Renewable Energy and the Discourses of Objection

Geraint Ellis John Barry Clive Robinson Queen’s University, Belfast

Objectives of the Research

• • • •

Aim to exploring discourses of opposition and support for renewable energy. Key aim was to map, describe and interpret the arguments, positions and values of key stakeholders in the debate over wind power. The study was NOT about making a judgement either for or against wind energy.

Study employs two research strategies:

– Detailed analysis of documents that frame the wind power debate and national and local levels – Detailed case study of the Tunes Plateau, using Q-methodology.

Assumptions of the Research: Contextual issues

• • • • •

The authority of science can be no longer be assumed with an increasingly sceptical and knowledgeable citizenry (“Post Normal Science”) Science no longer speaks with one voice (“Risk Society”) Competency to deal with energy/environmental problems is not the exclusive preserve of ‘experts’ Key issue is ‘trust’ between citizens and public institutions, scientific community etc.

Paradox of an increasingly technologically dependent society becoming more sceptical about technological innovations and developments

Assumptions of the Research: The Wind Power Debate

• • • • •

‘NIMBY’ is unhelpful in explaining local opposition to wind farms.

The conventional view that more ‘information’ and (authoritative) ‘knowledge’ is the solution to the ‘problem’ of local opposition is questionable. The debate is not simply one of knowledge vs. ignorance, but of clash of values.

Importance of replacing antagonism of ‘supporter’ vs. ‘opposer’ with more nuanced sense of varieties of positions within and between these positions.

Potential of ‘problem-solving’ approach through deliberation and identification of any of shared values.

Framing Debate on Wind Energy: UK Policy Discourses

Opposition Discourse Themes

• • •

Sacrifice and disempowerment:

– local values, sea/landscape sacrificed for national or global ends – strong sense of local interests being (relatively) powerless against large forces of government and business.

Lack of trust in government, regulators and developers.

Language of war, conflict and defence:

– ‘ Invasion of the wind farm’; ‘three armed invaders’; ‘phalanx of turbines’; need to ‘defend’ valued local areas, ‘waging a war against turbines’.

Opposition Discourse Themes

• • •

Industrialisation and commercialisation for private profit of the sea/landscape:

– Wind farms destroying areas of beauty and tranquillity; the contemporary version of Blake’s ‘dark satanic mills’; another enclosure/privatisation of the commons

Foreignness and alien nature of wind farms:

– ‘they don’t belong or fit in here’; a Danish invention transplanted to another place.

– Examples of anti-colonial discourse (Scotland being ‘cleared’ and sacrificed for energy users in South of England)

Denial of NIMBY label, not ‘ignorant locals’ or ignoring climate change

Opposition Discourse Themes

• • • • •

Sceptical of ‘non-local forces’ of state and business, with information aimed at distorting reality. Questioning viability of wind farms:

– Intermittency; reliant on public subsidy

Wind farms as ‘polluting’ undermining the association of wind energy with ‘naturalness’ Exaggeration or Emphasis:

– Translation of metres into feet; using the upper level of proposed turbines ’50 85’ becomes ’up to 85’;

‘Trinities’:

– Wind farms as threat to eye, ear and body or land, air and sea – despoiling the present, insult to past and little contribution to the future.

Supporter Discourse Themes

• • • •

Rational, knowledge-based, scientific:

– assumption of consensus/agreement about climate change; ‘non-negotiable element of future energy use in Northern Ireland’ – appealing to existing evidence base for research base that proves arguments on noise, visual impact and house prices.

Emphasises rigour of site selection:

– feasibility studies; impact assessments; community consultation; robust regulatory framework .

Partnership:

– between government, developers, local community and other stakeholders; in NI cross party and cross border cooperation; ‘win-win’ approaches.

More education will overcome local opposition

Supporter Discourse Themes

• • • • •

Landscape and visual impacts are important, but difficult to integrate aesthetics with broader approach of objectivity. Resistance to wind farms may be because communities aren’t used to them.

Support is expression of virtue:

– The common good; concern for future generations; climate change; energy security and peace; ‘one planet living/global justice’.

Opposition viewed as ‘old-fashioned’ and unwillingness to ‘get with the programme’ regarding the need to develop wind energy Wind as a business opportunity.

Researching Objection: Values, Opinion and Meaning

Supporter Discourse Themes

• • • •

Wind farms supported by ‘emissaries’ from wider contexts;

– CO2 targets; EU directives; global climate change; international treaties;

Sense of urgency:

– act now for future benefits, – ‘small window of opportunity’ for UK to develop international leadership.

Sense of threat:

– Climate change a bigger threat than global terrorism .

Despite this often no sense of panic:

– “Climate change is a problem but we’re working on it and more needs to be done”

The Information War

• • • • •

The Opinion Poll Review of surveys Knowledge, Consumerism & the implications of a poor diet Predict/Provide – Announce/Defend

“ 100% of people in Greater Manchester believe wind farms are a waste of money, the Government are all liars and we should build more nukes” ‘Research and Poll conducted in my local boozer when there were 2 people in’. (BBC – web based survey)

Values, Opinions and Meaning

“ another thing which doesn’t help is the consortiums or consortia going off and commissioning surveys in Scotland that find that 80% of people asked think windfarms are actually quite pretty and then coming back and beating people over the head with that, I mean that’s just, again that’s just plain stupid” • • • • •

Criticisms of Polls The Belief Action Gap Do attitudes predict environmental behaviours?

Human Understanding The role of values

Q-Methodology Overview

“The hallmark of Q methodology is that it takes the subjective, self referential opinions of respondents seriously in seeking to model the whole subject as he or she apprehends a particular situation” Dryzek • • •

Investigating subjectivity A bridge between quantitative and qualitative research methods Linking with Cognitive Associative Network Mapping

•

Walk through of the methodology as used on the Tunes Plateau Case Study

Q+CAN Methodology

Identify Research Topic Literature Review Identify Interviewees Snowball Technique Collect Q-Sorts Conduct Interviews Run Q-Analysis Loop 3 Conduct Q-Sorts Postal / F2F Web / Group Hold Focus Groups Preliminary Results Compile Results Disseminate / Evaluate Analysis Loop 1 Value Elements Q -Statements Loop 2 Non-Value Elements CAN Map

Climate change will destroy the area more permanently than a few wind turbines This process is being driven by Kyoto which lacks credibility since the US has not signed up Conventional power generation and fuel use drives climate change and should be changed The benefits to climate change of this project will be negated by the environmental damage it causes This is more about reaching EC quotas on carbon than a properly thought out process Planning service does not have the legislation to cover this development There is no application because this process is a feasibility study – it is about finding out the whole story Land use planning procedures do not apply at sea and siting offshore is a way to circumnavigate due process Decision should delayed until C Z Management Strategy is implemented Planning Dispute over ownership of the seabed People have no choice but to object loudly as silence is seen as acceptance Concerns over the procurement process and how B9 awarded contract The Irish citizens will receive no benefits and are not included in the decision making process Governance Undemocratic that Gov Dept can press ahead without Assembly debate Some of the companies behind the project are big polluters and involved in nuclear industry Climate change is a fact exasperated by human activity that needs urgently to be addressed Wind farms are part of a combined strategy to combat climate change More should be done to stop existing emissions Climate Change Bio Diversity May provide nursery reefs for fish and protected area Disrupt bird migration paths (Whooper Swans) There is no trustworthy process to assess impacts that is not influenced by the developer Affect fish migration (Salmon & Eels) Blades may kill birds All the impacts will be assessed and mitigated for Effects are unknown Affect the movement of the sands and the formation of the Tunns CZM May destroy blue flag beaches Cause sands to move away from the spit Negatively affect shipping routes May cause turbulence and wind damage May affect future development associated with Derry Airport by restricting flight paths Can affect radar, mobile phones, radio communications, sonar, television signals Restrict the size of vessels using the Foyle estuary and affect ferry services Turbines are temporary structures for 25 years which will be removed Infra structure Tunnes Location Tunes Plateau – an invention The generating technology chooses the location, there are limits to what can be achieved Mythological importance of the Tunns Culture Red sails in the Sunset Windmills 60 – 80m high, 600m apart 5km off shore Uncertainty over number of turbines Large exclusion zone around turbines for small vessels on traditional fishing grounds Will need landfall station somewhere Offshore windfarms still need pylons and infrastructure once they come ashore Conventional power supplies will run out and we need new technologies to deliver power Will not be able to adjust to peak demand times Supply is intermittent and unpredictable Wave and tidal power would be less intrusive and more reliable No power stations will close The technology does not exist to store the power effectively Conventional power stations are very inefficient Supply Foot Print Local Benefits Economics Amenity There are other sites which have less intrinsic value B9 did not have alternative sites to consider Tourists will not be put off Be visible from Shrove, Greencastle to Castlerock, Portrush and Giants Causeway We all live in a capitalist economy Visual pollution Noise pollution Modern turbines are less intrusive Navigation lights at night Wind industry is heavily subsidised which distorts the real costs Money invested in the wind industry is used to develop more effective technologies Prohibit trawling and net fishing industries Will cause drop in tourist numbers If the turbines are going to be made at H&W it should be clearly stated how much benefit it will bring Local people will not benefit from cheaper electricity Jobs will be created People are taxed to pay for wind If the developers provide some form of local benefits that may be seen as a bride Drift net fishing for salmon has been banned by the EU and turbines may provide habitats suitable for rod and line fishing Local people will pay for this through their taxes, high electricity costs and loss of natural resources This is about making money for corporations not saving the environment Conventional power stations are also subsidised by taxes

Q-Methodological Process

• •

Defining the statements – 457 taken from interviews and media review Broken down and coded

Attaching meaning, the meaning of terms Definitive Making facts, questions of fact Designative The worth of something that does /could exist Evaluative Something that should /should not exist Advocative Asking a question Questioning Predicting an outcome Predictive

E F

Renewable Energy Wind Power Local Impacts

1 2 3

Governance

4 A 4 1 2 B 31 28 77 115 C 11 7 44 53 D 14 13 14 37 3 2 1 1

+4

 

+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4

  INSTRUCTIONS Please follow the next 5 steps:

1.

Please check that you have all the pieces to complete this exercise. This should include:  Envelope A, which contains 50 self adhesive labels with a printed on each one  Envelope B – a stamp-addressed return envelope.

statement If any of these are missing please call the researcher ______________on Tel:

2.

Please put this large

Envelope A

, so that the

Sorting Sheet 50 statements

on a clear table in front of you. Empty printed on self adhesive labels are all on the sheet and turn each one over so you can see what is written it.

3.

Sort the

50 statements

into three piles representing those that are most relevant to you, those that are least relevant and those that you feel neutral or uncertain about.

5.

Take each of the piles of

Sorting Sheet statements

in turn and try and place them on to the within the boxes provided until all the boxes are covered. It may take a little time until you are happy with the way you have sorted them. Once you have done this, you will have all the statements lying within the grid on the

Sorting Sheet

.

DO NOT PLACE STATEMENTS OUTSIDE THE BOXES – (1 statement per box) this exercise is about making choices, so please follow the guidelines.

Any deviations or a failure to insert one statement into each box will render the information invalid.

6

.

It is very important that you then stick each statement onto the sheet in your chosen box 7

. Once you have completed the sorting of the statements, it would be very helpful if you could provide a few thoughts on the statements which you ranked +4 and -4.

Please enter your comments into the four panels on the right labelled ‘+4 or -4 comment’

8.

Please tick one of the following boxes and clearly sign you name

*

I would consider myself Strongly Opposed Mildly Opposed Undecided Mildly Supportive Strongly Supportive towards this proposal ___________________________________________ Signed: Print Name: * For administrative purposes only, no personal details will be passed on to third parties and no attributable quotations will be used without seeking prior written consent

9.

Please return this sheet in the envelope provided

Sorting Sheet ©

Geraint Ellis & Clive Robinson QUB 2005 Do not copy or re-distribute without the permission of the Authors

+ 4 comment + 4 comment - 4 comment - 4 comment

Sort Data

“As an intensive method, Q methodology requires a small number of well selected subjects to complete the Q-Sort, which is a sample of the communications about the topic of interest” Brown et al

Supporters Objectors Neutral Completed sorts paper Completed sorts email spoilt Non returns 32 1 1 1 Sub total 35 Completed sorts paper Completed sorts email spoilt Non returns Presumed objectors who responded as supporters Sub total 35 19 1 3 8 4 Completed sorts email 1 total 71

New insights into objection and support for wind energy

Idealised Supporter Discourses

• •

Rationalising Globally - Sacrificing Locally:

Deeply concerned about climate change and energy security, suggests that addressing these challenges should override any local impacts.

Local Pastoralist – Developer Sceptic

A more traditional, pastoral view of the environment, unhappy about potential impacts on the North Coast. Offers reluctant support in the recognition of the need for more sustainable energy .

•

Embrace Wind

Very strong belief in wind power, future-orientated and uncritical of the proposal and wind farms developers. •

Site Specific Supporter – Energy Pragmatist

High level of concern with energy issues, a more pragmatic outlook, resulting in site-specific support for the Tunes Plateau scheme.

Consensus and Disagreement: Supporters

• •

Consensus:

– High awareness and strong motivation around climate change.

– Strong belief that NI should do its bit and that offshore wind farm is part of this strategy. – Disparaging of objectors outlooks.

Disagreement:

– Some believe climate change overrides other concerns, some more open to compromise.

– Most think developers acting in good faith – some have concerns over their motivation.

– Different conceptualisation of the environment and environmentalism.

– Difference of opinion on appropriate scale of wind farms.

Idealised Objector Discourses

•

Anti-Wind Power - Local Resister

Deeply sceptical of the concept of wind power, shows confidence that the project can be resisted through local activism. •

Wind Power-Supporter - Siting Sheriff

Offers support to the concept of wind power but expresses major site specific concerns related to the Tunes Plateau proposal.

•

Anti-Developer – Local Pragmatist

Deep suspicion of wind farm developers, less concerned about “big” issues like climate change, most motivated by the potential of tangible local impacts, such as the loss of jobs. •

Economic Sceptic- Siting Compromiser

Most concerned with shorter term, impacts of the proposed scheme, willing to consider other siting option as and applies a more reasoned, economic rationale to evaluating wind power.

Consensus and Disagreement: Objectors

• •

Consensus:

– Most support idea of renewable energy and distance themselves from climate change deniers.

– Most see objection as a matter of principle and not open to compromise.

– Most recognise the need for vocal opposition to overcome assumed pro development mainstream.

– All feel strongly about visual quality of coast and not worth sacrifice for wind power.

– Poor perception of developers.

Disagreement:

– Difference on basis of objection – some concerned about specific scheme, some about wind power itself.

– While all hold concerns over visual quality, some have wider concerns such as economic impacts.

– Some focused on long term impacts, some on immediate effects.

– Some are sensitive to how objectors are perceived by others, some not.

– Difference in the faith they have in the authorisation process.

Supporter-Objector Comparisons

• •

Consensus:

– Concern and awareness over climate change.

– All value seascape –differences in how turbines impact on this.

– Scale of proposal is an important consideration.

– Lack of recognition that both sides of the argument engaged in propaganda.

– Agreement that some issues are not that important to debate – veracity of impact studies, democratic credentials of authorisation process.

Disagreement:

– Visual quality vs. action on climate change.

– Value of wind power and place in energy mix.

– Use of ratepayers money to fund campaign of opposition.

– Disagreement on sincerity of developers.

Implications

Implications: Understanding Environmental Disputes

• • • • • •

The nature of participation and discursive policy debate.

Failure to appreciate the nature and value of objection and critical debate.

Parity required of the social, as well as environmental dimension to sustainability.

The importance of tone and manner of stakeholder debate. Centrality of establishing trust early on Encourage greater community ‘buy in’ and ownership in the project rather than post-hoc ‘compensation’ – community centres etc.

Implications: New approaches to renewable energy

• • • • • •

Ignorance is not a cause of objection – and cannot be overcome by “awareness–raising”.

Integrating subjectivity and appreciation of values into the participatory process can help communication and target participation.

Recognising the virtues of objection and using it as a positive attribute.

Clarification of preferences and priorities can enhance discussion.

The development of new tools of to support decision making: Q-method, citizen juries, downstream engagement, recognising human values in SEA/EIA . The absence of trusted umpires/facilitators.

Implications: Offshore wind projects

• • •

Attracted more opposition in NI than onshore schemes Tunes plateau the first and therefore subject to ‘first mover’ downsides Concerns over the authorisation process that include:

– The role of government as promoter and regulator of the scheme.

– Lack of clarity of process compared to onshore planning regulation.

– The nature of participation.

Final thoughts

• • • •

Future expansion of renewables and other new sustainable technologies depends on greater public acceptance.

Consensus is a naive aspiration – but striving for negotiated settlement may have value. There is a need for a paradigm shift in participation: accommodating objectivity but acknowledging subjectivity. Future aspiration to test findings in a more practice-orientated context.