In their uptake of the concept of energy justice, we observe a tension between social scientists on the one hand and ethicists and philosophers on the other hand. This tension seems to arise from the contrastive assumptions and expectations that are maintained within the disciplines of social science and philosophy. While philosophers often present theoretical constructions of non-empirical forms of justice that allow for systematic normative reflection, there are social scientists who demand operationalised and measurable conceptualisations in order to come up with clear policy advice. These assumptions show the incompatibility of the descriptive and normative logics that underlie their respective fields of study. With regard to the question of justice in the energy transition, the use of theory-based normative frameworks to qualify empirically established inequalities would provide a more comprehensive and suitable approach.

Background: Socio-technical imaginaries, visions and utopias concerning energy and sustainability offer ideas about how the world should be. As such, they are normative endeavors that require a critical ethical assessment. However, normative assumptions about energy futures often remain implicit, thereby escaping critical scrutiny. This study combines science fiction and normative energy ethics to evaluate competing visions of renewable energy futures. We introduce a conceptual framework that distinguishes between the two main ways in which energy intersects with utopian futures: energy abundance and energy sufficiency. Next, we identify the ethical pros and cons of energy abundance and sufficiency as desirable future states, examining this through popular science fiction texts and normative energy ethics perspectives such as energy justice, virtue ethics, and critical theory of technology. Results: The vision of renewable energy abundance provides a very appealing prospect and can motivate different stakeholders to speed up the transition to a low-carbon energy system. However, striving towards such an energy utopia comes with several caveats. First, the idea of renewable energy abundance in the near future is dangerous because it is, so far, a technological illusion. Second, regional visions of energy abundance often neglect global and intergenerational energy justice considerations. Third, according to virtue ethics, pursuing energy abundance can be considered excessive, not virtuous and hence immoral. Fourth, energy abundance can lead to problematic forms of alienation and, therefore, dystopian versions of the good life. Utopias based on renewable energy and sufficiency aim to avoid these issues. Yet they face two additional problems that seem to hinder the adoption of energy sufficiency as the leading energy policy paradigm. First, there is a real danger that citizens would protest and slow down the energy transition if energy sufficiency were to be promoted by governments on a large scale. Second, in practice, the lines between energy sufficiency and abundance, and between energy needs and wants, remain unclear and highly contextual, leading to philosophical and practical problems. Conclusions: We propose distinguishing between two questions that may require different answers: Firstly, what kind of energy future do we, as a society, want? And what energy future should we strive for in our energy policies? Taking critiques of the pursuit of renewable energy abundance seriously, we conclude that we should resist the tendency to unquestioningly incorporate utopian ideas of renewable energy abundance into energy policies and technologies, despite the strong rhetorical appeal of abundance. This implies that the second concern regarding energy sufficiency — namely, its ambiguity, context dependency, and challenging measurement issues — should be addressed directly instead of being avoided. Energy policies must engage more explicitly with the normative assumptions underlying desirable energy futures, particularly with regard to sufficiency versus abundance.

AI is developing rapidly, as are concerns about the environmental impact of its training and deployment. Studies about the environmental sustainability of AI have begun to emerge in the past five years, stressing the need for critical reflection on the discursive underbelly of this emerging scholarship. For example, how do authors frame the problem of the environmental impact of AI? Are there any ethical reflections accompanying their reporting, and if so, which ethical theories and principles guide normative considerations about the environmental impact of AI? In this study, we conduct a scoping literature review on (1) how authors refer to and frame the problem of the environmental impact of AI systems, (2) who is ascribed responsibility for mitigating said impact, (3) what mitigative measures are proposed, and (4) what normative commitments justify such prescriptive normative statements. Our findings indicate that most literature on the topic is concentrated in computer science, engineering, and natural sciences, and the humanities are mostly absent. This results in a dominance of technofix attitudes towards the problem, and a narrow and limited engagement with ethical principles and theories. As such, we argue for more interdisciplinary work on the environmental sustainability of AI, leading to more diverse solutions and more explicit and pluralistic ethical starting points, grounded, for example, in relational and more-than-human ethics. The findings of this review highlight gaps in the literature and opportunities for developers, social scientists, and AI ethicists for more effective and diverse responses to AI’s environmental impact.

‘Energy justice’ has become a concern of professionals who are involved in the energy transition. However, many professionals in the energy domain seem to have difficulty understanding this concept, as it does not fit well into their institutional context. We will present a framework for understanding justice that allows energy actors to cope more effectively with energy justice. This framework, which is based on a re-articulation of the three tenets of energy justice, introduces justice both as an evaluation concept and as an organization principle. It further allows energy actors to navigate the normative uncertainties that characterize the energy transition.

Within energy justice, distinct categories or “tenets” of justice are distinguished, such as procedural, distributive, and recognition justice. However, many tensions still surround the concept of recognition justice. By going back to the philosophical roots of the concept, Van Uffelen distinguishes between three modes of recognition: love, law, and status order (Van Uffelen, 2022). Although this is a valuable analytical tool for understanding grievances of misrecognition, its categories are wide-ranging and, at first sight, abstract and distant from the energy space. Because of this, it remains difficult to analyse qualitative data in energy contexts from a recognition lens. In this paper, we pose the following research question: how can experiences of misrecognition in the energy context be categorised? This paper proposes a more granular typology of recognition justice, building on literature on recognition justice in critical theory and taxonomies of human needs. We test the typology to see (1) whether it is sufficiently comprehensive and (2) whether its subcategories are relevant in energy contexts. To do so, we analyse a small sample of interviews in which participants express various experiences of misrecognition in relation to energy policies or infrastructure. In this, we adopt methodological triangulation, as Researcher One coded the interviews deductively through the framework, while Researcher Two conducted an inductive, thematic analysis of the same data. The resulting typology for recognition justice can support researchers and decision-makers in identifying and analysing experiences of misrecognition in energy contexts.

Interdisciplinary collaboration is often seen as the approach to deal with wicked problems, which are problems that involve both scientific uncertainties and normative uncertainties, meaning that there is no consensus on the problem definition and the best course of action. One of the reasons for the difficulty in establishing effective interdisciplinary collaboration is that the normative assumptions of academic disciplines are usually left unarticulated. This paper presents four ideal-typical characterisations of the normative paradigms that are maintained by different disciplines. These paradigms can be sketched out as follows: the moral positions that are considered legitimate are ignored (‘moral denialism’); located at the level of the individual (‘aggregated subjectivism’); located at the level of the community (‘moral collectivism’); or found at a transcendental level (‘transcendental realism’). Each of these paradigms brings about its difficulties for dealing with wicked problems. The paper will also present a heuristic framework that guides interdisciplinary research in dealing with normative plurality by aligning the different scales of contextualisation that appear to underlie the four normative paradigms.

Governing a just energy transition requires detecting and anticipating energy injustices. Although much scholarly attention has been given to frameworks to analyse energy injustices, a consistent framework for policymakers and researchers to detect them is lacking. Current methods for detecting what the publics perceive as (un)just rely on explicit articulations of grievances by citizens in official participatory settings or during energy conflicts. However, it is implausible that all injustices manifest within these contexts. This study introduces a framework to understand why injustices might remain unseen and unaddressed, inspired by the concept of hidden morality as introduced by the philosopher Axel Honneth. The framework of hidden morality conceptualises several steps between an injustice and social change: (1) experience of injustices; (2) expression of injustices; (3) collective action; (4) uptake in public discourse; (5) reformulation; and (6) social change. Between each of these steps, different obstacles can arise. The paper explores the mechanisms that prevent energy injustices from surfacing and being resolved through philosophical literature and two case studies. Its contribution is twofold: it raises awareness of the fact that injustices can remain undetected, and it proposes a framework that is the first systematic tool for policymakers to detect injustices when making energy policies.

Analysing energy conflicts is crucial to realise a successful and just energy transition. In doing so, it is insufficient to understand energy conflicts as epistemic disagreements about risk analyses and safety, as people often voice moral concerns beyond epistemic debates. To analyse grievances of social movements and citizens in energy conflicts, scholars often adopt a tenet-based energy justice framework that distinguishes between distributive, procedural, recognition and restorative justice. However, categorising claims into tenets does not shed light on disagreements within the tenets. As such, the existing conceptual toolkit is insufficient to understand the core of energy justice conflicts. This article proposes to shift focus towards capturing different conceptions of justice. This approach is illustrated by a qualitative analysis of the controversy around underground gas storage Grijpskerk and Norg in the Netherlands. The results show that the conflict is constituted by competing conceptions of restorative justice. The institutionalisation of one conception delegitimises and hides certain justice concerns and reduces the conflict to an epistemic dispute, which leads to misrecognition and possibly to the escalation of the conflict.

Wicked problems, such as climate change, poverty, and antibiotic resistance, are ethical problems, as moral plurality about the social good is one of their constituting factors. Although wicked problems cannot be fully solved, they are urgent and demand intervention. While design thinking was suggested in the 1990s to deal with wicked problems, it is still an open question how it can address moral plurality. In this article, we consider how design thinking can address moral plurality in wicked problems. We propose that designers using design thinking can adopt four normative paradigms toward moral plurality, namely moral agnosticism (design for solutions), moral pragmatism (design for aggregated preferences), moral unificationism (design for community-created values), and transcendental moralism (design for The Good). Then, we argue that designers can address moral pluralism and deal with wicked problems within the first three approaches to normativity, provided that designers acknowledge that their responses to wicked problems may fail over time and require new design responses. Ignoring that possibility fits within the paradigm of transcendental moralism, which does not give designers the means to deal with wicked problems.