Filosofie & Praktijk - Current Issue

Climate change, biodiversity loss, and the energy transition are major societal challenges that require societies becoming more sustainable. However, these changes may exacerbate inequalities, as different groups in society do not equally benefit from those developments. This article examines the role of futures in the Dutch energy transition, focusing on the differences between policymakers and citizens. Policymakers often present a positive, singular vision of the future, while many citizens have more pluralistic visions of the future and greater uncertainty. The content of these futures differs in terms of goals, strategies to achieve these goals, the expected distribution of burdens and benefits, and how responsibilities should be allocated. This leads to feelings of inequality, especially among vulnerable groups who find it harder to participate in sustainable innovations. The article emphasizes the importance of a broad societal debate about the future of the energy transition, in which the plurality and uncertainties of different groups are acknowledged.

In 2022 an estimated 602,000 energy-poor residents (7.4% of the total number of residents) lived in the Netherlands. In order to reduce energy poverty and related aspects, various support measures are being taken. But how effective are these and what makes them effective? This article describes three studies that attempt to answer these two questions by mapping the effectiveness of various support measures (energy assistance, renovations, white goods schemes) for reducing energy poverty-related aspects: living comfort, physical health, energy costs and consumption, financial concerns and mental health, connectedness and involvement in the neighbourhood and sustainable behaviour (study 1). In addition, we looked at which characteristics of energy assistance make the assistance effective for residents (study 2). And finally, the added value of natural gas-free renovations with heat pumps and solar panels (study 3) was also investigated. Based on the results found, various recommendations will be made for the government, energy aid organizations and housing associations.

This article provides an immanent critique of the legal and philosophical concept of ecocide, defined as large-scale environmental destruction. Four core contradictions in current legislative proposals are identified: the conceptual divide between humans and nature, the tension between ecocentric intentions and anthropocentric legal frameworks, the conflict between intrinsic and instrumental valuations of nature, and the mismatch between broad ecological causality and narrow legal causality. These contradictions undermine the coherence and legal viability of ecocide as a criminal offense, and reflect deeper ontological and normative conflicts between environmental ethics and legal structures. While some tensions are inherent to translating normative ideals into legal language, others – such as the inadequate conceptualization of nature – are resolvable. Addressing the surmountable contradictions strengthens the legal codification of ecocide and enhances its normative value. Although criminal law may not fully accommodate ecocentric ideals, it can still contribute to environmental protection, provided its limitations are acknowledged.