Energy democracy, dissent and discourse in the party politics of shale gas in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Drawing from an extensive content analysis of the UK parliamentary debate over shale gas, we use the UK shale gas case to explore how energy democracy themes are used and countered in the framing strategies of discourse coalitions in national political sites. Furthermore, we explore the extent to which these national political sites and discursive strategies are effective as institutions and practices through which to achieve energy democracy. We achieve this through an analysis of the success of the UK anti-and pro-shale gas development discourse coalitions in recruiting national political figures and influencing thinking and decision-making in parliament. In doing so, we bring together the literatures on discourse coalitions and energy democracy. We conclude with implications for both national policy as well as critical inquiry into environmental politics.

Governance in energy democracy for Sustainable Development Goals: Challenges and opportunities for partnerships at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec

“…The global energy transition offers an unprecedented opportunity for transformation across political, social, and economic dimensions (e.g., Baker, 2018 ; Williams & Sovacool, 2020 ). I posit that Mexican technocrat policymakers missed an opportunity to transition toward good governance in energy democracy by enforcing basic principles stipulated in the SDGs (e.g., Goal 16) and then devising public policies aligned with energy democracy.…”

“…It calls for decarbonization, access to RE, and democratic decision-making (Angel, 2016a ; Stephens, 2019 ; van Veelen, 2018 ; van Veelen & Eadson, 2020 ). The movement emerged in Germany in the past decade out of communities’ frustration with conventional institutions and political practices (Kunze & Becker, 2014 ; Williams & Sovacool, 2020 : 7). It spread quickly in European countries such as Denmark and the UK, which have a long history with participatory RE models such as community RE (Kunze & Becker, 2014 ; van Veelen, 2018 ; Williams & Sovacool, 2020 ), and has since gained traction in other developed and emerging markets (Baker, 2018 ).…”

Knowledge Integration in the Politics and Policy of Rapid Transitions to Net Zero Carbon: A Typology and Mapping Method for Climate Actors in the UK

“…(a) Scale: Barbrook-Johnson [19] categorised UK organisations involved in public-private partnerships in the food-energy-water-environment nexus by their geographical scale of operation at the catchment, county, regional, devolved nation, UK, or international levels; (b) Policy discourse: the categorisation of policy discourses in climate change politics helps to understand how issues are framed and how policy discourses relate to each other in terms of aligning/competing groups [20][21][22]. Hess [23] argued that a focus on language and discourse coalitions, rather than on shared core beliefs or identities [24,25], offered greater flexibility in understanding the dynamics of coalitions, for which the goals and compositions may change in response to persuasive counter-framing, new information, events, changes in administration, membership, and institutional form [26] (This point is reiterated below when considering the advantages and disadvantages of various mapping methodologies). Boehnert [27] categorised UK, US, and Canadian actors via five policy discourses: climate science, climate justice, ecological modernisation, neoliberalism, and climate contrarianism.…”

Mapping online visuals of shale gas controversy: a digital methods approach

“…Hydraulic fracturing or 'fracking' for shale gas is a relatively new technology that generated a global controversy (Dodge & Metze, 2017;Hopke & Simis, 2017;Williams et al, 2017). The debate consisted of diverging interests and has a geopolitical dimension all discursively uttered in disagreements about shale gas exploration as an environmental risk and economic opportunity (Bomberg, 2017;Bugden et al, 2017;Dodge & Lee, 2017;Lis & Stankiewicz, 2017;Valerio-Ureña & Rogers, 2019;Williams et al, 2017;Williams & Sovacool, 2020). Some studies highlight the debate's visual aspects, as they influence how this controversy has evolved in different domains (Hendriks et al, 2017;Krause & Bucy, 2018;Metze, 2017;Sarge et al, 2015).…”