Innovation, equity and energy system transformation: implications for CCS - Presentation from Dr Karen Bickerstaff (University of Exeter) at the UKCCSRC's CCS: Issues in governance and ethics workshop in Edinburgh, 23 September 2014

1. Innovation, equity and energy system transformation: implications for CCS
Karen Bickerstaff
Exeter University

3. Procedural Justice and (low carbon) energy systems in UK: CCS, nuclear, fracking…
•
Instrumentalism: downstream participation, to support delivery.
•
Partiality: The ‘pliant cheerleader’: "But even though in the UK we have the depleted oil and gas fields that are ideal for testing this [CCS] technology, not a single pilot is yet taking place in Britain. We cannot afford this kind of delay”. (Cameron, 2007)
•
Accessibility: Rescaling of participation / power:
•
UK Planning Act (2008): centralisation of power and the localisation of participation
•
Fracking: removal of responsibility to notify directly (2014)
•
Transparency: failure to provide adequate account of decision- making.
•
The normalisation of knowledge inequalities: Stanley, (2009) Bäckstrand et al (2011): “But what about the alternatives”

4. Justice and energy system transformation
•
More systematic integration of ethical principles into analysis of mitigation; more on comprehensive normative framework for comparing mitigation options that goes beyond monetary impacts and enables comparisons and trade-offs (Caney, 2014).
•
There appears to be little research in the UK examining the extent to which principles of social justice are applied to mitigation policy either nationally or locally (Preston et al, 2014).

5. Responsible innovation
•
A “transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view on the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products” (Von Schomberg, 2011; 9).
•
Origins in novel technology assessment: nanotechnology, geoengineering, synthetic biology
•
References made to the safe and responsible exploitation of the UK's shale gas resources (following opposition).
•
What does / might this mean in practice?

7. Anticipate
•
Capacities to make transparent possible impacts of system innovations: to prepare for what may happen
–
Alternative (plausible) future energy worlds (with / without CCS)
–
Ask ‘what if. . .?’ questions (Ravetz, 1997)
–
Expectations for technology across a variety of scales / actors
–
Socio-political (institutions, regulation, ownership, financing, etc.) as well as technical aspects of innovation
•
Hindsight as well as foresight: What can we learn from the history of say RWM

8. Reflection and engagement
•
Reflexivity and debate on the impacts, intended or otherwise, of different visions, and areas of uncertainty / ignorance.
–
Embed interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder approaches
–
Publics at different points in the energy system
•
Ethical technology assessments (e.g. the ethical matrix, Boucher and Gough, 2012)

9. Act? Responsiveness to RI findings
•
Will RI genuinely open up, rather than close down and legitimate, decision-making (Rose, 2012)?
•
Offers a flexible framework for responding to procedural inadequacies at the root of energy system conflict
•
Critically it requires a capacity to change the shape of innovation in response to stakeholder and public values or new knowledge
•
Makes it clear that responsible CCS must extend beyond CCS