133
themselves—involving multiple, competing and overlapping technologies,
modes of mobility and transport infrastructures—can also be just or
unjust, even if they utilise innovations such as electric vehicles. The justice
potential of electric mobility is therefore situational, relational and
contingent.
Steven Wolf develops an environmental sociology framework to address
dynamics in biodiversity conservation. The case of the sage-grouse, a
ground-nesting bird imperilled by energy development in Colorado, USA,
offers a window onto broader challenges of energy transitions and socioecological regulation. The chapter pursues a general, abstract analysis of
accountability within environmental governance. Accountability mechanisms are identified as ‘tests’ of conformity with institutionalised norms.
These tests mediate access to legitimacy and other resources that structure
competition and organisational ecology dynamics (i.e., shifts in the population of actors and behaviours) (Kraft and Wolf 2018). The co- evolutionary
model of socioecological regulation that is presented seeks to offer an
integrated, dynamic treatment of accountability (e.g., social controls
developed to regulate land use changes that reduce sage-grouse habitat),
standards of legitimacy (e.g., prevailing norms regarding the appropriateness of accountability mechanisms), sociotechnical practices (e.g., oil and
gas drilling activities) and environmental quality (e.g., health of sagegrouse populations). This theoretical treatment highlights opportunities
for research on accountability to inform general analyses of governance
and regulation.
The empirical analysis highlights how efforts to advance habitat offsetting (i.e., market-based approaches to conserving land in order to compensate for degradation of sage-grouse habitat) have served to maintain
the legitimacy of existing models of oil and gas development. More specifically, Wolf’s analysis highlights how multi-stakeholder dialogue around
construction of habitat offsetting mechanisms and mobilisation of scientific expertise and quantification routines are implicated in performing
conservation without producing measurable protections for sage-grouse.
To date, after seven years of engagement, no habitat has been conserved
in Colorado through the habitat exchange. Yet the public construction of
elaborate new accountability routines and promises of future capacity to
achieve ‘no-net loss’ of habitat seems to function adequately to legitimate
existing socioecological relations. In this sense, accountability processes
are a central mechanism through which we sustain the unsustainable
(Blühdorn 2007).
10 CONCLUSION: LEGITIMATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN ENERGY…
themselves—involving multiple, competing and overlapping technologies,
modes of mobility and transport infrastructures—can also be just or
unjust, even if they utilise innovations such as electric vehicles. The justice
potential of electric mobility is therefore situational, relational and
contingent.
Steven Wolf develops an environmental sociology framework to address
dynamics in biodiversity conservation. The case of the sage-grouse, a
ground-nesting bird imperilled by energy development in Colorado, USA,
offers a window onto broader challenges of energy transitions and socioecological regulation. The chapter pursues a general, abstract analysis of
accountability within environmental governance. Accountability mechanisms are identified as ‘tests’ of conformity with institutionalised norms.
These tests mediate access to legitimacy and other resources that structure
competition and organisational ecology dynamics (i.e., shifts in the population of actors and behaviours) (Kraft and Wolf 2018). The co- evolutionary
model of socioecological regulation that is presented seeks to offer an
integrated, dynamic treatment of accountability (e.g., social controls
developed to regulate land use changes that reduce sage-grouse habitat),
standards of legitimacy (e.g., prevailing norms regarding the appropriateness of accountability mechanisms), sociotechnical practices (e.g., oil and
gas drilling activities) and environmental quality (e.g., health of sagegrouse populations). This theoretical treatment highlights opportunities
for research on accountability to inform general analyses of governance
and regulation.
The empirical analysis highlights how efforts to advance habitat offsetting (i.e., market-based approaches to conserving land in order to compensate for degradation of sage-grouse habitat) have served to maintain
the legitimacy of existing models of oil and gas development. More specifically, Wolf’s analysis highlights how multi-stakeholder dialogue around
construction of habitat offsetting mechanisms and mobilisation of scientific expertise and quantification routines are implicated in performing
conservation without producing measurable protections for sage-grouse.
To date, after seven years of engagement, no habitat has been conserved
in Colorado through the habitat exchange. Yet the public construction of
elaborate new accountability routines and promises of future capacity to
achieve ‘no-net loss’ of habitat seems to function adequately to legitimate
existing socioecological relations. In this sense, accountability processes
are a central mechanism through which we sustain the unsustainable
(Blühdorn 2007).
10 CONCLUSION: LEGITIMATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN ENERGY…