正义 40 能否再现关键矿产部门的不公正?

IF 4.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Aaron Malone , Raphael Deberdt , Nicole M. Smith , Elizabeth A. Holley
{"title":"正义 40 能否再现关键矿产部门的不公正?","authors":"Aaron Malone ,&nbsp;Raphael Deberdt ,&nbsp;Nicole M. Smith ,&nbsp;Elizabeth A. Holley","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The United States is reprioritizing domestic extraction and processing of critical minerals, with billions of dollars of investments. Because of their uses in low-carbon technologies, the mining and processing of these resources falls under the scope of the Justice40 Initiative, the Biden administration’s flagship environmental justice policy. Justice40 prioritizes green investments to benefit communities deemed disadvantaged, including all recognized Tribes. This can lead to the siting of “green” mineral projects in disadvantaged communities (DACs), which is problematic if such projects are unwelcome or reproduce environmental injustices. These unintended consequences are our focus. We analyze how DACs are defined and operationalized, before examining whether and under what conditions critical mineral projects could be considered beneficial for local communities. We suggest three ways to better align Justice40’s spirit with its (currently problematic) application to critical minerals and other controversial projects – (1) centering free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) and the transparency and power restructuring needed to achieve it; (2) incentivizing community ownership to strengthen economic benefits and democratize decision making; and (3) bringing currently-exempted critical mineral activities within the purview of Justice40, particularly for the Department of Defense.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"161 ","pages":"Article 103894"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002284/pdfft?md5=def79df2d91bd0b5b90bb601b8c4fafd&pid=1-s2.0-S1462901124002284-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Could Justice40 reproduce injustices in the critical mineral sector?\",\"authors\":\"Aaron Malone ,&nbsp;Raphael Deberdt ,&nbsp;Nicole M. Smith ,&nbsp;Elizabeth A. Holley\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103894\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The United States is reprioritizing domestic extraction and processing of critical minerals, with billions of dollars of investments. Because of their uses in low-carbon technologies, the mining and processing of these resources falls under the scope of the Justice40 Initiative, the Biden administration’s flagship environmental justice policy. Justice40 prioritizes green investments to benefit communities deemed disadvantaged, including all recognized Tribes. This can lead to the siting of “green” mineral projects in disadvantaged communities (DACs), which is problematic if such projects are unwelcome or reproduce environmental injustices. These unintended consequences are our focus. We analyze how DACs are defined and operationalized, before examining whether and under what conditions critical mineral projects could be considered beneficial for local communities. We suggest three ways to better align Justice40’s spirit with its (currently problematic) application to critical minerals and other controversial projects – (1) centering free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) and the transparency and power restructuring needed to achieve it; (2) incentivizing community ownership to strengthen economic benefits and democratize decision making; and (3) bringing currently-exempted critical mineral activities within the purview of Justice40, particularly for the Department of Defense.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"volume\":\"161 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103894\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002284/pdfft?md5=def79df2d91bd0b5b90bb601b8c4fafd&pid=1-s2.0-S1462901124002284-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002284\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002284","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国正在重新调整国内关键矿物开采和加工的优先次序,投资数十亿美元。由于其在低碳技术中的用途,这些资源的开采和加工属于拜登政府的旗舰环境正义政策--"正义40倡议"(Justice40 Initiative)的范围。正义 40 优先考虑绿色投资,以惠及被认为处于不利地位的社区,包括所有公认的部落。这可能导致 "绿色 "矿产项目选址在弱势社区(DACs),如果这些项目不受欢迎或再现环境不公正,就会产生问题。这些意外后果正是我们关注的焦点。我们分析了如何定义和操作 DACs,然后研究了关键矿产项目是否以及在何种条件下可被视为对当地社区有益。我们提出了三种方法,以更好地将 "正义 40 "的精神与其(目前存在问题的)对关键矿产和其他有争议项目的应用结合起来--(1)以自由、事先、知情同意(FPIC)以及实现自由、事先、知情同意所需的透明度和权力重组为中心;(2)激励社区所有权,以加强经济效益并使决策民主化;(3)将目前被豁免的关键矿产活动纳入 "正义 40 "的管辖范围,特别是国防部。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Could Justice40 reproduce injustices in the critical mineral sector?

The United States is reprioritizing domestic extraction and processing of critical minerals, with billions of dollars of investments. Because of their uses in low-carbon technologies, the mining and processing of these resources falls under the scope of the Justice40 Initiative, the Biden administration’s flagship environmental justice policy. Justice40 prioritizes green investments to benefit communities deemed disadvantaged, including all recognized Tribes. This can lead to the siting of “green” mineral projects in disadvantaged communities (DACs), which is problematic if such projects are unwelcome or reproduce environmental injustices. These unintended consequences are our focus. We analyze how DACs are defined and operationalized, before examining whether and under what conditions critical mineral projects could be considered beneficial for local communities. We suggest three ways to better align Justice40’s spirit with its (currently problematic) application to critical minerals and other controversial projects – (1) centering free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) and the transparency and power restructuring needed to achieve it; (2) incentivizing community ownership to strengthen economic benefits and democratize decision making; and (3) bringing currently-exempted critical mineral activities within the purview of Justice40, particularly for the Department of Defense.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
332
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信