IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v8y2018i4p109-d180256.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technology, Gender, and Climate Change: A Feminist Examination of Climate Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Tina Sikka

    (Department of Media, Culture and Heritage, School of Arts and Cultures, Newcastle University, Newcastle NE1 7RU, UK)

Abstract

In this article, I examine the subject of justice as it relates to gender and climate change by focusing on two specific strategies, namely, the geoengineering strategy of ocean fertilization, and renewable energy as a means of mitigation (where mitigation is understood as the adoption of technologies and practices that aim to slow the rise of greenhouse gas emissions). My overarching argument is that iron fertilization geoengineering is not consistent with the feminist values of justice embedded in feminist standpoint theory and feminist contextual empiricism. Alternative mitigation strategies, on the other hand, go much further in meeting these objectives and virtues.

Suggested Citation

  • Tina Sikka, 2018. "Technology, Gender, and Climate Change: A Feminist Examination of Climate Technologies," Societies, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:8:y:2018:i:4:p:109-:d:180256
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/8/4/109/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/8/4/109/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jobert, Arthur & Laborgne, Pia & Mimler, Solveig, 2007. "Local acceptance of wind energy: Factors of success identified in French and German case studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2751-2760, May.
    2. Güssow, Kerstin & Proelss, Alexander & Oschlies, Andreas & Rehdanz, Katrin & Rickels, Wilfried, 2010. "Ocean iron fertilization: Why further research is needed," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 911-918, September.
    3. Bertram, Christine, 2010. "Ocean iron fertilization in the context of the Kyoto protocol and the post-Kyoto process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 1130-1139, February.
    4. Baris, Kemal & Kucukali, Serhat, 2012. "Availibility of renewable energy sources in Turkey: Current situation, potential, government policies and the EU perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 377-391.
    5. Maxwell T. Boykoff and J. Timmons Roberts, 2007. "Media Coverage of Climate Change: Current Trends, Strengths, Weaknesses," Human Development Occasional Papers (1992-2007) HDOCPA-2007-03, Human Development Report Office (HDRO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
    6. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    7. Jeff Tollefson, 2017. "Iron-dumping ocean experiment sparks controversy," Nature, Nature, vol. 545(7655), pages 393-394, May.
    8. Hall, N. & Ashworth, P. & Devine-Wright, P., 2013. "Societal acceptance of wind farms: Analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 200-208.
    9. Ken O. Buesseler, 2012. "The great iron dump," Nature, Nature, vol. 487(7407), pages 305-306, July.
    10. Nicholas Smith & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2014. "The Role of Emotion in Global Warming Policy Support and Opposition," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 937-948, May.
    11. Gregor Betz, 2012. "The case for climate engineering research: an analysis of the “arm the future” argument," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 111(2), pages 473-485, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zerrahn, Alexander & Krekel, Christian, 2015. "Sowing the Wind and Reaping the Whirlwind? The Effect of Wind Turbines on Residential Well-Being," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112956, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    2. Hitzeroth, Marion & Megerle, Andreas, 2013. "Renewable Energy Projects: Acceptance Risks and Their Management," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 576-584.
    3. Ki, Jaehong & Yun, Sun-Jin & Kim, Woo-Chang & Oh, Subin & Ha, Jihun & Hwangbo, Eunyoung & Lee, Hyoeun & Shin, Sumin & Yoon, Seulki & Youn, Hyewon, 2022. "Local residents’ attitudes about wind farms and associated noise annoyance in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    4. Martin, Nigel & Rice, John, 2015. "Improving Australia's renewable energy project policy and planning: A multiple stakeholder analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 128-141.
    5. Walsh, Bríd & van der Plank, Sien & Behrens, Paul, 2017. "The effect of community consultation on perceptions of a proposed mine: A case study from southeast Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 163-171.
    6. Cousse, Julia & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Hahnel, Ulf J.J., 2021. "Tell me how you feel about geothermal energy: Affect as a revealing factor of the role of seismic risk on public acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    7. Ólafsdóttir, Rannveig & Sæþórsdóttir, Anna Dóra, 2019. "Wind farms in the Icelandic highlands: Attitudes of local residents and tourism service providers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    8. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    9. Leer Jørgensen, Marie & Anker, Helle Tegner & Lassen, Jesper, 2020. "Distributive fairness and local acceptance of wind turbines: The role of compensation schemes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    10. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    11. von Wirth, Timo & Gislason, Linda & Seidl, Roman, 2018. "Distributed energy systems on a neighborhood scale: Reviewing drivers of and barriers to social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2618-2628.
    12. Christidis, Tanya & Lewis, Geoffrey & Bigelow, Philip, 2017. "Understanding support and opposition to wind turbine development in Ontario, Canada and assessing possible steps for future development," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 93-103.
    13. Nuortimo, Kalle & Härkönen, Janne & Karvonen, Erkki, 2018. "Exploring the global media image of solar power," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P2), pages 2806-2811.
    14. Cohen, Adi & Fischhendler, Itay & Katz, David, 2023. "Institutional acceptance of wildlife mitigation technologies for wind energy: The case of Israel," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    15. Hernández-Cedeño, Isaac & Nelson, Pamela F. & Anglés-Hernández, Marisol, 2021. "Social and environmental conflict analysis on energy projects: Bayesian predictive network approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    16. Landeta-Manzano, Beñat & Arana-Landín, Germán & Calvo, Pilar M. & Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki, 2018. "Wind energy and local communities: A manufacturer’s efforts to gain acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 314-324.
    17. Grashof, Katherina, 2019. "Are auctions likely to deter community wind projects? And would this be problematic?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 20-32.
    18. Windemer, Rebecca, 2023. "Acceptance should not be assumed. How the dynamics of social acceptance changes over time, impacting onshore wind repowering," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    19. Sonnberger, Marco & Ruddat, Michael, 2017. "Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 56-65.
    20. Caporale, Diana & Sangiorgio, Valentino & Amodio, Alessandro & De Lucia, Caterina, 2020. "Multi-criteria and focus group analysis for social acceptance of wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:8:y:2018:i:4:p:109-:d:180256. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.