Search

Intergenerational justice is an inherent component of nuclear waste management. By looking at challenges of intergenerational justice at various stages of the repository siting process, the following thesis is discussed: Current generations can anticipate notions of intergenerational justice by applying high procedural standards to enable equitable distribution between generations and thus adequately recognize the needs of future generations. Applying high standards in this context means a constantly critical, reflexive, and open process, without bias or selfishness. This requires representative bodies such as the German Council of the Young Generation (‘Rat der jungen Generation’) that act as a bridge to future generations.

Nuclear waste management is a contested challenge that lasts for decades. Especially in Germany, the history of the usage of nuclear energy is conflictive and notions of justice are therefore omnipresent in the ongoing site selection process for a nuclear waste repository. Against the background of injustices caused by the deployment of nuclear energy, such as the obligation for current generations to deal with nuclear waste, questions of how to justly deal with nuclear waste and to find a just repository site arise. By conducting a survey among people that participate in the site selection process as well as people living in or representing an area that is still considered suitable, the assessment of different aspects of justice was evaluated. The role of a science-informed site decision without any political bias is considered highly important for a just site selection. Distributional aspects, such as notions of utilitarianism, retribution, or the exemption of environmentally burdened regions are generally not approved but more detailed questions have shown that such notions cannot be dismissed at this early stage of the site selection process. The difference for general agreement can also be observed for intergenerational recognition, as the recognition of future generations is regarded as necessary, but concrete implications (retrievability or enclosure) are assessed ambiguously. Although some factors of justice are assessed more importantly than others, the analysis has shown that the interrelations between the different dimensions of justice are manifold and the argument that one dimension can be substituted for another one is too reductive.