Closed frames, open wounds: abnormal justice across energy and agrifood systems

Just transition frameworks aim to dismantle unsustainable systems while advancing fairness, participation, and repair. This paper argues that many transitional shortcomings, often attributed to poor implementation, are instead tensions inherent in just transitions, particularly around frame-setting and sequencing. Drawing on Nancy Fraser’s concept of abnormal justice, this analysis shows that during systemic change, the subjects, scales, and standards of justice are contested, making justice an ongoing process rather than a fixed endpoint. Using Colorado’s coal phase-out as an illustrative case, the essay traces how state-led energy transitions often stabilize frame-setting decisions early – through mandates, regulatory alignment, and urgency claims – while justice enters later as mitigation within an already settled frame. It contrasts this with agrifood transitions, in which comparable climate harms are addressed through dispersed, incremental interventions, yielding fragmented justice claims. I examine energy and agrifood transitions not because they are equivalent, but because their contrasting institutional structures make visible how justice claims are sequenced differently across sustainability transitions. The paper concludes that the central challenge is not to design transitions without injustice, but to build institutions capable of acknowledging loss, enabling contestation, and supporting repair over time.