No abstract

This article presents the results of the COVID Energy Map, a novel, global mapping exercise tracking emergency responses undertaken by governments, regulators, utilities and companies in the Global North and South to mitigate energy poverty by keeping energy affordable and available. The map constitutes a comprehensive open access evidence-based database, so far collating 380+ emergency measures, in 120+ countries. This paper particularly shows and discusses how the response has been developing until early 2021, highlighting various emerging longer-term concerns and strategies across Global North and South. The global COVID-19 response merits close attention in our view, as it reveals both the universal importance of household energy services access and important underlying existing narratives and policy-making questions about securing energy services access as a vital basic need, and even a ‘basic right’. In fact, the paper additionally evaluates whether and how COVID-19 responses seem to fall in step with a nascent global trend of (legal) recognition of ‘rights to energy’ in international, regional and national policy, including for example in the EU, India, Philippines, and Colombia. We conclude that while the COVID-19 response clearly reflects broad recognition of the vital importance of affordable, continuous energy services access for basic human well-being and capabilities during the pandemic, a right to energy perspective could additionally lay bare or give shape to important concerns about some households’ too minimal (insufficient) forms of modern energy access, questions of equity, and the role of the state and other actors. In terms of equity the article particularly raises issues with the manner in which support was made available only to some consumers (e.g. on-grid, off-grid, regulated, or non-regulated, post-paid or pre-paid), or only for specific fuels, and not others. In addition, the lack of attention to clean (renewable) (off-grid) energy services in COVID-19 responses is striking, and worrying, both in terms of immediate response, and green recovery from COVID-19. We argue that a right to (clean) energy perspective would help to reflect on, and inform, both shorter-term and longer-term responses to energy poverty and COVID-19, and should aid the realization of sufficiently equitable, robust, modern energy systems in line with universal UN Global Sustainable Development Goal 7. Specifically, it should also help to fulfil SDG7.1.’s promise of ‘leaving no one behind’.

No abstract

While sustainability was introduced as a game-changing idea, it has often been criticized for its vagueness and its over-accommodating bent toward powerful, vested interests, economic growth, and profit seeking—or, on the contrary, for not being able to enter mainstream politics. As a result, in the current political climate, sustainability policies seem to be everywhere, but so does the social and ecological critique of these policies. In this article, we articulate the seeds of an emerging cross-sectoral shift away from sustainability and toward social-ecological justice. Coming from a multidisciplinary background, we explore commonalities in the shortcomings of sustainability agendas and identify discursive barriers to change across three critical fields: transport, energy, and urban greening. Within each of these fields, we observe an upswing of scholarly work addressing the pitfalls and trade-offs of sustainability, but we also show how taboos and naturalizations embedded in these fields hinder adequately questioning the economy’s role in sustainability thinking and action. To develop our argument that there is an emerging cross-sectoral push away from sustainability agendas and toward social-ecological justice goals, we briefly examine the current state of the wider sustainability discourse together with its critique from a social and ecological justice angle. We then review relevant academic work across the applied fields of transport, energy, and urban greening, focusing on the normative and analytical aspects dealt with, and how they address and conceptualize tensions between the different dimensions of sustainability. In the concluding section, we highlight how a focus on sectoral and local tensions between ecological, economic, and social policy goals uncovers the ways in which injustices or environmental degradation are continually reproduced, despite the sustainability framework. We conclude with suggestions for thinking and acting under the umbrella of social-ecological justice.

Background Energy poverty has gained much traction over the last decades, holding both high multidisciplinary conceptual value, but also profound implications from a social policy perspective, being closely linked to the quality of life and well-being. The goal of our study is to evaluate recent measures aimed at tackling energy poverty in Europe by analysing the extent to which they are innovative on technological and governance dimensions. We do so by building an analytical tool which combines evaluation criteria along these two dimensions and by employing it for the analysis of twenty measures aimed at tackling energy poverty that have been designed and employed in ten European countries. These measures were selected with the support of an expert panel. Results We identify three categories of innovative measures aimed at alleviating energy poverty: (1) measures with high technological scores, (2) measures with high governance scores, and (3) measures with high scores on both axes. The measures in the third category incorporate a variety of actors in sustainable partnerships and implement monitoring tools throughout the process, complementary to incorporating new technologies into the domestic sphere and promoting consumer awareness and consumption pattern transformation. Conclusions Our findings allow for a better perspective on the shape innovation takes in the context of energy poverty policies. Based on our research, we argue that combining technological innovation and governance innovation has a better chance of generating more articulate and scalable, and potentially successful measures with respect to their purpose of tackling energy poverty, since the drivers of energy poverty rarely pertain to only technology or only governance.