Shale We Drill? Discourse Dynamics in UK Fracking Debates

Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 72-88

  Bomberg, Elizabeth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

discourse coalitions; fracking; frames; Shale gas; UK

Indexed keywords

EID: 84930856475     PISSN: 1523908X     EISSN: 15227200     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2015.1053111     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Arts, B., Leroy, P., & Van Tatenhove, J., (2006). Political modernisation and policy arrangements:A framework for understanding environmental policy change. Public Organization Review, 6, 93–106. doi:10.1007/s11115-006-0001-4
2. Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B., (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
3. Bomberg, E., (2012). Mind the (mobilization) gap:Comparing climate activism in the United States and European Union. Review of Policy Research, 29, 408–430. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2012.00566.x
4. Boudet, H., Clarke, C., Bugden, D., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A., (2013). Fracking controversy and communication:Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy. Retrieved from doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.017
5. Brasier, K., Filteau, M., McLaughlin, D., Jacquet, J., Stedman, R., Kelsey, T., & Goetz, S., (2011). Residents’ perceptions of community and environmental impacts from development of natural gas in the Marcellus shale:A comparison of Pennsylvania and New York cases. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 26, 32–61.
6. British Geological Study. (2013). The carboniferous bowland shale gas study:Geology and resource estimation. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bowland-shale-gas-study
7. Brooks, M., (2013, March 21). Fracking the new gold rush. New Statesman, pp. 1–7.
8. Cotton, M., Rattle, I., & van Alstine, J., (2014). Shale gas policy in the UK. An argumentative discourse analysis. Energy Policy, 73, 427–438. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.031
9. Davis, C., & Fisk, J., (2014). Energy abundance or environmental worries? Analyzing public support for fracking in the United States. Review of Policy Research, 31, 1–16. doi:10.1111/ropr.12048
10. Department of Energy and Climate Change. (2012). The unconventional hydrocarbon resources of Britain's onshore basins—shale gas source. Retrieved from https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/UKpromote/onshore_paper/UK_onshore_shalegas.pdf
11. Dryzek, J., (1997). Politics of the Earth. Environmental discourses. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
12. Feindt, P., & Kleinschmit, D. (2011). The BSE crisis in German newspapers:Reframing responsibility. Science as Culture, 20, 183–208. doi:10.1080/09505431.2011.563569
13. Feindt, P., & Oels, A., (2005). Does discourse matter? Discourse analysis in environmental policy making. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7, 161–173. doi:10.1080/15239080500339638
14. Frack Off. (2014). The threat. Retrieved from http://frack-off.org.uk/fracking-hell/
15. Friends of the Earth. (2012). Unconventional and unwanted:The case against shale gas. Retrieved from http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/foee_shale_gas_unconventional_unwanted_0.pdf
16. Glynos, J., Howarth, D., Norval, A., & Speed, E., (2009, August). Discourse analysis:Varieties and methods (ESRC National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper, NCRM/014). Essex:National Centre for Research Methods.
17. Hajer, M., (1995). The politics of environmental discourse. Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford:OUP.
18. Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W., (2005). A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics:Achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 7, 175–184. doi:10.1080/15239080500339646
19. Hilson, C., (2015). Framing fracking:Which frames are heard in English planning and environmental policy and practice? Journal of Environmental Law, 27. doi:10.1093/jel/equ036
20. House of Commons. (2013). Energy and climate change committee the impact of shale gas on energy markets’ seventh report of session 2012–13, volume I. London:Author. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenergy/785/785.pdf
21. House of Lords. (2014). Economic affairs committee. Third report the economic impact on UK energy policy of shale gas and oil. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldeconaf/172/17202.htm
22. Institute of Directors. (2013). Getting shale gas working. Retrieved from http://www.iod.com/influencing/press-office/press-releases/new-iod-report-getting-shale-gas-working
23. Jacquet, J. B., (2012). Landowner attitudes toward natural gas and wind farm development in northern Pennsylvania. Energy Policy, 50, 677–688. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.011
24. Jaspal, R., & Nerlich, B., (2014). Fracking n the UK press:Threat dynamics in an unfolding debate. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 348–363. doi:10.1177/0963662513498835
25. Jaspal, R., Nerlich, B., & Lemańcyzk, S., (2014). Fracking in the Polish press:Geopolitics and national identity. Energy Policy, 74, 253–261. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.09.007
26. Lovell, H., (2008). Discourse and innovation journeys:The case of low energy housing in the UK. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 20, 613–632. doi:10.1080/09537320802292883
27. McGowan, F., (2014). Regulating innovation:European response to shale gas development. Environmental Politics, 23, 41–58. doi:10.1080/09644016.2012.740939
28. Metze, T., (2014). Fracking the debate:Frame shifts and boundary work in Dutch decision making on shale gas. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2014.941462
29. Miller, C., (2000). The dynamics of framing environmental values and policy:Four models of societal processes. Environmental Values, 9, 211–233. doi:10.3197/096327100129342047
30. Natural Gas Europe. (2013). About Us. Retrieved from http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/uk-public-acceptance-shale-gas-ime-poll
31. Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil. (2014). Policies. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/office-of-unconventional-gas-and-oil-ougo
32. Nesbit, M. C., (2009). Communicating climate change:Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment:Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51, 12–23. doi:10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23
33. O'Hara, S., Humphreys, M., Andersson, J., Jaspal, R., Nerlich, B., & Knight, W., (2014). ‘Public perceptions of shale gas extraction in the UK:The turn against fracking deepens’ university of Nottingham. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/131787519/public-perceptions-of-shale-gas-in-the-UK-January-2014-pdf
34. Rabe, B., & Borick, C., (2013). Conventional politics for unconventional drilling? Lessons from Pennsylvania's early move into fracking policy development. Review of Policy Research, 30, 321–340. doi:10.1111/ropr.12018
35. Rimmer, H., (2013, January 5). Viewpoints:Fracking's risks. BBC. Retrieved from www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environemnt
36. Schafft, K., Borlu, Y., & Glenna, L., (2013). The relationship between Marcellus Shale gas development in Pennsylvania and local perceptions of risk and opportunity. Rural Sociology, 78, 143–166. doi:10.1111/ruso.12004
37. Shin, H., & Choi, B. D., (2015). Risk perceptions in UK climate change and energy policy narratives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 17, 84–107. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2014.906301
38. Stevens, P., (2013, December). Shale gas in the United Kingdom (Chatham House energy, environment and resources briefing paper). London:Chatham House. Retrieved from http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/131213shalegas.pdf
39. Tosun, J., (2015). Regulating hydraulic fracturing:The effects of issue redefinition. In J., Tosun, S., Biesenbender, & K., Schulze (Eds.), Energy policy-making in the EU (pp. 225–244). Berlin:Springer.
40. Truelove, H. B., (2012). Energy source perceptions and policy support:Image associations, emotional evaluations, and cognitive beliefs. Energy Policy, 45, 478–489. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.059