IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v7y2018i11p222-d180792.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Society and Anti-Politics in the Fracking Debate

Author

Listed:
  • Frances Drake

    (School of Geography, Faculty of Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

Abstract

Fracking in the United Kingdom has yet to reach full industrial development, but it is still subject to significant opposition. This study uses Beck’s risk society theory and anti-politics to examine the views voiced by opponents to fracking in Yorkshire, England. A qualitative approach was used. Semi-structured interviews with protesters and local newspaper reports were evaluated to provide a thematic analysis. The study drew upon discourse analysis and framing literature to reveal discourses within the interviews. Although there are signs of post-materialist concerns with the environment, these issues did not dominate the discussion. Scientists were not held responsible for the risks involved in fracking. Instead, the economic greediness of politicians and austerity measures were perceived as putting the environment and human health at risk. Interviewees thought fossil fuel energy production was economically advantaged over more sustainable energy and jobs in the low carbon economy. Protesters’ trust in politicians had been eroded, but faith in democracy remained. It is argued that the consensual post-politics of risk society have not led to a reinvigoration of democratic debate. Instead anti-politics have taken place, due to the frustration of citizens. Protesters wanted a citizen-led deliberative approach to the concerns raised. Such a process would have to go beyond the consensual, and recognise the inherently agonistic process of democracy if it is to succeed.

Suggested Citation

  • Frances Drake, 2018. "Risk Society and Anti-Politics in the Fracking Debate," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-22, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:7:y:2018:i:11:p:222-:d:180792
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/11/222/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/11/222/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Perote-Peña, Juan & Piggins, Ashley, 2015. "A Model Of Deliberative And Aggregative Democracy," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 93-121, March.
    2. Lioudmila Chatalova & Daniel Müller & Vladislav Valentinov & Alfons Balmann, 2016. "The Rise of the Food Risk Society and the Changing Nature of the Technological Treadmill," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-10, June.
    3. Susana Batel & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2015. "A critical and empirical analysis of the national-local 'gap' in public responses to large-scale energy infrastructures," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(6), pages 1076-1095, June.
    4. Edwina Barvosa, 2015. "Mapping public ambivalence in public engagement with science: implications for democratizing the governance of fracking technologies in the USA," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(4), pages 497-507, December.
    5. Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Nash, Nick & Upham, Paul & Lloyd, Alyson & Verdon, James P. & Kendall, J.-Michael, 2015. "UK public perceptions of shale gas hydraulic fracturing: The role of audience, message and contextual factors on risk perceptions and policy support," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 419-430.
    6. Robert W. Howarth & Anthony Ingraffea & Terry Engelder, 2011. "Should fracking stop?," Nature, Nature, vol. 477(7364), pages 271-275, September.
    7. Daniel Sarewitz, 2016. "Science and innovation policies for Donald Trump," Nature, Nature, vol. 539(7629), pages 331-331, November.
    8. Jeffrey B. Jacquet & Richard C. Stedman, 2014. "The risk of social-psychological disruption as an impact of energy development and environmental change," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(9), pages 1285-1304, September.
    9. Merryn Thomas & Tristan Partridge & Barbara Herr Harthorn & Nick Pidgeon, 2017. "Deliberating the perceived risks, benefits, and societal implications of shale gas and oil extraction by hydraulic fracturing in the US and UK," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(5), pages 1-7, May.
    10. Howell, Rachel A., 2018. "UK public beliefs about fracking and effects of knowledge on beliefs and support: A problem for shale gas policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 721-730.
    11. Roger Few & Katrina Brown & Emma L. Tompkins, 2007. "Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 46-59, January.
    12. Zilliox, Skylar & Smith, Jessica M., 2017. "Memorandums of understanding and public trust in local government for Colorado's unconventional energy industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 72-81.
    13. Matthew Cotton, 2015. "Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: a Q-method study of environmental discourses," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(9), pages 1944-1962, September.
    14. Measham, Thomas & Fleming, David & Schandl, Heinz, 2015. "A Conceptual Model of the Socioeconomic Impacts of Unconventional Fossil Fuel Extraction," MPRA Paper 68523, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 24 Nov 2015.
    15. Evensen, Darrick & Stedman, Rich, 2017. "Beliefs about impacts matter little for attitudes on shale gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 10-21.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Junghwan Choi & Sangseop Lim & Sungho Park & Hwasop Roh & Hohyun Jin & Changhee Lee, 2022. "The Serious Accidents Punishment Act of South Korea and Its Impact on the Shipping Industry: Toward Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-20, July.

    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. 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.
    2. Howell, Rachel A., 2018. "UK public beliefs about fracking and effects of knowledge on beliefs and support: A problem for shale gas policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 721-730.
    3. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & García-Valiñas, María Á. & Matesanz, David, 2019. "Public Attitudes towards Hydraulic Fracturing in Western Newfoundland," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    4. Evensen, Darrick & Stedman, Rich, 2017. "Beliefs about impacts matter little for attitudes on shale gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 10-21.
    5. Sibo Chen, 2020. "Debating Extractivism: Stakeholder Communications in British Columbia’s Liquefied Natural Gas Controversy," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    6. Bradshaw, Michael & Devine-Wright, Patrick & Evensen, Darrick & King, Owen & Martin, Abigail & Ryder, Stacia & Short, Damien & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Stretesky, Paul & Szolucha, Anna & Williams, Laur, 2022. "‘We're going all out for shale:’ explaining shale gas energy policy failure in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    7. Liuyang Yao & Qian Zhang & Kin Keung Lai & Xianyu Cao, 2020. "Explaining Local Residents’ Attitudes toward Shale Gas Exploitation: The Mediating Roles of Risk and Benefit Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.
    8. Susan T. Zimny & Margaret C. Reardon, 2021. "Environmental justice expansion in the context of fracking," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(2), pages 234-246, June.
    9. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    10. Hilary S. Boudet & Chad M. Zanocco & Peter D. Howe & Christopher E. Clarke, 2018. "The Effect of Geographic Proximity to Unconventional Oil and Gas Development on Public Support for Hydraulic Fracturing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1871-1890, September.
    11. Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Rose, Jonathan & Humphrey, Mathew & Knight, Wil & O'Hara, Sarah, 2019. "The structure of attitudes towards shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 693-697.
    12. Steve Westlake & Conor H. D. John & Emily Cox, 2023. "Perception spillover from fracking onto public perceptions of novel energy technologies," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 8(2), pages 149-158, February.
    13. Judith I. M. de Groot & Elisa Schweiger & Iljana Schubert, 2020. "Social Influence, Risk and Benefit Perceptions, and the Acceptability of Risky Energy Technologies: An Explanatory Model of Nuclear Power Versus Shale Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1226-1243, June.
    14. Lucija Muehlenbachs & Elisheba Spiller & Christopher Timmins, 2015. "The Housing Market Impacts of Shale Gas Development," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(12), pages 3633-3659, December.
    15. Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf & Burton St. John & Pragati Rawat & Michelle Covi & Janet Gail Nicula & Carol Considine, 2019. "The Action-oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework: an effective, field-tested approach for engaging stakeholders," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(4), pages 409-418, December.
    16. Xu, Ying & Findlay, Christopher, 2019. "Farmers’ constraints, governmental support and climate change adaptation: Evidence from Guangdong Province, China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), October.
    17. Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent & Shannon Hagerman & Robert Kozak, 2018. "What risks matter? Public views about assisted migration and other climate-adaptive reforestation strategies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 573-587, December.
    18. Raissa Sorgho & Carlos A. Montenegro Quiñonez & Valérie R. Louis & Volker Winkler & Peter Dambach & Rainer Sauerborn & Olaf Horstick, 2020. "Climate Change Policies in 16 West African Countries: A Systematic Review of Adaptation with a Focus on Agriculture, Food Security, and Nutrition," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-21, November.
    19. Jordi Vallverdú, 2018. "Post Truth, Newspeak and Epidemiological Causality," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 2(1), pages 2267-2268, January.
    20. Russell, Aaron & Bingaman, Samantha & Garcia, Hannah-Marie, 2021. "Threading a moving needle: The spatial dimensions characterizing US offshore wind policy drivers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).

    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:gam:jscscx:v:7:y:2018:i:11:p:222-:d:180792. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.