[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v73y2014icp427-438.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: An argumentative discourse analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Cotton, Matthew
  • Rattle, Imogen
  • Van Alstine, James
Abstract
Shale gas has become an energy policy priority in the United Kingdom in light of profitable extraction activities in the United States. Since 2012 the Coalition Government has created key economic drivers to encourage shale exploration, whilst growing activism in affected site communities has stirred significant media and academic commentary. This study examines the growing national debate as a matter of discourse, adopting an argumentative discourse analytic approach to assess data collected from stakeholder interviews (n=21) and key policy actor statements quoted in broadsheet newspapers. We explore three dominant “storylines” emerging in relation to shale gas policy: (1) “cleanliness and dirt” concerns the relative framing of the environmental benefits and harms of shale gas; (2) “energy transitions – pathways and diversions” concerns geographic metaphors of transitions to carbon intensive and low-carbon energy systems; and (3) “geographies of environmental justice” concerns divisions of economic benefit distribution, environmental impact and procedural fairness. We find that central government policy rhetoric emphasises economic development, regulatory oversight and distribution of benefits to site communities, whilst minimising discussion of the implications of shale gas for anthropogenic climate change. The role of these discourses in influencing shale gas policy is discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Cotton, Matthew & Rattle, Imogen & Van Alstine, James, 2014. "Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: An argumentative discourse analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 427-438.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:73:y:2014:i:c:p:427-438
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514003309
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.031?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loiter, Jeffrey M. & Norberg-Bohm, Vicki, 1999. "Technology policy and renewable energy: public roles in the development of new energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 85-97, February.
    2. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    3. Rolf Lidskog, 2008. "Scientised citizens and democratised science. Re-assessing the expert-lay divide," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1-2), pages 69-86, January.
    4. Lisa Calvano, 2008. "Multinational Corporations and Local Communities: A Critical Analysis of Conflict," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 82(4), pages 793-805, November.
    5. Jenner, Steffen & Lamadrid, Alberto J., 2013. "Shale gas vs. coal: Policy implications from environmental impact comparisons of shale gas, conventional gas, and coal on air, water, and land in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 442-453.
    6. Boudet, Hilary & Clarke, Christopher & Bugden, Dylan & Maibach, Edward & Roser-Renouf, Connie & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2014. "“Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 57-67.
    7. Hu, Desheng & Xu, Shengqing, 2013. "Opportunity, challenges and policy choices for China on the development of shale gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 21-26.
    8. Asche, Frank & Oglend, Atle & Osmundsen, Petter, 2012. "Gas versus oil prices the impact of shale gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 117-124.
    9. Stephenson, Eleanor & Doukas, Alexander & Shaw, Karena, 2012. "“Greenwashing gas: Might a ‘transition fuel’ label legitimize carbon-intensive natural gas development?”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 452-459.
    10. Foxon, Timothy J., 2013. "Transition pathways for a UK low carbon electricity future," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 10-24.
    11. Denise Kleinrichert, 2008. "Ethics, Power and Communities: Corporate Social Responsibility Revisited," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 78(3), pages 475-485, March.
    12. Wakamatsu, Hiroki & Aruga, Kentaka, 2013. "The impact of the shale gas revolution on the U.S. and Japanese natural gas markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1002-1009.
    13. Howard Rogers, 2011. "Shale gas--the unfolding story," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 27(1), pages 117-143, Spring.
    14. Scrase, J. Ivan & Ockwell, David G., 2010. "The role of discourse and linguistic framing effects in sustaining high carbon energy policy--An accessible introduction," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2225-2233, May.
    15. Robert W. Howarth & Anthony Ingraffea & Terry Engelder, 2011. "Should fracking stop?," Nature, Nature, vol. 477(7364), pages 271-275, September.
    16. Bridge, Gavin & Bouzarovski, Stefan & Bradshaw, Michael & Eyre, Nick, 2013. "Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 331-340.
    17. Gross, Catherine, 2007. "Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2727-2736, May.
    18. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    19. Matthew Cotton & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2013. "Putting pylons into place: a UK case study of public perspectives on the impacts of high voltage overhead transmission lines," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(8), pages 1225-1245, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Auping, Willem L. & Pruyt, Erik & de Jong, Sijbren & Kwakkel, Jan H., 2016. "The geopolitical impact of the shale revolution: Exploring consequences on energy prices and rentier states," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 390-399.
    2. Eleanor Stephenson & Karena Shaw, 2013. "¨ A Dilemma of Abundance: Governance Challenges of Reconciling Shale Gas Development and Climate Change Mitigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(5), pages 1-23, May.
    3. Meier, Felix D. & Quaas, Martin F., 2021. "Booming gas – A theory of endogenous technological change in resource extraction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. Wang, Qiang & Chen, Xi & Jha, Awadhesh N. & Rogers, Howard, 2014. "Natural gas from shale formation – The evolution, evidences and challenges of shale gas revolution in United States," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-28.
    5. Bilgili, Faik & Koçak, Emrah & Bulut, Ümit & Sualp, M. Nedim, 2016. "How did the US economy react to shale gas production revolution? An advanced time series approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(P1), pages 963-977.
    6. Philipp M. Richter, 2015. "From Boom to Bust? A Critical Look at US Shale Gas Projections," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    7. Liu, Jianye & Li, Zuxin & Luo, Dongkun & Duan, Xuqiang & Liu, Ruolei, 2020. "Shale gas production in China: A regional analysis of subsidies and suggestions for policy," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    8. James A. Pollard & David C. Rose, 2019. "Lightning Rods, Earthquakes, and Regional Identities: Towards a Multi‐Scale Framework of Assessing Fracking Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 473-487, February.
    9. Yao, Liuyang & Sui, Bo, 2020. "Heterogeneous preferences for shale water management: Evidence from a choice experiment in Fuling shale gas field, southwest China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    10. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    11. Liuyang Yao & Dangchen Sui & Xiaotong Liu & Hui Fan, 2020. "The Psychological Process of Residents’ Acceptance of Local Shale Gas Exploitation in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-20, September.
    12. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    13. Calderón, Andrés J. & Guerra, Omar J. & Papageorgiou, Lazaros G. & Reklaitis, Gintaras V., 2018. "Disclosing water-energy-economics nexus in shale gas development," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 710-731.
    14. Theodosios Perifanis & Athanasios Dagoumas, 2020. "Price and Volatility Spillovers between Crude Oil and Natural Gas markets in Europe and Japan-Korea," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 10(5), pages 432-446.
    15. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & García-Valiñas, María Á. & Matesanz, David, 2019. "Public Attitudes towards Hydraulic Fracturing in Western Newfoundland," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    16. Zaunbrecher, Barbara S. & Linzenich, Anika & Ziefle, Martina, 2017. "A mast is a mast is a mast…? Comparison of preferences for location-scenarios of electricity pylons and wind power plants using conjoint analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 429-439.
    17. Potts, Todd B. & Yerger, David B., 2016. "Marcellus Shale and structural breaks in oil and gas markets: The case of Pennsylvania," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 50-58.
    18. Gracceva, Francesco & Zeniewski, Peter, 2013. "Exploring the uncertainty around potential shale gas development – A global energy system analysis based on TIAM (TIMES Integrated Assessment Model)," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 443-457.
    19. Devine-Wright, Patrick & Wiersma, Bouke, 2020. "Understanding community acceptance of a potential offshore wind energy project in different locations: An island-based analysis of ‘place-technology fit’," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    20. Lee, Woo Jin & Sohn, So Young, 2014. "Patent analysis to identify shale gas development in China and the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 111-115.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:73:y:2014:i:c:p:427-438. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.