvironmental justice consequences stemming from the use of nuclear energy(Leonard III 1996; Fan 2006).

4.4.2 Spatial Planning Strategies

E�ective spatial planning strategies are important for the delivery of energy inan era of climate change, for resolving energy-related con�icts, and for ensuringequitable outcomes in both energy supply and climate change response (bothmitigation and adaptation) (Steele et al. 2012). Although we would expect thatspatial planning strategies would address the justice dimensions of both climatechange and energy transitions, there was a very limited discussion of justice in


the literature on spatial planning and energy. Given the international focus onmitigation and the role that energy e�ciency is expected to play in reducingcarbon emissions, it was also surprising few articles addressed energy e�ciency.And the role of energy transitions also received less attention than we expected.

(i) Climate justice

Climate justice refers to a social outcome where climate change impacts andthe responsibility for mitigating and adapting to climate change are equitable.Equity here can refer to distributional equity (e.g. north-south obligations), andto intra-and inter-generational equity. Equity will occur when there is a fair dis-tribution of costs involved in alleviating harm to fundamental human interestscaused by climate change (Duus-Otterstrom/Jagers 2012, 747). Key consider-ations include energy generation costs (e.g. carbon pollution), access to energy(e.g. fuel poverty) and the potentially regressive e�ects of energy policy (energypoverty).

Only two articles examined climate justice (table 2 ). These papers identi-�ed social vulnerability due to climate change and energy policy as manifestingstrongest within developing countries and low-income households. Other vul-nerable populations identi�ed included the working poor and children. Climatevulnerability was partly attributed to building condition, and studies recognisedthat there were potential public health consequences from energy policy and cli-mate change, including infectious disease, respiratory disease, and cardiovasculardisease.

(ii) Energy e�ciency

Energy e�ciency refers to: �using less energy to produce the same amount ofservices or useful output� (Patterson 1996, 377). More articles discussed energye�ciency (86%) as a strategy to address climate change impacts on energy thanother forms of climate response (table 2 ). Energy e�ciency was typically re-ported as a climate change mitigation initiative. Oddly, none of those papersde�ned the term, and only �ve papers demonstrated that energy e�ciency wasbeing achieved. Of these papers, most addressed energy strategies focused on re-newable energy, predominantly solar, wind, and hydropower. Articles identi�edthree strategies to bolster energy e�ciency: adopting new tools, technologiesand policies; improving building design via upgrades and retro�tting; and im-proving building performance through e�ciency standards (table 3 ). However,there was little recognition that disparities in energy e�ciency are a justice issue.Low-income earners are less likely to a�ord to upgrade to new energy e�cientappliances or to live in newer more energy e�cient accommodation (Head 2012;Instone et al. 2013), exacerbating fuel poverty.



Studied aspect Number of papers Percent of papers

Climate Change 22 100%

Energy Efficiency 19 86%

Energy Policy 16 73%

Energy Demand 15 68%

Alternative Energy 13 59%

Energy Security 12 55%

Public Health 10 45%

Energy Poverty 6 27%

Fuel Poverty 5 23%

Peak Demand 3 14%

Environmental Justice 3 14%

Climate Justice 2 9%

Energy Justice 1 5%

Table 3: Strategy objectives to address energy efficiency and alternative energy

Strategy objectives Frequency in

papers Energy Efficiency

Adopting new tools, technologies and policies 16 Implementing building design via upgrades and retrofitting

10

Establishing building performance/ efficiency standards

6

Installing energy efficient appliances/ equipment

5

Increasing operating efficiencies of vehicles 4

Standardising indoor temperatures 2

Alternative Energy

Adopting renewable energy technologies 12

Promoting renewable energy diversity/mix 5 Shifting to carbon sequestration/ carbon capture and storage

3

Establishing renewable electricity standards 1 Improving access / availability of renewable energy

1

Table 3: Strategy objectives to address energy e�ciency and alternative energy

(iii) Energy transitions

A range of potential environmental justice impacts may occur as countries tran-sition their energy supplies away from fossil fuels into renewable energy sources.Over half the reviewed papers addressed energy transitions (13 papers), but onlyfour articles demonstrated that environmental justice issues were emerging fromenergy transitions related to climate change. Energy policy issues related toenergy transitions were frequently discussed, with an emphasis on national andinternational policies. Only two articles discussed climate justice and environ-mental justice, highlighting public health issues (table 3 ).

4.4.3 Socio-economic Concerns

There are a wide range of socio-economic issues related to energy policy for cli-mate change mitigation and adaptation. As discussed elsewhere in this paper,climate change is producing impacts that will potentially create socio-economicdisparities, such as disrupting livelihoods, education and wellbeing. We ad-dress three core issues that are salient within the literature: fuel poverty, energypoverty and health impacts.


(i) Fuel poverty

Fuel poverty refers to the inability of an individual or household to access su�-cient energy services required to secure healthy environments and thermal com-fort (Moore 2012, 20�21). There is consensus within the literature that fuelpoverty occurs when a person spends more than 10% of their income on all fueluse and to heat their household to a satisfactory standard of warmth (Howden-Chapman et al. 2012; Thomson/Snell 2013). Nearly a quarter of papers (23%)discussed fuel poverty as an important socio-economic concern to be addressedby energy strategies. Four of those articles de�ned fuel poverty, but their de�-nitions were inconsistent. Strong associations were made between fuel povertyand energy policy. Articles highlighted a range of social vulnerability indicatorslinked to fuel poverty, including: housing design, socioeconomic status, age andtenure. Energy e�ciency measures to combat fuel poverty were discussed, in-cluding adopting new policies directed at building design, such as upgrades andretro�tting. One paper suggested that fuel poor households could achieve an80 to 90% reduction in energy use by retro�tting conventional buildings withpassive technology (Tirado Herrero/Ürge-Vorsatz 2012). As pointed out abovethis is unrealistic because these households are already �nancially constrainedand retro�tting can be prohibitively expensive.

(ii) Energy poverty

Energy poverty is de�ned as a lack of reliable access to energy for heating,cooling, cooking and transportation, denying opportunities for customs, ac-tivities, livelihoods and lifestyles (Buzar 2007, 225). Over one quarter of thearticles discussed energy poverty as a justice concern (e.g. Ürge-Vorsatz/Metz2009; Wang et al. 2010; Howden-Chapman et al. 2012; Bulkeley et al. 2014b).Chakravarty and Tavoni (2013) argue that energy policies directed at climatechange should address the complex interrelationships between energy demandand energy poverty. For instance, heat-waves have both energy and health im-pacts.

(iii) Health impacts

A health impact can be de�ned as a long-term e�ect on human health, result-ing in disease or death. Almost half the papers (45%) identi�ed public healthimpacts stemming from climate change impacts, including prolonged drought,extreme heatwaves, heightened storm intensity, and increased �ooding. Wherereported, health impacts were found to be most prevalent in developed coun-tries. The most common illnesses reported were infectious diseases (associatedwith changes in temperature and �ooding and vectors such as mosquitos), res-piratory diseases (associated with mould from �ooding) and cardiovascular dis-eases (associated with extreme temperatures). Few papers reported health issuesassociated with energy transitions.


4.4.4 Discussion

We opened this paper by highlighting lacunae in the energy policy and climatechange literature with regard to environmental justice impacts and outcomes.The literature on energy and climate change has directed more e�ort to evaluat-ing energy policies and strategies being developed in response to climate change(both mitigation and adaptation) than to examining the potential justice con-sequences stemming from those policies. This paper has sought to address thatknowledge gap.

We found some unexpected results in our review of the literature. Theseresults pertain to: the location and scale of the research, disciplines involved inthe research, methods employed, assessment of vulnerability and determinantsof vulnerability, and attention to issues of justice and equity.

Location and scale: It is surprising that research was focused predominantlyon Europe with some attention given to Asia and North America. Many studiessuggest that as global temperatures rise, fuel poverty in relation to heating willbecome less of an issue. But few studies have acknowledged that the converse isnot the case. As temperatures rise in countries with hot climates, fuel povertywill likely result in increases in disease and death associated with the inabilityto keep cool. Ethno-racially and socio-economically marginalised and vulnerablecommunities may bear the brunt of these impacts.

Existing research has also been biased by scale. Much of the research hasfocused upon the national level, with less attention given to cities, and littleconsideration of scales such as the body, household, neighbourhood or region.Because energy supply and demand �uctuate locally, it might be reasonably ex-pected that cities and regions would feature prominently in the research. Andsince climate change impacts manifest viscerally at a human scale, we mightexpect to see studies directed towards the body, household and/or neighbour-hood. While health certainly is a national-scale policy issue, what is missingfrom much of the current research is attention to how health impacts stemmingfrom climate change and energy policy are socio-spatially di�erentiated. Cli-mate change will hit some cities and some parts of cities harder than others, andwe need to recognise inequitable impacts on vulnerable populations in futureresearch. The ways that heat-waves harm residents living in high-density areaswith scant green-space is a case in point (Roy et al. 2012).

Methods: Much of the research has employed modelling of energy demandrelated to climate change and to a lesser extent modelling the vulnerability ofcore infrastructure to events such as �re or �ood, likely due to the dominance ofscholars from disciplines such as economics. Although climate change impactswill manifest strongly at the city scale, no studies were found from urban studiesdisciplines, which often favour di�erent methods such as surveys, focus groupsand interviews. Those methods can illuminate the material experiences of realpeople. Future research would do well to shift scales (e.g. to the body, household,and neighbourhood) and adopt methods better suited to answering questions atthose scales (Schweitzer/Stephenson 2007).

Determinants of vulnerability: Many studies reported that vulnerability toclimate change impacts and energy policy adjustments was manifest through


locational disadvantage. Although it is true that some places will be hit harderthan others, more attention needs to be given to the poly-valent character ofmobility. Residents of places such as caravan parks on �ood-prone land, or ofolder dwellings not compliant with new building codes (e.g. for higher intensitystorm events), are often socio-economically marginalised and vulnerable. Theymay be new migrants, may have young children, may be older, or may have adisability. If climate change impacts manifest di�erentially upon areas of con-centrated poverty and vulnerability, where people have less ability to adapt orescape, then environmental inequalities will occur�as we saw when HurricaneKatrina devastated New Orleans (Elliott/Pais 2006). Wealthier residents of hot-ter houses can simply turn up the air-conditioning. But this luxury may not beavailable to households experiencing fuel poverty. Future research needs to as-sess how multiple axes of di�erence, such as ethno-racial composition, householdstructure, or age may predict vulnerability to both climate change and energytransitions associated with mitigation and adaptation.

Health impacts: Finally, studies have tended to overlook some of the healthissues associated with climate change and energy policy. Respiratory illness,vector-borne disease and health-e�ects associated with heatwaves are gainingattention. But there are also mental health impacts associated with climatechange, especially for households experiencing fuel and energy poverty. Andthere may be secondary impacts. Are obese people more vulnerable to heat-waves? Could policy-driven transitions to solar, biofuel and wind energy haveunintended health impacts such as exposure to carcinogenic chemicals (fromphotovoltaic panel production) or increases in asthma (from combustion of bio-fuels)? We presently lack the research necessary to answer these questions. Tochart a way forward, we have synthesised the results of this review into a concep-tual model, which seeks to illustrate the interrelationships between the relevanttopics and to point to new research directions.

5. Climate Change, Energy and Justice:A Conceptual Model

The literature suggests that biophysical, socio-economic, and spatial factors po-tentially contribute to environmental inequalities associated with energy pol-icy responses to climate change (both mitigation and adaptation). Many ofthese factors may be interconnected but there has been limited research inves-tigating their interplay, or to their manifestation across di�erent scales (i.e. thebody to the globe). We o�er a conceptual model that depicts how environ-mental inequalities may result from energy transitions associated with climatechange mitigation and adaptation (�gure 4 ). Three dimensions warrant closerscrutiny�governance, spatial planning and socio-economic issues.


Figure 4: Conceptual model illustrating domains of action in energy policy responses to climate change and their interconnections with factors contributing to environmental (in)justice


Impact City Nation Worldwide

Increased temperature 1 7 3

Heightened storm intensity 2 1

Changes in rainfall 2 2

Extreme weather events 2 3

Extreme heatwaves 2 4

Prolonged drought 1

Increased flooding and storm surges 3

Disruption/damage of ecosystems 2

Spread of vector-borne diseases 1

Sea level rise 1

Severe coastal erosion

Frequent bushfires

Figure 4: Conceptual model illustrating domains of action in energy policy re-sponses to climate change and their interconnections with factors contributingto environmental (in)justice

Dimension 1�Governance

Within the governance domain, energy security is managed; energy demandis monitored and predicted; and energy policies are implemented or revised.Energy security is an example of how climate change policy decisions can impactmarginalised and vulnerable people, through market-based models of servicedelivery, via the uneven distribution of energy resources, or due to problems withaging infrastructure (Goldthau/Sovacool 2012). Maintaining energy security inan age of climate change is vitally important because it a�ects multiple socialsectors such as telecommunications, health and transit (Nierop 2014). Climatechange has the potential to cripple existing energy infrastructure in many cities.But we need to give closer attention to the di�erential e�ects of these impactson di�erent populations.


For example, Nierop (2014) suggests that energy policies should be imple-mented to reduce the vulnerability of electricity infrastructure to climate changeimpacts including decreased energy e�ciency resulting from higher average sur-face temperatures, and an escalation in energy demand. Increases in peak de-mand are likely, especially during hotter summer months and during intenseheatwaves, when periods of prolonged high electricity usage will strain the ca-pacity of electricity infrastructure (Nierop 2014, 79). Many developed nationsare already devising and implementing targeted policy interventions (e.g. newbuilding codes, promoting investment in renewable energy). But energy povertyissues, which plague many developing countries, where there is little or no ac-cess to electricity and safe and clean fuel for cooking, have mostly been ignored(Chakravarty/Tavoni 2013). People with limited or no access to electricity whohave contributed little to global greenhouse gas emissions, arguably have di�er-ent responsibilities for mitigating climate change (Adger et al. 2006), and needmore assistance with adapting.

Dimension 2�Spatial Planning

There is a close link between governance and spatial planning, which is oftenseen as a logical mechanism for climate response (Hurlimann/March 2012). Spa-tial planning practices include zoning land for certain uses, regulating land andproperty development, implementing building codes, and directing investment inenergy e�cient buildings and public transportation systems (op. cit.). Althoughspatial planning is regarded by many as providing useful tools for e�ecting cli-mate change mitigation and adaptation, it is also vulnerable to political inter-vention (Day et al. 2009), and can have di�erential impacts upon marginalisedand vulnerable populations (Byrne/MacCallum 2013).

Moreover, energy disparities already exist within contemporary energy sys-tems�outside the domain of spatial planning. Planning is usually not retroac-tive. Planning cannot require property owners to retro�t existing buildings,only to improve a structure if there is a development application. Although�low income households pay proportionally more for energy services�, planningis unable to directly intervene in rental property markets or to require land-lords to upgrade appliances to improve energy e�ciency or to use renewableenergy (Goldthau/Sovacool 2012, 236). And spatial planning responses to cli-mate change may trigger new problems.

For instance, some spatial planning strategies such as urban densi�cationseek to mitigate climate change by using land more e�ciently, accommodatingpopulations in high-rise buildings to preserve green-space. But these responsescan increase urban heat-island impacts (through more hard surfaces), may forceup land values, and may push lower income households into vulnerable locations.Moreover, emerging literature suggests that higher-density built environmentsare more energy intensive (Gray et al. 2010). There is an urgent need to rethinkthe capacity of spatial planning to respond to climate change and to recognisethat some energy-related strategies may inadvertently harm marginalised andvulnerable populations (Bulkeley et al. 2013).


Dimension 3�Socioeconomic Issues

The socioeconomic issues originating from `fuel poverty' and `energy poverty' canhave pernicious consequences for public health. Howden-Chapman et al. (2012,135) identify three factors, which can intensify fuel poverty: thermal ine�ciencyof households; high levels of income inequality; and increases in electricity prices.Belonging to a fuel poor household has various health consequences, including:increased risk of in�uenza, heart disease, strokes and asthma, and increased useof public health services (Thomson/Snell 2013). It can also a�ect mental well-being and social contact, causing depression, social isolation and even mobilityconstraints (Walker/Day 2012).

Operationalising the conceptual model�an Australian case example

The Australian electricity sector has been identi�ed as one of the world's mostcarbon-intensive electricity production systems (McGuirk et al. 2014). Proposalsto transition away from fossil-fuel dependency are strongly contested. Federalgovernment elections have been fought and lost based on proposals to mitigateclimate change, such as the adoption of a carbon pollution market or implementa-tion of a carbon tax. Although energy e�ciency is a climate governance pathwayin Australia, energy transmission and distribution companies have prioritised in-vestment in network upgrades to address peak demand, rather than promotinghousehold energy e�ciency or switching to renewable energy (McGuirk et al.2014).

The federal government's focus on coal (which is Australia's largest export)has also inhibited investment in renewable energy (E�endi/Courvisanos 2012).The Renewable Energy Target of 20% renewables by 2020 has lead to someinvestment in alternative energy, (with the target likely to be achieved muchsooner), but the powerful coal industry is pushing for its abolition or substan-tial reduction. And generous feed-in tari�s for household rooftop photovoltaicsystems (e.g. 44 cents per kilowatt hour), have increased the number of installa-tions from around 8,000 rooftop solar systems in 2000 to over 1 million by 2014(Bahadori et al. 2013). In the process, these measures have achieved parity be-tween wholesale solar power and thermal coal-generated power (Campbell et al.2014). Rooftop photovoltaic systems have also shifted peak demand (Cludius etal. 2014). Photovoltaic systems generate the most power in the afternoon whentemperatures are the hottest, thus lessening electricity demand for cooling.

But a paradox of environmental (in)justice is that policy changes to addressone problem can have unintended consequences that di�erentially impact otherpopulations (Bullard/Johnson 2000). Solar subsidies in Australia have tendedto bene�t middle-class residents who have the income necessary to make an up-front purchase (Byrne et al. 2009). While increased demand for rooftop solarsystems has driven down the cost of solar systems, it has had some unantici-pated consequences. Photovoltaic technologies have toxic production processes(Mulvaney 2014). Cheap solar panels are sourced mainly from China, whereenvironmental regulation practices are comparatively lenient, resulting in thedisproportionate exposure of Chinese workers to environmental toxins. In other


words, middle class Australians are exporting their solar pollution costs to Chinawhile reaping the `clean energy' bene�ts in Australia.

Moreover, energy utilities in Australia who `platinum plated' network infras-tructure to cope with peak demand have been faced with reduced demand (due tothe success of rooftop solar). To recover redundant investment costs in networkinfrastructure utilities have increased domestic tari�s. In turn, price rises havecreated a feed-back loop, making rooftop photovoltaic solar even more attractive.However, low-income earners and renters who cannot switch to solar have beenleft with higher electricity bills (Nelson et al. 2011). Many of these householdshave also been displaced to the urban periphery (where public transportation isscarce), due to land use policies of urban consolidation. These households facemultiple energy problems�electricity costs are rising, private transportation ex-penses are prohibitive, and the new suburbs are hotter than their inner-suburbancounterparts due to tree clearing for development and smaller lot sizes. If weare going to be able to e�ectively combat climate change, adapt to expected im-pacts, and transition to alternative energy, we will need holistic policy responsesthat address these sorts of problems.

6. Conclusions

In this paper we have reported the results of a systematic quantitative reviewof the literature addressing the combined issues of energy, justice and climatechange. In the literature, the impacts of climate change are seen as havingrepercussions for energy supply and demand. Problems with cooling house-holds, transporting people, supplying water, treating sewage and providing foodcan occur when energy supply is disrupted due to climate change impacts suchas �ooding or heatwaves. And adapting energy networks to cope with direct andindirect climate change impacts (e.g. storms vs. peak demand) as well as tran-sitioning to alternative energy sources to mitigate climate change, may producespatially and socially uneven impacts on livelihoods, health and wellbeing. Yetvery little research has recognised the complex interplay between these issues.

As we have shown in this paper, there are pernicious consequences of notclearly thinking through imbricated problems and feedback loops associated withenergy, climate change and justice. Researchers need to turn their collective at-tention to these sorts of complex problems. Future analyses could consider thedi�erent forms of justice involved in ensuring fair outcomes (e.g. distributive,procedural, identi�cation). New research might also consider how a�ected pop-ulations are mobilising these di�erent conceptions of justice and for what ends.

For instance, could new generation batteries designed to �x intermittencysupply problems associated with renewable energy create new problems throughmining scarce metals used as catalysts, through fugitive emissions from batteries,and/or during the safe disposal of batteries in the future? Could the valorisationof a discourse of `greener' is `cleaner' silence community objections to emergingtechnologies such as hydrogen-based systems, fuel cells, co-generation, waste toenergy, and next-generation nuclear? Are energy transitions in response to cli-


mate change potentially displacing environmental problems? Could wind-farmsharm the sovereignty of Indigenous peoples? Does coal-seam gas mining dis-proportionately impact rural populations while bene�ting city dwellers? Atten-tion to these types of questions now, and to the di�erent dimensions of justicethey invoke, could prevent longer-term environmental justice consequences inthe decades that lie ahead.

Bibliography

ABC News (2009), Melbourne Blackout Causes Chaos, URL: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-01-30/melbourne-blackout-causes-chaos/278640 [20 August 2014].

Adger, W. N. (2001), Scales of Governance and Environmental Justice for Adaptationand Mitigation of Climate Change, in: Journal of International Development, 13,921�931

Adger, W. N./J. Paavola/S. Huq/M. Mace (2006), Fairness in Adaptation to Climate

Change, Cambridge/MAArmaroli, N./V. Balzani (2007), The Future of Energy Supply: Challenges and Op-

portunities, in: Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 46, 52�66Australian Government (2014), Special Climate Statement 48�One of Southeast Aus-

tralia's Most Signi�cant Heatwaves, Canberra, Bureau of Meteorology, URL: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs48.pdf [20 August 2014]

Bahadori, A./C. Nwaoha/S. Zendehboudi/G. Zahedi (2013), An Overview of Renew-able Energy Potential and Utilisation in Australia, in: Renewable and Sustainable

Energy Reviews 21, 582�589Bang, G. (2010), Energy Security and Climate Change Concerns: Triggers for Energy

Policy Change in the United States? In: Energy Policy 38, 1645�1653Barnett, J. (2009), Justice and Adaptation to Climate Change, in: Moss, J. (ed.),

Climate Change and Social Justice, Melbourne, 131�143Bickersta�, K./G. Walker/H. Bulkeley (2013), Introduction: Making Sense of Energy

Justice, in: Bickersta�, K./G. Walker/H. Bulkeley (eds.), Energy Justice in a

Changing Climate: Social Equity and Low Carbon Energy, London, 1�13Bollen, J./S. Hers/B. van der Zwaan (2010), An Integrated Assessment of Climate

Change, Air Pollution, and Energy Security Policy, in: Energy Policy 38, 4021�4030

Brown, M. H./C. Rewey/T. Gagliano (2003), Energy Security. National Conference

of State Legislatures, URL http://www.oe.netl.doe.gov/docs/prepare/NCSLEnergySecurity.pdf [22 August 2014]

Bulkeley, H. et al. (2013), Climate Justice and Global Cities: Mapping the EmergingDiscourses, in: Global Environmental Change 23, 914�925

� (2014a), Transnational Climate Change Governance, Cambridge� /G. A. Edwards/S. Fuller (2014b), Contesting Climate Justice in the City: Ex-

amining Politics and Practice in Urban Climate Change Experiments, in: Global

Environmental Change 25, 31�40Bullard, R. D./G. S. Johnson (2000), Environmentalism and Public Policy: Environ-

mental Justice: Grassroots Activism and Its Impact on Public Policy DecisionMaking, in: Journal of Social Issues 56, 555�578

Butler, B. (2011), Queensland Shuts Down as Floods Take Deadly Toll, in: The Age,January 13


Buzar, S. (2007), The `Hidden' Geographies of Energy Poverty in Post-socialism: Be-tween Institutions and Households, in: Geoforum 38, 224�240

Byrne, J./B. Gleeson/M. Howes/W. Steele (2009), Climate Change and AustralianUrban Resilence: The Limits of Ecological Modernization as an Adaptive Strategy,in: Davoudi, S./J. Crawford/A. Mehmood (eds.), Planning for Climate Change:

Strategies for Mitigation and Adaptation for Spatial Planners, London, 136�154�/D. MacCallum (2013), Bordering on Neglect: `Environmental Justice' in Aus-

tralian Planning, in: Australian Planner 50, 164�173Campbell, R./C. Amos/A. Scarlett (2014), All Talk and No Action: The Coal Indus-

try and Energy Poverty, Policy Brief, CanberraCarruthers, D. V. (2007), Environmental Justice and the Politics of Energy on the

US�Mexico Border, in: Environmental Politics 16, 394�413Chakravarty, S./M. Tavoni (2013), Energy Poverty Alleviation and Climate Change

Mitigation: Is there a Trade O�?, in: Energy Economics 40, 67�73Chester, L. (2010), Conceptualising Energy Security and Making Explicit Its Poly-

semic Nature, in: Energy Policy 38, 887�895Cludius, J./S. Forrest/I. MacGill (2014), Distributional E�ects of the Australian Re-

newable Energy Target (RET) through Wholesale and Retail Electricity Price Im-pacts, in: Energy Policy 71, 40�51

Corner, A./D. Venables/A. Spence/W. Poortinga/C. Demski/N. Pidgeon (2011), Nu-clear Power, Climate Change and Energy Security: Exploring British public Atti-tudes, in: Energy Policy 39, 4823�4833

Cutter, S. L./B. J. Boru�/W. L. Shirley (2006), Social Vulnerability to Environmen-tal Hazards, in: Cutter, S. L., Hazards, Vulnerability and Environmental Justice,

London, chapter 8, 115�131Dale, V. H./R. A. Efroymson/K. L. Kline (2011), The Land Use�Climate Change�

Energy Nexus, in: Landscape Ecology 26, 755�773Davis, S. J./K. Caldeira/D. Matthews (2010), Future CO2 Emissions and Climate

Change from Existing Energy Infrastructure, in: Science 329, 1330�1333Day, A./P. Ogumka/P. Jones/A. Dunsdon (2009), The Use of the Planning System to

Encourage Low Carbon Energy Technologies in Buildings, in: Renewable Energy

34, 2016�2021Duus-Otterstrom, G./S. C. Jagers (2012), Identifying Burdens of Coping with Cli-

mate Change: A Typology of the Duties of Climate Justice, in: Global Environ-

mental Change 22, 746�753E�endi, P./J. Courvisanos (2012), Political Aspects of Innovation: Examining Renew-

able Energy in Australia, in: Renewable Energy 38, 245�252Elliott, J. R./J. Pais (2006), Race, Class, and Hurricane Katrina: Social Di�erences

in Human Responses to Disaster, in: Social Science Research 35, 295�321Fan, M.-F. (2006), Nuclear Waste facilities on Tribal Land: The Yami's Struggles for

Environmental Justice, in: Local Environment 11, 433�444Ford, J. D./L. Berrang-Ford/J. Paterson (2011), A Systematic Review of Observed

Climate Change Adaptation in Developed Nations, in: Climatic Change 106, 327�336

Goldthau, A. B./B. K. Sovacool (2012), The Uniqueness of the Energy Security, Jus-tice, and Governance Problem, in: Energy Policy 41, 232�240

Gray, R./B. Gleeson/M. Burke (2010), Urban Consolidation, Household GreenhouseEmissions and the Role of Planning, in: Urban Policy and Research 28, 335�346


Guitart, D./C. Pickering/J. Byrne (2012), Past Results and Future Directions in Ur-ban Community Gardens Research, in: Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11, 364�373

Hajat, S./R. S. Kovats/K. Lachowycz (2007), Heat-related and Cold-related Deathsin England and Wales: Who Is at Risk? In: Occupational and Environmental

Medicine 64, 93�100Head, L. (2012), Australia's Rich Talk about Saving the Environment. The Poor Bear

the Burden of Doing It, in: The Conversation, URL: https://theconversation.com/australias-rich-talk-about-saving-the-environment-the-poor-bear-the-burden-of-doing-it-7693

Hou, D./J. Luo/A. Al-Tabbaa (2012), Shale Gas Can Be a Double-edged Sword forClimate Change, in: Nature Climate Change 2, 385�387

Howden-Chapman, P. et al. (2012), Tackling Cold Housing and Fuel Poverty in NewZealand: A Review of Policies, Research, and Health Impacts, in: Energy Policy

49, 134�142Hughes, L./T. McMichael (2011), The Critical Decade: Climate Change and Health.

Climate Commission Secretariat, URL: https://cci.anu.edu.au/storage/CC%20and%20Hlth%20in%20Australia,%20Climate%20Commission%20(Hughes%20&%20McMichael),%20Dec%202011.pdf [4 October 2014]

Hurlimann, A. C./A. P. March (2012), The Role of Spatial Planning in Adapting toClimate Change, in: Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 3, 477�488

Huynen, M.-M./P. Martens/D. Schram/M. P. Weijenberg/A. E. Kunst (2001), TheImpact of Heat Waves and Cold Spells on Mortality Rates in the Dutch Popu-lation, in: Environmental Health Perspectives 109, 463

Instone, L./K. Mee/J. Palmer/M. Williams/N. Vaughan (2013), Climate ChangeAdaptation and the Rental Sector, in: National Climate Change Adaptation Re-

search Facility, Gold CoastIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013), Summary for Policymakers, in:

Stocker, T. F. et al. (eds.) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergov-

ernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge/UK�New YorkJacobsson, S./V. Lauber (2006), The Politics and Policy of Energy System Transfor-

mation�Explaining the German Di�usion of Renewable Energy Technology, in:Energy Policy 34, 256�276

Jenner, S./A. J. Lamadrid (2013), Shale Gas vs. Coal: Policy Implications from Envi-ronmental Impact Comparisons of Shale Gas, Conventional Gas, and Coal on Air,Water, and Land in the United States, in: Energy Policy 53, 442�453

Klinsky, S./H. Dowlatabadi/T. McDaniels (2012), Comparing Public Rationales forJustice Trade-o�s in Mitigation and Adaptation Climate Policy Dilemmas, in:Global Environmental Change 22, 862�876

Leonard III, L. G. (1996), Sovereignty, Self-determination, and Environmental Justicein the Mescalero Apache's Decision to Store Nuclear Waste, in: Boston College

Environmental A�airs Law Review 24, 651Loughnan, M./N. Tapper/T. Phan/K. Lynch/J. McInnes (2013), A Spatial Vulnera-

bility Analysis of Urban Populations During Extreme Heat Events in AustralianCapital Cities, URL: http://www.nccarf.edu.au/publications/spatial-vulnerability-urban-extreme-heat-events [20 August 2014]

Loughnan, M. E./N. Nicholls/N. J. Tapper (2010), The E�ects of Summer Tempera-ture, Age and Socioeconomic Circumstance on Acute Myocardial Infarction Admis-sions in Melbourne, in: International Journal of Health Geographics 9, 1�11


Ma, W. et al. (2013), The Impact of the 2008 Cold Spell on Mortality in Shanghai,China, in: International Journal of Biometeorology 57, 179�184

Maller, C. J./Y. Strengers (2011), Housing, Heat Stress and Health in a ChangingClimate: Promoting the Adaptive Capacity of Vulnerable Households, a SuggestedWay Forward, in: Health Promotion International 26, 492�498

Mathiesen, B. V./H. Lund/K. Karlsson (2011), 100% Renewable Energy systems, Cli-mate Mitigation and Economic Growth, in: Applied Energy 88, 488�501

McGuirk, P./R. Dowling/H. Bulkeley (2014), Repositioning Urban Governments? En-ergy E�ciency and Australia's Changing Climate and Energy Governance Regimes,in: Urban Studies (in print)

Moore, R. (2012), De�nitions of Fuel Poverty: Implications for Policy, in: Energy

Policy 49, 19�26Mulvaney, D. (2014), Are Green Jobs Just Jobs? Cadmium Narratives in the Life

Cycle of Photovoltaics, in: Geoforum 54, 178�186Nelson, T./P. Simshauser/S. Kelley (2011), Australian Residential Solar Feed-in Tar-

i�s: Industry Stimulus or Regressive Form of taxation? In: Economic Analysis andPolicy 41, 113

Nierop, S. C. A. (2014), Envisioning Resilient Electrical Infrastructure: A PolicyFramework for Incorporating Future Climate Change into Electricity Sector Plan-ning, in: Environmental Science & Policy 40, 78�84

Patterson, M. G. (1996), What Is Energy E�ciency? Concepts, Indicators and Meth-odological Issues, in: Energy Policy 24, 377�390

Pickering, C./J. Byrne (2014), The Bene�ts of Publishing Systematic QuantitativeLiterature Reviews for PhD Candidates and other Early-career Researchers, in:Higher Education Research & Development 33, 534�548

Pindyck, R. S. (1979), The Structure of World Energy Demand, Cambridge/MAPowells, G./H. Bulkeley/S. Bell/E. Judson (2014), Peak Electricity Demand and the

Flexibility of Everyday Life, in: Geoforum 55, 43�52Roy, S./J. Byrne/C. Pickering (2012), A Systematic Quantitative Review of Urban

Tree Bene�ts, Costs, and Assessment Methods Across Cities in Di�erent ClimaticZones, in: Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11, 351�363

Schae�er, R. et al. (2012), Energy Sector Vulnerability to Climate Change: A Review,in: Energy 38, 1�12

Scha�er, A./D. Muscatello/R. Broome/S. Corbett/W. Smith (2012), Emergency De-partment Visits, Ambulance Calls, and Mortality Associated with an ExceptionalHeat Wave in Sydney: A Time-series Analysis, in: Environmental Health 11, 1�8

Schweitzer, L./M. Stephenson (2007), Right Answers, Wrong Questions: Environmen-tal Justice as Urban Research, in: Urban Studies 44, 319�337

Steele, W./D. MacCallum/J. Byrne/D. Houston (2012), Planning the Climate-justCity, in: International Planning Studies 17, 67�83

Ste�en, W./L. Hughes/S. Perkins (2014), Heatwaves: Hotter, Longer, More Often.Climate Council of Australia Limited, URL: http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/9901f6614a2cac7b2b888f55b4d�9cc.pdf [November 10 2014]

Steven, R./C. Pickering/G. Castley (2011), A Review of the Impacts of Nature BasedRecreation on Birds, in: Journal of Environmental Management 92, 2287�2294

Thomson, H./C. Snell (2013), Quantifying the Prevalence of Fuel Poverty Across theEuropean Union, in: Energy Policy 52, 563�572

Tirado Herrero, S./D. Ürge-Vorsatz (2012), Trapped in the Heat: A Post-communistType of Fuel Poverty, in: Energy Policy 49, 60�68


Tong, S./X. Y. Wang/W. Yu/D. Chen/X. Wang (2014), The Impact of Heatwaves onMortality in Australia: A Multicity Study, in: BMJ open 4, e003579

Ürge-Vorsatz, D./B. Metz (2009), Energy E�ciency: How Far Does It Get Us in Con-trolling Climate Change? In: Energy E�ciency 2, 87�94

van Vliet, O. et al. (2012), Synergies in the Asian Energy System: Climate Change,Energy Security, Energy Access and Air Pollution, in: Energy Economics 34, 470�480

Walker, G./R. Day (2012), Fuel Poverty as Injustice: Integrating Distribution, Recog-nition and Procedure in the Struggle for A�ordable Warmth, in: Energy Policy 49,69�75

Wang, X./C. Chen/Z. Ren (2010), Assessment of Climate Change Impact on Residen-tial Building Heating and Cooling Energy Requirement in Australia, in: Buildingand Environment 45, 1663�1682

Wilson, S. M./R. Richard/L. Joseph/E. Williams (2010), Climate Change, Environ-mental Justice, and Vulnerability: An Exploratory Spatial Analysis, in: Environ-mental Justice 3, 13�19

Wolch, J. R./J. Byrne/J. P. Newell (2014), Urban Green Space, Public Health, andEnvironmental Justice: The Challenge of Making Cities `Just Green Enough', in:Landscape and Urban Planning 125, 234�244

Xiang, J./P. Bi/D. Pisaniello/A. Hansen (2014), The Impact of Heatwaves on Work-ers' Health and Safety in Adelaide, in: Environmental Research 133, 90�95


Appendix 1

Appendix 1: Details of the 22 papers examining energy strategies

Authors (year) Title Journal Countries Examined

Bang (2010) Energy security and climate change concerns: Triggers for energy policy change in the United States?

Energy Policy United States

Berger et al. (2014) Impacts of climate change upon cooling and heating energy demand of office buildings in Vienna, Austria

Energy and Buildings Vienna, Austria

Bollen et al. (2010) An integrated assessment of climate change, air pollution, and energy security policy

Energy Policy Europe

Bulkeley et al. (2013) Climate justice and global cities: Mapping the emerging discourses

Global Environmental Change

Philadelphia, USA Quito, USA Toronto, Canada

Bulkeley et al. (2014) Contesting climate justice in the city: Examining politics and practice in urban climate change experiments


Bangalore, India Monterrey, Mexico Hong Kong, China Philadelphia, USA Berlin, Germany

Chakravarty and Tavoni (2013)

Energy poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation: Is there a trade off?

Energy Economics Europe Africa

Corner et al. (2011) Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes

Energy Policy England Scotland Wales

Dolinar et al. (2010) Predicted changes in energy demands for heating and cooling due to climate change

Physics and Chemistry of the Earth

Slovenia

Frank (2005) Climate change impacts on building heating and cooling energy demand in Switzerland

Energy and Buildings Switzerland

Howden-Chapman et al. (2012)

Tackling cold housing and fuel poverty in New Zealand: A review of policies, research, and health impacts

Energy Policy New Zealand

Katuwal and Bohara (2009)

Biogas: A promising renewable technology and its impact on rural households in Nepal

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

Nepal

Li et al. (2013) Future climate change and building energy demand in Tianjin, China

Building Services Engineering Research and Technology

Tianjin, China

Nierop (2014) Envisioning resilient electrical infrastructure: A policy framework for incorporating future climate change into electricity sector planning

Environmental Science & Policy

United States


Authors (year) Title Journal Countries Examined

Rogers-Hayden et al. (2011)

‘Energy security’ and ‘climate change’: Constructing UK energy discursive realities


United Kingdom

Sovacool and Mukherjee (2011)

Conceptualizing and measuring energy security: A synthesized approach

Energy United States

Thomson and Snell (2013)

Quantifying the prevalence of fuel poverty across the European Union

Energy Policy United Kingdom Ireland

Tirado Herrero and Urge-Vorsatz (2012)

Trapped in the heat: A post-communist type of fuel poverty

Energy Policy Hungary

van Vliet et al. (2012) Synergies in the Asian energy system: Climate change, energy security, energy access and air pollution

Energy Economics China Indonesia Malaysia South Korea

Urge-Vorsatz and Metz (2009)

Energy efficiency: how far does it get us in controlling climate change?

Energy Efficiency United Kingdom Brazil Japan

Wang et al. (2010) Assessment of climate change impact on residential building heating and cooling energy requirement in Australia

Building and Environment

Australia

Wang et al. (2014) China's regional assessment of renewable energy vulnerability to climate change

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

China

Xu et al. (2012) Impacts of climate change on building heating and cooling energy patterns in California

Energy United States

Table 4: Details of the 22 papers examining energy strategies

Authors

Jason Byrne Stephanie MalinGri�th University Colorado State UniversityEnvironmental Futures Research B234 Clark BuildingInstitute USA-Fort Collins, CO80523Gold Coast Campus Sancova 56QLD 4222, Australia [email protected]@gri�th.edu.au

Richard Filcak Chloe PortangerSlovak Academy of Sciences Gri�th UniversityInstitute for Forecasting Studies Environmental Futures Research InstituteSancova 56 Gold Coast Campus811 05 Bratislava, Slovak Rep. QLD 4222, Australiarichard.�[email protected] chloe.portanger@gri�thuni.edu.au

Richard Galvin Fabian SchuppertDepartment of Philosophy Queen's University Belfast2800 S. University Drive Institute for Collaborative ResearchUSA-Fort Worth, TX 76129 in the [email protected] 18 University Square

Belfast BT7 [email protected]

Christelle Gramaglia Tamara StegerUMR G-EAU IRSTEA Central European University (CEU)(ex-Cemagref) Nador u. 9361, rue Jean-François Breton 1051 Budapest, HungaryBP 5095, France-34196 [email protected] cedex [email protected]

John R. Harris Gordon WalkerDepartment of Philosophy Lancaster University2800 S. University Drive Lancaster Environment CentreUSA-Fort Worth, TX 76129 and DEMAND [email protected] Farrer Avenue

UK-Lancaster, LA1 [email protected]

418 Authors

Angela Kallho� Ivo Wallimann-HelmerUniversität Wien Universität ZürichPhilosophisches Seminar Ethik-ZentrumNIG Zollikerstrasse 117Universitätsstr. 7 CH-8008 ZürichA-1010 Wien [email protected]�@univie.ac.at

Éloi LaurentOFCE-Sciences PoQuai d'OrsayFrance-69, 75007 [email protected]

Anton LeistUniversität ZürichEthik-ZentrumZollikerstrasse 117CH-8008 Zü[email protected]

Climate change, energy policy and justice: a systematic review

Documents

Transcript of Climate change, energy policy and justice: a systematic review