Fuel prices and social justice - an inevitable conflict?

Fuel prices and social justice: an inevitable conflict?

Caroline Mullen and Greg Marsden

Policy hopes for LEV

Projected average new car and van emissions over the first three carbon budget periods and illustrative ranges of average new car and van emissions in the fourth carbon budget period and to 2050HM Government (2011) The Carbon Plan: Delivering our low carbon future, Executive Summary, page 8

A shift to electric vehicles has implications for the cost of driving:

i. But costs are contingent on tax and subsidy, technological development, resource availability, and other market factors. ii. These costs, and the factors governing them, raise questions of fairness and justice.iii. This should inform governance of energy and transport.

• Even with government subsidies, buying electric vehicles tends to be far more expensive than buying diesel or petrol vehicles

• But the fuel tends to be far cheaper (if charge at home).

Transport, mobility and justice – outline of a theory of justice Start with a broad conception of egalitarian justice (accept there will still be objections): • Each person matters (morally) as much as any other: so their life matters, and

their ability to make something of their life also matters (Glover, 1977; Harris, 1988, 1997).

• There is a societal responsibility to make political, social and economic

arrangements which reflect this assumption that each person matters – i.e. show equal concern (Dworkin 2000; Glover, 1977; Harris, 1988, 1997)

• The societal obligation also falls on each person, so that people have some

responsibility to accept limitations for the benefit of others (Mullen et al. 2014)

• People should be ‘treated as equals’ and this is not always the same as

providing ‘equal treatment’ (Dworkin 1977, p. 68).

Transport, mobility and justiceTends to consider justice in relation to • Accessibility or availability of movement or transport,

recognises that this enables engagement in social, economic political and personal activities.

• Life-threatening risks and aspects of sustaining life: that is risks from collisions and pollution as well as risks from absence of essential goods and services. 29,000 deaths per year (from cardio vascular illness) in the UK are attributed to poor air quality

Tends to be uneven social distribution in both Mobility and transport can involve people imposing multiple risks and barriers on one another

Cars and everyday life: current conditions and future scenarios Users with reasonable access1 to key services by mode of travel, England, Source: DfT, (2012) Accessibility Statistics, Table ACS0201

Employment Primary school

Secondary school

Further Education

GP Hospital Food store

2007 Public Transport / Walking

80.8

44.2 50 62 59.7 36.2 52.3Cycle 57.4 58.7 49.8 45.7 56.1 35.9 58.5Car 89.4 58.6 75.2 84.4 75.8 73.7 66.9


81.4

44.1 49.5 61.5 59.6 35.9 52.3Cycle 58.2 58.7 57.1 45.4 56.1 35.9 58.5Car 89.5 58.6 74.9 84.2 75.8 73 66.8


81.6

44.3 50.5 58.7 61.7 33.7 52.5Cycle 57.6 58.6 49.4 42.2 57.1 31.2 58.3Car 89.5 58.6 75.1 79.5 75.9 72.5 66.9


81.6

44.1 50.2 62.4 61 31.3 54.3Cycle 58.6 59.5 51.9 47.8 59 32.1 59.5Car 89.5 58.6 75.2 84.5 75.9 72.2 66.9

It can be difficult to engage in some activities without a car

Traffic can make participation difficult

Electric vehicles charged at domestic electricity rates:

• Might expect reduction in local pollution • Could be indirect impacts associated with changes in

distribution of disposable income since some people would now be spending less on travel.

• Might see increase in travel given demand elasticity between car travel and fuel prices (Dargey 2007, p. 958 reports an elasticity of -0.14). This could exacerbate some difficulties of engaging in activities without a car, or getting on with certain non-car activities

Fuel, electric vehicles and justice

So – we might see increase in travel given demand elasticity between car travel and fuel prices. This could exacerbate some difficulties of engaging in activities without a car, or getting on with certain non-car activities.[How] does this matter for justice?First: If any societal decision, to act or not to act, is going to have an impact on distribution of welfare or ability to participate, then we cannot avoid the questions of justice.

How do we get from identifying inequalities in ability to participate to knowing what to do about it?

• We need to decide what activities matter: looking at access, or just subsidising fuel or vehicles is not enough – because travel and mobility can act as a barrier

• Back to our conception of justice: sustaining life and making something of life matters – can we develop an understanding of, and protect ‘valuable’ activities?

Shove (2010) has argued, everyday practices concerned with apparently basic aspects of living, alter and over time can expand to involve increasing resources

e.g. living away from pollution may increase pressure to travel by car; access to healthy food can involve travel to shops, and potentially significant food miles; and access to healthcare and medicine can rely on a transport system able to take people significant distances quickly

We need to understand:• How people do, and might, engage in practices

under different conditions, including different forms of transport system and availability of mobility.

• Possibilities for intervening to alter the conditions in which electric vehicles form part of the transport system, since these conditions influence the development of everyday practices.

Domestic and mobility fuel: a policy double standard?

Policy on fuel pricing has been brought into question by this discussion of justice. Subsidising fuel is unlikely to overcome these problems - but pricing may be part of the interventions which are needed.

Implications for equality with respect to practices involving domestic energy?