Silences in the boom: coal seam gas, neoliberalizing discourse, and the future of regional Australia

Abstract

In high-stakes resource use struggles currently playing out across the world, different beliefs about economics and "growth-first" regional development underpin decisions and dynamics that have far-reaching consequences. Neoliberalizing political economies rely on the maintenance of particular beliefs associated with these themes, and work to delegitimize and silence alternatives. Thus understanding the beliefs of actors concerning these themes, especially with respect to neoliberal ideas, is key to understanding these sociopolitical struggles. This article uses a combination of literature review, critical discourse analysis and selected fieldwork data to explore the recent debate about coal seam gas (CSG) in Eastern Australia. In particular, it examines the ideas that underlie texts produced by CSG production companies, the Queensland Government, and Lock the Gate (a key group opposed to rapid CSG industry expansion). The analysis indicates that with respect to the above themes, Lock the Gate expresses their opposition to CSG through perspectives that mostly depart from those with a key role in maintaining neoliberalizing political economies. In contrast, the Queensland government and CSG companies, despite each encompassing significant internal diversity, have expressed relatively similar and consistent positions, aligned with neoliberalizing ideas. The article problematizes descriptions of the state government as a neutral arbitrator that can restore balance between the beliefs of gas companies and groups like Lock the Gate, and advances consideration of deeper differences. Key Words: coal seam gas, neoliberalizing discourse, regional development, role of government, Queensland RésuméEn luttes «high-stakes» sur l'utilisation des ressources, des croyances différentes sur l'économie et le développement régional sous-tendent les décisions et les dynamiques qui ont de lourdes conséquences. L'économie politique néolibéral reposent sur le maintien de croyances particulières, et il travailler à délégitimer et silencer des alternatives. Ainsi la compréhension des croyances des acteurs sur ces thèmes, en particulier en ce qui concerne les idées néolibérales, est la clé de la compréhension de ces luttes sociopolitiques. Cet article utilise une combinaison de revue de la littérature, l'analyse critique du discours et des données de terrain sélectionnés à explorer le débat récent sur le gaz de couche de charbon (CSG) dans l'Est de l'Australie. En particulier, il examine les idées qui sous-tendent les textes produits par des sociétés de production CSG, le gouvernement du Queensland, et «Verrouiller la porte» (Lock the Gate) (un groupe clé dans opposition à l'expansion de CSG). L'analyse indique que par rapport aux thèmes ci-dessus, «Verrouiller la porte» exprime leur opposition à la CSG par les perspectives qui partent la plupart de ceux qui soutiennent néolibéral économies politiques. ResumenEn conflictos sobre el uso de recursos de alto riesgo, los cuales se está produciendo hoy en día en todo el mundo, diferen...

Fair fracking? Ethics and environmental justice in United Kingdom shale gas policy and planning

“…As a problem of distributional fairness it is important to evaluate the geographical and scalar dimensions of impacts, for example when the aforementioned environmental risks from extraction activities become concentrated within particular localities (such as marginalised post-industrial or rural regions) whilst broader benefits from fuel extraction and energy use (such as fuel profits, tax revenues and energy security) are spread to those outside of affected communities. Furthermore, fracking-affected communities at risk of economic marginalisation and industrial decline, become subject to rapid skilled labour migration from outside the community, which can have negative social and cultural repercussions (the so called 'boomtown' effect, see for example : Mercer, de Rijke, andDressler 2014, Jacobsen andParker 2014).…”

Politics, ecology, and the new anthropology of energy: exploring the emerging frontiers of hydraulic fracking

“…21, 2014 227 their own perceptions and fears (Rappaport 1994). The surge in actual and impending environmental transformation resulting from fracking development has thus been met by an analogous surge in grassroots activism, a topic also addressed by articles in this special section (Mercer, de Rijke, and Dressler 2014;Simonelli 2014). Heeding calls to consider pollution as a form of social relation (Kirsch 2006: 220) and health as an ecological relation (Mitman 2007), the authors in this section work at the intersection of society, embodiment, and environment, thereby challenging modernist visions of an ontological separation of human culture from non-human nature (see Latour 1993).…”

“…And, all are frankly critical of neoliberal economic policy, industrial domination, and the displacement of human concerns that appears to follow unconventional energy development wherever it goes. Some authors use writing as a primary strategy for creating these connections (e.g., Mercer, de Rijke, and Dressler 2014;Simonelli 2014;Willow 2014), constructing critical analyses and narratives that question the current state of affairs. Others (e.g., Hudgins and Poole 2014;Wylie and Albright 2014) have concurrently developed active and empowering new platforms for community collaboration that break down the structural barriers that too often separate not only industry/government and citizens, but also citizens and academics.…”

Quiet voices in the fracking debate: Ambivalence, nonmobilization, and individual action in two extractive communities (Saskatchewan and Pennsylvania)

“…The film Gasland successfully framed fracking as a public and environmental health threat, galvanizing opposition through community screenings [29,51,59]. In Australia, civil society groups offered alternatives to the neoliberalizing frames used by proponents of fracking [32]. And in Romania, anti-fracking groups were mobilized through frames emphasizing nationalism, political transparency and ecological risk [52].…”