Why can renewable energy inherently lead to energy injustice? Chitzi Ogbumgbada, environmental law specialist

Chitzi Ogbumgbada argues why governments should ensure energy security, how the African communitarian approach addresses renewable energy injustices, and why the individual actions of countries will never bring us even close to the goals of the Paris agreement.

Chitzi is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Exeter. His PhD thesis developed an African communitarian approach to global energy justice and demonstrated how this approach could be operationalised through international climate law and international human rights law to address renewable energy injustices. His primary research interests lie at the intersection of international energy and environmental law and are mainly concerned with how legal obligations interact with issues like climate change, energy security, and clean energy, conceptualised through the energy justice framework developed along African philosophy. 

5:13: UK Climate Change Act: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents

9:15: about consultation with the community to secure extracting of critical minerals in Cornwall

10:15: about the Niger delta and how neglecting led to vice and violence

14:00 free market versus welfarism

17:30: about the distribution of renewable energy benefits across international communities

19:20: COP28, Dubai: the first Global Stocktake: https://unfccc.int/topics/global-stocktake

22:20: why it is so difficult to phase out fossil fuels

27:00: about options that save the planet and are gentle on the wallet

29:20: Rapid Fire game with words starting with ‘I’, the 9th letter of the alphabet

• IPCC
• Industrialisation
• Inaction

31:50: there should not be any conflict between industrialisation and conservation

32:55: it is our actions that have caused us climate change and it is our inaction that stops us addressing this issue

34:50: about the African communitarian approach to energy justice

35:40: about the leading professors of the political philosophy of African communitarian approach

Professor Thaddeus Metz: https://www.linkedin.com/in/thaddeusmetz/

Professor Kwame Gyekye: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwame_Gyekye

The essence of African comm: relationalism: how we relate to others

44:30: incorporating energy justice in the law school curriculum

If you liked the episode, make sure to follow Ready, Steady, Green! on your favourite podcast channel, share the episode with your friends and invite others to listen. You can catch up with our earlier episodes and tell who would you like to hear next. Help us get the message through: We must act on sustainability now!  
This was Gabor Sarlos, with Ready, Steady, Green!

podcasting: Ready, Steady, Green
news and views: LinkedIn
action: COPmitment

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:11

What energy justice is trying to tell us is that we need to redistribute resources in a way that will assist these global south countries to address their renewable energy deficiencies. So when you look at the policies for addressing climate change in different countries, when you aggregate them, they will take us nowhere near the goal that has been set by the Paris Agreement, for example, which is to keep the global temperatures within two degrees and of course within 1.5 degrees Celsius if possible. If I identify with you, it means I can feel your pain, it means I can put myself in your shoes. Okay? Then it also looks at solidarity. Solidarity simply means that I can also assist to because you merit that assistance.

SPEAKER_01 1:15

Welcome to the latest episode of Ready Steady Green. In this podcast, we're discussing challenges and opportunities of turning climate awareness to climate action. In other words, making sustainability sustainable. We will be focusing on young people as they are the ones who are and will be most affected by the global challenges of today and tomorrow, and they are the ones whose actions can actually change the current trajectory. This is not intended to be a specialist podcast to sustainability experts. Instead, it aims to broaden the discourse and help everyone realize how closely the topics of sustainability, climate, health, energy, quality of life, equality of chances, innovation, technological development and so on are all connected. The episodes from Ready Steady Green aim to inspire everyone to step up and step out in their lives and in their community. If you like what you hear, make sure to follow it on your favorite podcast platform. Share it with your friends and invite others to listen to it. You can also listen to our earlier episodes, and feel free to send me a message. Who would you like me to invite as our next guest? Our guest for today is Chizi Ogumbada. Chizy is a lecturer in law at the University of Exeter with a PhD in law from the University of Strathclyde, an LLM in oil and gas law from the University of Aberdeen, and an LLB from River State University. His PhD thesis developed an African communitarian approach to demonstrate how this approach could be operationalized through international climate law and international human rights law to address renewable energy injustices. His primary research interest lies at the intersection of international energy and environmental law, and he's mainly concerned with how legal obligations interact with issues like climate change, energy security, and clean energy. So welcome to our podcast.

SPEAKER_00 3:19

Thank you very much, Cabot. Thank you for having me.

SPEAKER_01 3:22

Thank you for accepting our invitation. And I'm wondering, did I cover everything properly, or is there something that I missed out and is important to mention?

SPEAKER_00 3:30

I mean, you basically covered um everything. Um just to only add to that, I you know regularly participate in conferences and speak on areas that align with my um research interests. So that's just it.

SPEAKER_01 3:46

Absolutely. If someone wants to uh follow you, definitely you have a very long list of high-profile publications and also your regular speaker at events, which is great because it also indicates how important this topic is that uh you cover. So let me jump uh right away into one of the topics that uh interest me. Looking at some of the pieces that uh you wrote and you cover, I sense that something seems to be wrong with the legal framework, how actually energy is being governed and how it is being regulated, and how all is this being ensured. So, why is that so? What is fundamentally wrong with the regulation of uh our energy systems?

SPEAKER_00 4:34

That's that's a fascinating question, um Gabo. There are two ways to approach this question. The first is to say that the laws that we have presently are not inherently bad laws. They are not inherently bad laws. And what you know would really be important is how well we use the law, wield the law to address some of these problems, whether they have to do with the energy transition or whether they have to do with you know energy production more generally. So there really is no problem um with the law. When we take the UK, for example, we look at some of the law, like the Climate Change Act, which um was the first legislation in the world to address climate change from a legal perspective more holistically, that is a very good piece of legislation. It is not inherently bad. What you know is at issue is how well we are able to you know meet the demands of that law. So more recently, or recently, um, the government was challenged by you know charity um for not um producing policy that can adequately address climate change. Okay, and that's obligation to produce such a policy can be traced to the Climate Change Act. So you see the Climate Change Act being very useful here, but you see the way it's been operationalized, the way it's been used being problematic. So the law is not relevant for how it's been used to address some of these problems.

SPEAKER_01 6:10

For my understanding, who is it that might not be using or adapting the law as it should be? Is it the government itself or the various authorities, or is it rather the individual actors, uh companies, organizations? Where does the responsibility lie?

SPEAKER_00 6:28

The primary responsibility will lie with the government, policymakers, those who have the responsibility to implement the law. Okay, so I just give the example of the government not, you know, producing policy that firmly aligns with the UK's law on climate change. So, policymakers, then of course, you've got regulators who have got this responsibility to equally make regulation in line with existing law that helps to address some of these challenges. Companies too have also got a role to play in terms of not keeping to the law. And for this, I will just give an example of some of the cases that we see on climate change litigation. Some of these cases are against companies for not carrying out activities, operations in a way that aligns with some of the goals on climate change that we have. So I think it's it's a bit multifaceted, you know, so where we have the governments not doing enough, but need to do enough, and then you've got regulators, you've got companies, then before we talk about individuals. The individuals are just at the bottom of you know the packing order, but the the main responsibility has to lie with the government and policy makers.

SPEAKER_01 7:46

It is interesting what you're saying because it ties beautifully with actually our previous guests' uh thoughts. Simon King, he was talking quite a bit about the corporate perspective or companies' perspectives on climate change and adapting and uh following uh regulations. And what he highlighted was that it is a very short-sighted company approach if they only operate in a sustainable manner due to certain regulations. Because what he highlighted was that there are a range of areas where sustainability can be turned into a revenue generating uh activity and a revenue generating approach. Therefore, it is in the very interest of the company, not only legally, but also financially, to follow uh these regulations and be climate-friendly or embrace uh sustainability. Would you agree with this?

SPEAKER_00 8:42

Absolutely. There's there are many areas. I mean, if I can even extend that thought a bit further, I think when companies not only keep to regulation, whether they have to do with climate change or environmental law, when they keep to these regulations, they can expect to have other benefits as well. So let me give you a typical example. Let's say a mining company wants to come prospect for mineral resources in a particular place, let's say in Cornwall, where these days there is talk about extracting critical minerals. Now let's say mining comes and decides that, well, the first thing they have to do is to secure the confidence of the community. How do they do that? They have to do consultation with the community, meaningful consultation, try to secure free prior and informed consent. If they do this, they find that it will invariably benefit the company. So the company will be doing two things. Number one, it will be mining critical minerals which we need for the energy transition, and it would have secured community confidence, which would allow it to have its profits unhindered and unimpeded. And I use that word because in Nigeria, where I come from and where I live for most of my life, we have a region called the Niger Delta. Um, it is a region that has you know considerable reserves of oil and gas resources, but for many years the region has been neglected by companies, by the governments that respect for this oil, and that has in turn bred so many um vices, including violence, kidnapping, and you know, and and the rest. So if there is unrest, if there is violence, it affects company operations. Companies, if they keep to regulation, if they do what they ought to do, then it could be profitable, that action could be profitable to them as it is.

SPEAKER_01 10:51

Well, that's very interesting. And uh, in fact, uh what uh Simon also said that in his ideal world, actually, and in the best practice, companies primarily do these best practices from their own interests and not because of external pressures or regulations as such. It's very interesting what you said about the law not having or sometimes not having enough power or leverage. There are other fields, however, where I hear more and more often that um governments should act more decisively and more strongly. Just recently, uh, you know, in the cafe, I was talking to someone who was rightly complaining that the uh gas price to fill up the tank of his car just rose by 20 or 25 percent from 130 a liter to almost 160 a liter in pounds in just over two weeks. One might ask, why doesn't the government do something about this? Is this a realistic expectation, or is this not something which one should count upon?

SPEAKER_00 11:58

I think the recent um rise in gas prices can be traced, of course, to the ongoing war in the Middle East, and that is something that it's it's affecting the global um economy and all of that. It is something that is also consistent with what we saw when we had the onset of the Russia um war in um Ukraine and also um during COVID-19. So whenever you have those shocks to the markets, you're likely to have you know a rise in energy prices. So it's little wonder that you know um the person found it a little bit expensive to fill up their gases. Now, when it comes to what the government can do, obviously there is a range of options for the government. Now, I'm aware, for example, that from next month um the government has uh is going to roll out a measure to ensure that the prices that consumers pay for energy, you know, falls and all of that, that is an incentive. That is one way the government can intervene to address some of these problems. It's quite interesting, however, when we look at this, and why I say it's interesting is that we are essentially in a capitalist um society, and um not just capitalist but free markets where you know the markets would be trusted to regulate oil and regulate prices, uh, market forces will be the be all and end all. So when you see the government intervening with welfareist measures or policies, it does get to say, well, maybe capitalism and free market is not all we should have. And that has always been my argument, and that is why in my research I try to explore conceptions of justice, philosophical perspectives that go outside the free market enclave, you know, that just tell you that well, we we we need a way to arrange society that also takes welfare to account. So, just to summarize what I've said, the shocks we see in the energy markets is as a result of geopolitical crisis. The government can play a role to address some of those through interventionist initiatives, but again, these shocks and the government's intervention can also reignite the conversation on how our society is structured. In other words, free market versus welfareism. So I think that's it.

SPEAKER_01 14:36

It's a very interesting uh direction, and I would like to come back to this uh a little bit later in our conversation and pick it up from here. But before we do, I would like to ask you a little bit about one of the areas you specifically research and publish on, and that is around energy justice. In my interpretation, and correct me if I'm wrong or you see it differently, but in my interpretation, energy justice is primarily a philosophy and a toolkit to help the transition or the energy transition from a fossil fuel-based system to a renewables-based system, and doing this in a way where the rights and interests of the individuals and the communities are well respected, meaning that they are supported in their drive to adapt these new uh energy sources and so on. Now, in this respect, what do you see? Is energy justice currently a prevailing thing, or what are the areas where we are somewhat uh, or even more than so, when where we are behind compared to where we should be?

SPEAKER_00 15:55

That's a very good question. I mean, we're behind in many places, in many areas. First of all, let me just say too the your interpretation of energy justice is put on, absolutely. Um, energy justice essentially looks at those ethical issues in um with respect to energy, with respect to the way energy is produced, developed, transported, consumed, and disposed of. So there are a host of ethical issues that are involved in that. Now, with respect to the energy transition, what it does with respect with in relation to energy justice is that it amplifies the significance of energy justice. So let me explain what all that means. You're very correct to say what the energy transition is, which is simply that we have to move from the use of fossil fuels to um the use of uh renewable energy. Now that transition can produce injustices, okay, and there's a host of them, as it were. So, what energy justice helps us to do is to identify those injustices and helps us to address them. Now, with respect to your question whether energy justice, whether we are um whether we are better off where we are at the moment, the truth is that there's still a whole lot to do. So much, so much to do. And I'll just give one example. Now, part of my research has looked at the distribution of renewable energy benefits in international communities. So, what I mean by that is when you look at renewable energy, it's a versatile fuel. It can help us to um address climate change, it could be a tool for climate change mitigation. So, for example, the solar panel and the wind turbines and the rest. Renewable energy can also help us with energy access. So, in many places in Africa, you have problems with accessing energy. So, decentralized renewables, like off-grid renewables, can help provide electricity and also clean cooking fuel. Renewable energy can also help with energy security and it can create jobs as well. One of the things I uncovered in my research is that these benefits of renewable energy are mainly localized in a certain region of the world, and that region is the developed countries or high-income countries. And the reason for that is not far-fetched. It is simply because many of these countries have got the financial resources, the technological resources, and the capacity know-how to develop their renewable energy systems. But in contrast, many countries in the global south lack these resources. So, what that means is that their renewable energy systems are still undeveloped, their resources are untapped. So that's an injustice. And what energy justice is trying to tell us is that we need to redistribute resources in a way that will assist these global south countries to address renewable energy deficiencies. Let me give another example. Um, I don't know if you can recall in COP28, a COP that was distinct in many ways. Number one, it was the first COP where we had the global stock take, the first global stock take, you know, in postures to the um party agreement. So for those who may be listening, the global stock take is supposed to be done every five years, and it's where every country that is party to the party agreement sits together and decide whether the policies that they have are able to address climate change and whether they should ratchet up those policies. Now, do you know that in that COP, one of the questions that arose was whether we should transition away from fossil fuels? It was a heated debate or talking point, and at the end of the day, there was a sort of compromise, okay, and for the first time, the word fossil fuels made its way into the outcome of the COP, it called the COP decision, and that was that countries should transition from fossil to fuels. Well, here's the catch. That COP did not say how that transition should be made. It did not, for example, talk about who should bear responsibility for the transition. Because before you transition, you need millions, I forget how much now that you know has been predicted. I mean, it runs into trillions of dollars needed for society to transition to clean energy. So that court was silent, and that is an energy justice problem. Now, my thinking is that well, even if it was silent, I think that cock was still it was still a crucial first step because number one, it did mention the fact that we needed to transition, and it also mentioned the fact that alluded to the fact that certain countries might still need some oil and gas before they fully transition. So energy justice issues, they are still ongoing, they are yet to be addressed, but I guess that's something that leaves us with you know a lot of work um to do.

SPEAKER_01 21:23

I remember very vividly actually uh that uh cop you're uh referring to there was a certain uh let's say ironic touch on all of this uh being uh discussed in Dubai and one of the regions which is the prime uh suppliers of uh oil and gas uh for the world. But what I sense is there is a growing level of dissatisfaction also in terms of how COPs are developing and evolving, where uh you know phasing out uh uh fossil fuels is always on the agenda, and uh it's not very easy to get uh rid of fossil fuels. Even phasing out is not very easy at all.

SPEAKER_00 22:02

Absolutely. In fact, I'm presently working on an article on this issue, you know, phasing out fossil fuel and how difficult it is. And my premise, or rather, my main argument is that when you look at the use of fossil fuels, you find that there are certain countries that can't do without them. So here I'm talking particularly, you know, of the global south countries, countries with significant deposits of oil and gas, countries that need crude oil, that need natural gas for its for their energy security. So you look at some African countries that have got oil and gas having these as the mainstay of their economy. Now, if we were to transition from fossil fuels, the question we need to ask is what do we do to them? What how do we cushion the effect? Now it's all very well to say that they need to diversify. Absolutely, they have to diversify. Many of these countries are beginning to see a growth in their non-oil exports and receipts. But diversification is not something that happens overnight. So we need to meet halfway. And there's something I'm really, really looking at. How about we perhaps come up with measures, we come up with incentives that will allow these countries to transition. But you know, that's just one part of the conversation. The other part of the conversation has to do with developed countries that have got oil and gas that still prospect for it. So I was reading um a post by um a colleague on LinkedIn who is an expert on Norway, and you know, he was writing and saying that Norway was trying to go back to you know producing more oil and gas as a response to the ongoing war in Iran. And I mean, Norway is a rich country endowed with so much oil and gas, a model country that's you know that shows us how we could use sovereign wealth fund at all. Now, if Norway can use its oil and gas, how much more developing countries? So it's almost like a paradox, you know.

SPEAKER_01 24:14

It is, it is indeed. And to make it even more complex, I think we need to look at countries and their relations, not only on a global level, but uh domestically at each of these countries. So I think one can argue there are significant energy justice issues even within a country, let's say the UK, where we're both living and working, simply because of the uh significant social differences and the availability and affordability of uh various uh energy sources. Let's face it, in certain parts of the country there is no choice available for anyone. There is one single supplier, one single possibility of getting access to energy, however much one would like to have um renewable energy as their main source, it simply might not work for them. Or in other parts where you're heating with wood, for example, or at home, maybe even with coal. Again, it's an issue of affordability, whether one has a choice. So energy justice can be interpreted also on a country level, not only on an international level, I believe.

SPEAKER_00 25:25

Absolutely, yes, absolutely. It applies country level, international level, down everyone right to the local level and regional level. Yes, absolutely.

SPEAKER_01 25:36

If we take this as an axiom, then what choices or what possibilities does an individual have? If I'm a consumer, an energy consumer, and of course I am, because I heat at home, I commute, I cook my food, and so on. So, what choices do I have as a responsible consumer?

SPEAKER_00 25:57

As a responsible consumer, you want to be interested, for example, in the source of fuel that comes to your home, right? So you want to look at whether the fuel is renewable or perhaps is gas. And if you're responsible, you want to go for renewable energy. But then that's the responsible consumer. But the realistic consumer has to look for the fuel that will be cheap. At the end of the day, what really matters is are you buying, are you paying for affordable energy rather than maybe looking at the energy um source? So, yeah, as well that's what you should look out for as a responsible uh consumer. Yes.

SPEAKER_01 26:41

One one of the uh previous guests coined it, saying that uh the best solution is where there is something good for both the planet and the wallet, because in itself, just because of environmental consciousness, it's very difficult to make choices if you cannot afford those choices. However, if you can reach for a double benefit where it is good for you yourself as an individual, as a consumer, and at the same time helping saving the planet, then that's a very good um solution. And I think in the field of energy, we do have, or in many cases, we do have options. For example, the way how we commute uh what uh type of uh transport we use, the issue of flying, the issue of walking, you know, there are all kinds of things. And interestingly, when you mentioned uh COVID-19, I just realized how much we spoke about the importance of walking at the time because of the various benefits it brought, and people realize those benefits. But I'm a bit concerned that these days, again, when COVID is already history and it's uh five years ago, we tend to forget, and uh walking is much lower on our list of priorities, isn't it?

SPEAKER_00 27:56

Absolutely. In fact, that the I I gave a rather restrictive answer to that um question you asked. And what you've just said is a more expansive approach. You know, making choices as to how we use energy. You mentioned walking, another could also be you know using um means of transportation that is less energy intensive. So my preference has always been train travel as opposed to flying, especially when it has to do with travel within the UK and or maybe travel um within Europe, unless it's a very long journey, then you have to fly. But then again, too, and it's interesting what you talked about, you know, using an option that saves the planet and is also gentle on the wallets. Train travel is not cheap in the UK, you know, which is definitely not.

SPEAKER_01 28:44

It's it's a very difficult decision to make. And if you are traveling to Europe again, it's a very difficult decision to make in terms of time and especially money as well.

SPEAKER_00 28:55

Absolutely.

SPEAKER_01 28:56

Okay, now uh I would like to lighten up our conversation a little bit from these uh intensive, heavy uh topics with a little game here. Um, you may know that this is our ninth episode in our series of uh Ready Study Green. And in this game, I would like to invite you to talk about a couple of words that start with the ninth letter of the alphabet, which is letter I. So I'm curious to hear from you in Maxim one minute each. What associations do these words bring to you in relation to sustainability? What comes to your mind in terms of concerns, comments, insights when I mention IPCC?

SPEAKER_00 29:41

Climate change organization and science.

SPEAKER_01 29:44

Are they doing a good job?

SPEAKER_00 29:47

Yes, so far. Good job. Expert knowledge, a bit long, but um, thank God for the um summaries, the executive summaries and all of that. We could always look at those. So, yes, the IPCC, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 30:01

To what extent do you think actually the IPCC is responsible or could do differently when one hears criticisms about the COPs and how they are evolving?

SPEAKER_00 30:15

To be honest, IPCC cannot do more than it's doing, which is simply to provide experts um knowledge and evidence on climate change. And as a matter of fact, the IPCC, I know they usually get invited, especially by the COP, to produce reports on climate change. I don't think they can do anything more differently other than, of course, arming the COP with evidence on how climate change is reining society, and of course, on the different options that you know countries can have in addressing climate change. A scientific organization, they are impartial. We can see their usefulness in that way, but I'm afraid that is just the most we can see you know from them.

SPEAKER_01 31:04

Okay, thank you. Now, what is your view about industrialization as a main factor in climate change or climate emergency, but also in the terms of development?

SPEAKER_00 31:20

We definitely need industrialization, but we can do without it. It's also intertwined with innovation. But I think I would want to see industrialization that is built essentially on clean energy. When industrialization first started with the use of steam engine in the 18th century, or maybe before then, a little before then, we did see you know the rise of coal or fossil fuels, but any industrialization that is going to happen in this century should essentially be built on um clean energy. Now, there is always that you know problem between industrialization and conservation. I don't think there should be any conflict between both. What I mean by that is that we should carry out industrialization in a way that protects the environment. And the simple way to do that is to, of course, use clean energy, adopt energy-saving measures, as it were. So that is my idea of industrialization in this age.

SPEAKER_01 32:26

Thank you. And I have one more term, and this is something which often comes up in discussions related to the fighting climate change, and that is inaction. Is this a valid observation that often our inaction costs us a lot in terms of the quality of our planet and therefore the quality of our living?

SPEAKER_00 32:49

I'll take a different approach to that first by saying that actually it is our action that has cost us the problem of climate change. Because if we did not use up fossil fuels, if we did not carry out harmful practices in the past, we wouldn't have had climate change in the present. So our action has brought us to where we are. Now, but that's just one piece of the puzzle. The other piece is inaction. The inaction that we should be talking about is that we've been unable to address the problem as we see it. So when you look at the policies for addressing climate change in different countries, when you aggregate them, they will take us nowhere near the goal that has been set by the Paris Agreement, for example, which is to keep the global temperatures within two degrees and of course within 1.5 degrees Celsius if possible. Now, when you aggregate all the policies, climate change policies around the world, it will far exceed that temperature. So that is inaction. We're simply not doing enough as it is. So I think we need to do more. That is why we had the you know global stock tape, which you know tried to come, uh which was a gathering, but which happened during the the Dubai Cup, you know, where countries had to come together and discuss how to ratchet up their ambitions. So inaction has meant that we are unable to have policies to adequately address climate change, either as source or perhaps to adapt to climate change or even loss and damage.

SPEAKER_01 34:33

Thank you. Interesting point you raised here. I would like to come back now to an earlier thought of yours and continue from there talking about the global aspects of energy justice. And I did see reference in your work to an African communitarian approach to energy justice. And I was wondering uh what the essence of this approach is, and is there a special African model to uh energy justice as such?

SPEAKER_00 35:02

Absolutely. So the essence of African communitarianism or an African communitarian approach to energy justice is to simply give an interpretation of energy justice which can help us to address pressing energy problems. So, what is that African communitarian approach? First things first, I won't take credit for the interpretation of African communitarianism that I used in my research. Credit to that belongs to the African scholars and philosophers that have theorized on that particular philosophy. So here we're talking about Professor Padio Smith, I have to mention his name. And we're also talking about the late Professor Kwame Jeche from Ghana. Now, these philosophers came up with a moderate form of African communitarianism, and that moderate form of African communitarianism looks at relationalism. How do we relate as members of the international community? So when you look at that relationalism, we're simply saying that when it comes to locating moral status, okay, that is what should be priced for its own sake, the answer is how we relate with ourselves. Okay, so how we relate to ourselves can also be expressed in identity. If I identify with you, it means I can feel your pain, it means I can put myself in your shoes. Okay, then it also looks at solidarity. Solidarity simply means that I can also assist you because you merit that assistance, not because of what I stand to gain. Now, when I do this, I will have achieved personhood in the African society. That is a nutshell of what African communitarianism is. What I simply did was to take that idea, um, apply it to energy justice, and then got an African Communitarian approach to address a particular problem. So the reason why it was very necessary for me to do that was the nature of the problem I was trying to solve. Now, what was that problem? I mentioned it earlier, which is the unfair distribution of renewable energy benefits in the international community. That's one of the problems in the energy transition. And that problem is not the sort of problem that we need an individualist philosophy to address. When I mean individualist philosophy, I'm talking about philosophies that comprise the internal characteristics of a human. So those internal characteristics could be either dignity or rationality, and so on. Those philosophies are important, but they can't really help us to come up with a perspective that can help us to address the problem of unfair distribution of renewable energies, energy benefits. So that's where African communitarianism comes in. So an African communitarian approach to global energy justice looks at things like distributing resources from developed countries to developing countries, and those resources can be used to address renewable energy failure, you know, the failure of renewable energy benefits. Okay. He also looks at transfer of um financial, technological, and of course capacity-based resources. So, in a not sure, that's what African communitarianism does for us in global with respect to energy justice.

SPEAKER_01 38:45

If I understand this correctly, it might seem somewhat of an uphill battle for me. What you have on the other side, or well, not necessarily the other side, but what is also in the picture are the big companies that are producing non-renewable energies, primarily oil and gas, and to some extent, of course, coal, which is still a player, and then you know the question mark issue of nuclear energy, which is neither here nor there. But nevertheless, with carbon-based uh fossil fuels, there is incredible power behind those uh producers of energy. So, in a way, you have the concept what you described here, which is definitely a much fairer egalitarian, I would say, humanistic or human-focused approach to having the right to accessible and affordable energy from a source which is also uh good for the planet. But on the other hand, on the supply side, with the with an economist's uh term, you have the vast amounts of oil and gas which are looking for market. And the grounds are not even for this game, are they?

SPEAKER_00 40:09

Totally agree. And again, so when you want to add to the complexity, you find that many of these companies obviously are deriving profits. But this is the thing about energy justice, it is motifeth in the sense that it also engages this aspect, which is this particular point of view that you've just presented. To be honest, with respect to African communitarianism, it recognizes that okay, well, these companies can of course engage in you know the extraction of fossil fuels and all of that. But again, too, um the outcome should be fair. Okay, now what does that mean? Let's let's look at the issue more introspectively. These companies extract oil and gas. Now, to whose benefits would that be? It would be, of course, the company's benefits, because if they extract oil and gas, they sell the oil and gas and then they get profit. But again, we shouldn't forget the fact that they can they also pay royalties to the state. They pay tax to the state. Now, that tax, that royalty goes into government revenue. So the government is also now involved in it. Now, energy justice recognizes all of this fact as a concept, it can be used, it's it does recognize this fact, and it tells us that if a country, for example, is reliant on oil and gas receipts, you shouldn't just take that away from them. Oil and gas is it's a national security fuel. So it means that if companies are extracting oil and gas, the benefits, the profits do not just go to them. The state is also involved. And if the state is involved, we are all involved as well. So energy justice looks at how that outcome, the production, the extraction, the consumption can be fair.

SPEAKER_01 42:14

I see. Now, I would like to appeal to you now as an educator, working with um uh young people, with uh university students. And what comes to my mind is that uh the concept you are elaborating here, it's it's quite complex. It has you call it multifaceted, it's interdisciplinary, you need to understand law, you need to understand energy, you need to understand green economics or or economics in general. You need to have an understanding of the human mind and thinking, some of the social sciences aspects. So I'm wondering to what extent do you find young people interested and open to the concept of energy justice? To what extent are they on board in thinking together with you, learning from you, and perhaps contributing even further to this thinking?

SPEAKER_00 43:10

With respect to that, um where we need more empirical study, to be honest. You know, we need to do more research to know to gauge the interest of young persons in energy justice. I can speak, however, upon the interest of young persons in sustainability and energy issues, which also engage energy justice. And I can say that, you know, this is an area that young persons have been really, really involved in. Some of them carry out advocacy programs, which is something that is needed. Advocacy programs like trying to enlighten people on climate change. I've got friends, I've got colleagues, I've also got students too that are really, really keen on this area or areas. And one of the ways too that I've also helped. Apart from teaching about energy justice and researching about it, I've also organized gatherings where you know we looked at how energy justice can be mainstreamed in, of course, the law curricula. Just last year, I had one of such workshops, which was funded by the Society of Legal Scholars. We tried to show how energy justice can be incorporated into the law school curriculum. All of this is just to get young persons to be interested in, you know, young persons are broadly uh interested in sustainability, in energy issues. That is my experience anyway.

SPEAKER_01 44:39

And I think one can add to this a thought which was uh raised by an earlier guest, again, uh Francisca Weeder, who is uh a professor of sustainability in in Vienna, Austria. And she said often she feels that she has to step on the toes of some of her students, meaning in a way to provoke them, to get them to think beyond outside of the box, to get them into action and uh combine thoughts and knowledge, competences from various areas to develop something new, simply because these problems are very complex, they have not been solved. Uh, they all relate to sustainability, which clearly is an area of interest for many young people. However, to develop solutions and to develop a thorough understanding of this all, one needs to step out of our comfort zone and go beyond what we usually do. I'm wondering in the classroom, have you come across practices or examples that you find especially useful in making sustainability understandable and approachable to our students?

SPEAKER_00 45:55

With my involvement, my passionate involvement in the delivery of um environmental law and sustainability models, I've seen the way colleagues have tried to incorporate sustainable development. So, one of them, for example, one practice is inviting guest speakers to come speak with students. So, last I think that was last year, we had um someone from the environmental um protection agency, you know, come address students um on the environmental law module. And I think that's something that's a practice, you know, that you know helps to bridge theory with um practice. Okay. Others, of course, could be designing assessments in a way that gives students that practical experience of what sustainability means outside the classroom. One practice that I've got, because I also, as you very well know, have an involvement in the delivery of an environmental law module at Roe Hunting. One of the things that I've really, really liked is the presence of debates, you know, in class. So encouraging young persons to debate these issues. And apart from debating, you find that when you encourage them to tell you their perspective, you also learn from them. So, I mean, one of the presentations that I had a chat with the students, and they were telling me about their presentation on Brazil, you know, the um how the fires in the Amazon had a political undertone. And I absolutely had no idea that that was it. So that's a way to bring sustainability um to the fore as it is.

SPEAKER_01 47:34

On this notion where you mentioned the debate in the classroom, I think in our case at the University of Roehampton, it is even more so with this module Earth in Crisis, because students come from different schools and therefore that represent different perspectives. They have uh often uh varied or sometimes even uh contradicting approaches to sustainability. And it is, I can confirm it is very interesting listening to them confront their ideas and perceptions and then trying to come to an agreement. Yes, that is absolutely the case. Now, one last question on my side, and that is uh coming back to the original topic and research. What are the areas perhaps you're looking at in prospective further field of study for yourself where you believe that uh with your background, the areas that you have covered and all the knowledge that you have in the field, you could bring it further to other areas of interest?

SPEAKER_00 48:41

Absolutely. I do have areas in mind that I would like to investigate further, not just as an appendage of energy justice or even sustainability, although it is very likely that I might incorporate some energy justice ideas into these other areas. Now, what are these other areas? There are two of them that I've always got in mind. The first is on comparative law, and so my LLM dissertation was on legal transplants with respect to um offshore health and safety in the UK and Nigeria. I particularly liked the legal transplant bit. That was my theoretical framework. Okay, and that falls under comparative law. So one of the things I'm looking to explore further is how to use what I already know about comparative law and exploring it further, and then maybe incorporating some ideas of energy justice. These are early days, I haven't really got that all figured out. A little bit of time on my hands, it's an area that I'm willing to pursue in order not to create the sort of silo that you know, you the autonomous vision that can come as a result of focusing heavily on energy justice. The second area is law and literature. You know, having been someone who likes literature, currently I do have, by the way, um, a substack where I do post some of my um travel writing and all of that. I love literature. I'm really keen on pursuing the connection between law and literature. How is law connected to literature? Is there are there learning points between both? Can law learn from literature and can literature learn from law? And it's actually a fascinating area. When you look, for example, at the judgments of courts, you find that it's got a particular arrangement, the particular style of arranging, you know, the particular way a judge delivers a judgment. Or maybe you look at statutes, statutes have got a way that they are arranged. Is that arrangement is does it just fulfill an aesthetic purpose, or perhaps is it instrumental? So these are sort of questions that I intend to pursue. If energy justice features in any of this, well, it's just a bonus, but these areas are clearly independent from energy justice.

SPEAKER_01 51:17

Well, I'm curious to hear how it goes. Um, I'm sure uh if you get to it, you you will uh, similarly to how you have uh made uh your step into uh energy justice or the topic of energy justice, you will go uh places uh in um this area of flow and literature. I'm really curious to read about it myself. Thank you very much. This uh brings an end to uh our discussion. Thank you very much, uh Cheesy, for uh coming along and sharing your thoughts uh with our uh listeners. Thank you for listening to our podcast today. If you liked it, make sure to follow it on your favorite podcast platform and share it with your friends. Also, feel free to invite others as well as suggest who to invite uh next. Help us get the message through. We all need to act on sustainability now. This was Gabor Sarlos with Ready Steady Green.

SPEAKER_00 52:16

Bye for now.