The political choices made by the European institutions in the last twenty years show how the conviction is increasingly rooted that the management of environmental problems and, more specifically, the fight against climate change can find a valid solution in technology and eco-innovations. This is evident starting from the last two growth strategies adopted (Europe 2020 and the European Green Deal), from the long series of measures implemented to put them into practice and from the main R&I funding programs, such as Horizon Europe. In this context, the problem of justice and inclusiveness of the various initiatives implemented is attracting growing attention. In fact, if the institutional documents assume that green and smart participated projects are also fair and inclusive, a growing body of literature based on empirical studies seems to refute this assumption. Within this framework, the present work analyses first the critical literature and then the three main preparatory documents for the Horizon Europe Mission Climate-neutral and Smart Cities, which selected 100 European cities to become climate-neutral by 2030. These have been studied through the lens of environmental justice, in order to assess the European Commission's understanding of the existing and arising equity issues in the path toward climate neutrality. The research shows that, while the first two documents seemed informed by the idea that participation automatically translates into equality, the last guidelines show a deeper acknowledgement of the multidimensional nature of environmental justice. One that, beyond participation, also considers issues of distribution, rights, responsibilities and recognition. The present work should nevertheless be understood as a preparatory, analytical tool that will require the further definition and implementation of Climate City Contracts by the selected cities, in order to assess how the issue of environmental justice is effectively being considered in each specific context.
This chapter critiques environmental agencies' use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in the context of a concrete case study: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) recent regulation of mercury emissions from coal-fired utilities under the Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). It identifies seven issues for regulatory impact analysis (RIA) that the CAMR brings to the fore. Rather than informing the decisionmaking process, the CAMR RIA served to obscure the range and contours of the regulatory options on the table. Rather than providing a neutral tally of are obviously and of the rule, the CAMR RIA enlisted value judgments to assign the impacts of mercury contamination to one side of the ledger or the other. Rather than permitting a complete accounting of these impacts, the CAMR RIA provided an accounting that was partial - in both senses of the term. Rather than laying bare the answer to the question what is at stake, for whom?, the CAMR RIA assessed only those impacts that had been monetized. Its bottom line, moreover, told us nothing about how the costs and benefits would be distributed. Rather than affording enhanced oversight by elected officials and the public, the CAMR RIA dazzled with detail but often obfuscated the considerations relevant to EPA's decision. Finally, rather than helping EPA satisfy its legal mandates, the CAMR RIA provided information that was unconnected to the relevant Clean Air Act provisions, treaties with the fishing tribes, and other legal obligations that constrained EPA's decision. Having identified these shortcomings, the chapter closes with recommendations for reforming regulatory impact analysis - suggestions that echo other recent efforts to envision a more pragmatic orientation for analysis of health, safety, and environmental regulations.
While industrialists are discovering the hidden costs of minimal compliance with environmental regulation, environmentalists assert that EPA regulations contain too many loopholes. Since government regulation pleases neither environmentalists nor the regulated industries, we have to think in new directions. Can financing alternative technology be superior to monitoring pollution? Can local communities play a role in creating cohesion out of decentralization? What are the best new strategies both on the level of local communities and alternative technologies?