TY - JOUR

T1 - Procedural justice in carbon capture and storage

AU - McLaren, Duncan P.

PY - 2012/5/1

Y1 - 2012/5/1

N2 - This paper examines where and how claims of procedural injustice, or demands for procedural justice, might arise with respect to carbon capture and storage (CCS), taking a broad view of the CCS research, development and deployment process. It considers the principles that might govern such claims and seeks to identify where responsibility might lie for ensuring justice, or addressing contested claims of injustice. It is suggested that claims of procedural injustice arising from CCS are most likely to arise during implementation, from locally affected populations, raising concerns of inadequate information or consultation; but they may also arise from representatives of other indirectly affected groups, such as those affected by upstream impacts of coal mining, or energy market consequences of CCS policy. It is further suggested that claims are most likely to be directed at public authorities in respect of decisions over policy, strategy or authorisations for individual developments, but there are also routes by which claims may be directed at the corporations involved, especially under human rights provisions. The paper suggests a need for careful consideration of both procedural and, by implication, distributive justice matters in the emerging regulatory and support framework for CCS, with a particular imperative for moving public engagement upstream prior to deployment and indeed even to research programmes, to maximise the scope for legitimate influence on future outcomes.

AB - This paper examines where and how claims of procedural injustice, or demands for procedural justice, might arise with respect to carbon capture and storage (CCS), taking a broad view of the CCS research, development and deployment process. It considers the principles that might govern such claims and seeks to identify where responsibility might lie for ensuring justice, or addressing contested claims of injustice. It is suggested that claims of procedural injustice arising from CCS are most likely to arise during implementation, from locally affected populations, raising concerns of inadequate information or consultation; but they may also arise from representatives of other indirectly affected groups, such as those affected by upstream impacts of coal mining, or energy market consequences of CCS policy. It is further suggested that claims are most likely to be directed at public authorities in respect of decisions over policy, strategy or authorisations for individual developments, but there are also routes by which claims may be directed at the corporations involved, especially under human rights provisions. The paper suggests a need for careful consideration of both procedural and, by implication, distributive justice matters in the emerging regulatory and support framework for CCS, with a particular imperative for moving public engagement upstream prior to deployment and indeed even to research programmes, to maximise the scope for legitimate influence on future outcomes.

U2 - 10.1260/0958-305X.23.2-3.345

DO - 10.1260/0958-305X.23.2-3.345

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:84861554214

VL - 23

SP - 345

EP - 365

JO - Energy and Environment

JF - Energy and Environment

SN - 0958-305X

IS - 2

ER -