(Un)Just Energy Transition Decarbonization at whose Expense?

By Ismael Izquierdo and Adriana Abril

The Agenda 2030, the Paris Agreement, and the Net-Zero emissions 2050 stress the relevance of achieving clean and affordable energy for all while reducing carbon emissions. Despite that, hundreds of millions of people in the least-developed countries in the African region still lack access to electricity. In contrast, the energy use per person increases steadily in high-income regions so that an average person in Iceland, Canada, or the United States consumes in one month what an Indian does in two years, 14 months, and one year respectively. Even if those three high-income countries strongly depend on heating due to winter, India needs energy for cooling and air conditioning. This example illustrates the huge inequalities at the foundation of our current energy systems.

A feminist approach to energy systems intends to uncover those asymmetries in the benefits and harms of a just and equal energy transition. Bell, Dagget, and Labuski, a group of researchers from Virginia Tech in the US, invite us to reflect on how “[...] energy-intensive lifestyles were and are made possible by the underdevelopment of the Global South, and by violence enacted upon marginalized communities and ecosystems”.

Renewables like solar and wind rely heavily on extracting critical minerals from countries of the Global South. Hydroelectric dams can cause human displacement, environmental degradation and negatively affect the livelihoods of local communities. A profit-driven growth can overshadow the geopolitical and systemic inequalities at the foundation of this “green deal.” Besides an issue of technology and financial investment, the path towards just energy systems requires questioning what is at the center of the discussion: is it people and biodiversity or profit and unsustainable economic growth?

Warming up for the discussion: energy in a nutshell tention due to the ambitious goals for decarbonizing energy and net-zero emissions by 2050. Today, the energy mix is dominated 84% by fossil fuels, i.e., oil, coal, and gas, the large drivers of climate change and air pollution. They cause three-quarters of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. The other 16% of the energy mix are low-carbon sources, divided into 4% nuclear energy and 11% in, among others, hydropower, wind, and solar. However, the increase in low-carbon sources still needs to be competitive with the vast percentage of fossil fuels. Also, considering that in the 90s, the energy mix already counted with 13.5% low-carbon sources, and almost three decades later, these sources have increased by less than 2.5%. The shift to low-carbon energy alternatives appears to be slower than expected.

What is energy? It is the capacity to do some work, e.g., heating your tea, cooling your house or apartment, charging your phone, or, simpler than that, just dancing. We learn that “energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another”: the law of conservation of energy. But what is the trick with this law? Well, it is hidden in the energy source because some are more efficient in transforming from one form of energy to another. Therefore, depending on the context, i.e., geography, weather, and resource availability, some sources and their respective harness technology can be preferred over others. It is clear that it is impossible to build hydroelectric projects everywhere, cover the world with solar panels and wind turbines, or depend totally on fossil fuels.

Besides, to plan and deploy energy projects in conflict zones or natural diverse areas, proper consultation with indigenous peoples and local communities play a fundamental role. The case of the French company Électricité de France (EDF) shows the legal battles behind installing an industrial-scale wind farm project in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca, where there has been an escalation of conflicts and the criminalization of human rights defenders advocating for the right to a free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples. Beyond being only a question of the right technology, evaluating energy projects' social and environmental consequences requires politicizing the energy conservation law.

What about energy history?: a history of (eco) modernization

Before the Industrial Revolution, wood and dried manure were the energy sources to heat homes and cook food. Once the shortage of firewood and charcoal was evident, the first energy transition occurred, coal. It was adopted rapidly for heating and cooking and in steam engines representing a milestone for the industrial revolution (~1850). Half a century later, a new transition occurred, oil. Similarly, natural gas entered the game with applications at the household level. In this fashion, gas and electricity pushed coal out of the home heating market, and oil flourished as the primary energy source for transportation. In the 1960s, nuclear energy entered the stage as part of the energy mix. Two decades later, the most recent transition occurred in the arena of renewables, being hydropower, solar, and wind energies as the most famous. These have caught global at-

Before continuing, history was not apolitical but attached to a social and geographical context. According to the mainstream discourse, fossil fuels, first coal, then oil and natural gas, allowed economic growth and modernization in Europe. This uncovered the colonial past and the unequal exchange in global value chains. Now the discourse focuses on decreasing energy consumption or using “new forms of energy” in western Europe to decarbonize the economy. On the other hand, the position of the African Union regarding energy transition is clear in the sense that natural gas and nuclear energy, among others, will play a key role in bringing modernization, while renewables only in the long term are an option for a climate-resilient future. It seems that modernization and economic growth are at the core of the discussions.

Is there a future away from fossil fuels?

The history of energy demonstrates that “not always” modernization implies economic growth and prosperity for all. A just energy transition requires time, resources, and communal democratic energy systems. Switching to renewables requires access to natural resources (sometimes scarce elements), infrastructure for delivery and storage, and sound end-of-life treatments (e.g., reuse, recycle). From a climate change and efficiency perspective, the transition to renewables is worth it. Burning fossil fuels are the major cause of air pollution and climate change, and at the same time, when combusted, between 60 to 67% of the energy is lost as heat.

On the other hand, we cannot be blind to the challenges. Renewables such as solar and wind depend highly on metals, which is why they are often called “mineral-intensive clean energies.” Most of these metals are exploited in specific areas of the world. For instance, copper, nickel, cobalt, rare earth elements, and lithium, are mainly obtained from Chile, Indonesia, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), China, and Australia, respectively. But, then, most of them are processed in China.

Unfortunately, mining these metals entail social and environmental issues: the initi-ative Transition Minerals Tracker has identified 495 allegations of human rights abuse from 2010 to 2021, mainly attacks against human rights defenders, indigenous peoples, and water pollution.

For instance, cobalt extraction in the DRC has been related to corruption, environmental pollution, child labor, and financing of armed groups.

Hydrological power is also contested in many geographies, from Honduras, where the indigenous Lenca people risk their lives to defend their intrinsic link with their territories (see the case of Bertha Cáceres, murdered at her home for her leadership role in the community), to massive dams in Cambodia, part of the Chinese government’s “Belt and Road Initiative” for investment in building infrastructure, where thousands of people have been displaced without access to proper consultation and reparation. Now more than ever, it is essential to keep in mind: decarbonization at whose expense?