Intergenerational Democracy, Environmental Justice and the Case of Nuclear Waste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book explores the interplay between intergenerational justice and intragenerational justice using nuclear waste management as a consistent case to explore these themes. Lee Towers and Matthew Cotton examine the issue of intergenerational justice from a social scientific perspective, drawing on central case studies of nuclear waste management in Canada, Finland, and the United Kingdom. They connect indigenous philosophies and notions of justice with the concept of intergenerational democracy, advocating for better inclusion of youth and elders in decision-making that affects their well-being. As such, the book’s primary objectives are fourfold: To assess whether trade-offs between intergenerational and intragenerational justice are necessary, and if so, what these trade-offs are and how they might be resolved.To critically assess dominant western liberal philosophical approaches that shape contemporary intergenerational justice thinking in policy and practice, and consider alternatives drawn from anthropology and indigenous philosophies.To assess how far our current capitalist system can achieve substantive forms of justice.To critically examine three nuclear waste management case studies and assess how far these achieve environmental and energy justice and how they exemplify tensions between inter- and intragenerational justice. This short, accessible volume will be of great interest to students and scholars of energy, environmental justice, and ethics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".