US presidential candidates’ views on unconventional gas and oil: Who has it right?

Unconventional oil and gas extraction (from shale, coal, or tight sands) via hydraulic fracturing (often just ‘fracking’) has the potential to transform the US physical and political landscape. This issue has played a role in the 2008 and 2012 US presidential contests and recently emerged as a point of demarcation between the final four democrat and republican contenders for the White House. On the democrat side, broadly, Sanders advocates for a ban on unconventional hydrocarbon development, whilst Clinton advocates for strict regulation but sees opportunities for natural gas in the US’s energy future. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz favour development. I evaluate the extent to which the two presidential nominees and the two runner-ups’ views are justified based on the most recent natural, physical, and social science on this issue. In doing so, I discuss the characterisation of unconventional gas as a ‘bridge fuel’ and unpack what conditions would be necessary for this metaphor of ‘bridging’ to be appropriate. This short communication will hopefully instigate further the debate amongst scholars of energy politics, energy policy, and energy development on the role unconventional oil and gas plays in the US’s energy future and the US’s approach to climate change mitigation

Word choice matters: Comment on Stoutenborough et al. 2016, ‘Is “fracking” a new dirty word?’

Stoutenborough et al. (2016) recently published an article in Energy Research and Social Science with data to show that use of the term ‘fracking’ versus ‘hydraulic fracturing’ matters little with regards to the level of concern elicited by this form of energy development. The authors conclude that word choice (or ‘framing’) of this form of unconventional fossil fuel development is ‘much ado about nothing’ and that ‘survey research into fracking need not overly worry about the choice of [word] strategy’ (p. 56). These inferences are problematic. First, despite the authors’ repeated claims that prior research has not explored differences in public attitudes on this issue when ‘fracking’ versus other language is used, prior research has examined this topic – via a very similar methodological approach – and generated opposite findings. One difference is that Stoutenborough et al. used ‘hydraulic fracturing’ as the alternative term, whereas the previous, similar study used ‘shale gas development’. I discuss why the different comparisons likely yielded divergent results. I further argue that the authors’ conclusions are unjustified and ill-advised based on the data from the two surveys in concert. Word choice does matter when discussing this issue; the word ‘fracking’ should be avoided

Policy decisions on shale gas development ('fracking'): the insufficiency of science and necessity of moral thought

A constant refrain in both public discourse and academic research on shale gas development has been the necessity for 'sound science' to govern policy decisions. Rare, however, is the recommendation that effective policy on this topic also include 'sound moral thought'. I argue that: (1) philosophy (particularly moral thought and ethical reasoning) and science must work in tandem for making good policy decisions related to shale gas development, and (2) this realisation is essential for policy-makers, journalists, researchers, educators and the public. By examining the range of normative claims offered within academic and public discourse, the variation in claims across contexts and the degree to which the normative arguments are well-supported, I illustrate the important role increased attention to moral thought could play in forwarding policy construction on shale gas development. Finally, I offer recommendations for how policy-makers, journalists, researchers and educators can more actively acknowledge the importance of both science and moral thought in policy-making related to shale gas development

On the complexity of ethical claims related to shale gas policy

In a recent article in Local Environment, Matthew Cotton (2017) lays out a foundation for what an ethical approach to decision making on policy and planning in relation to shale gas development could look like. This is the most comprehensive attempt in peer-reviewed academic literature to characterise and explicate the requirements and constraints on ethically-justified policy in relation to this contentious extractive industry. Cotton (2017) uses Shrader-Frechette’s (2002) Principle of Prima Facie Political Equality (PPFPE) to critique policy and planning decisions in the UK in relation to shale gas development. The PPFPE focuses heavily on distributive and procedural justice and gives particular attention to the need for: equitable compensation for any harms sustained, access to information about potential harms, and ability to participate freely in decision making processes (Cotton 2017). Cotton’s (2017) articulation of an ethical framework by which to evaluate the fairness and appropriateness of policy on shale gas development is a major step in the right direction. Evensen (2015, 2016a) has asserted that an explicit account of the circumstances under which development would or would not be ethically justified is perhaps the biggest gap in the policy discourse and debates on this issue. Indeed, there have been numerous public claims about the ethicality of ‘fracking’ (shale gas development), but until Cotton’s (2017) foray into this area, the academic literature on the topic was quite limited (Evensen 2016a). A few prior articles had highlighted distributive justice issues related to fracking (Cotton 2013, Evensen 2015, Fry et al. 2015, Hardy and Kelsey 2015, Hays and de Melo-Martín 2014, Hotaling 2013, Malin 2014, Measham et al. 2016, Willow and Wylie 2014), procedural justice considerations (Cotton 2013, de Wit 2011, Evensen 2015, Finkel et al. 2013, Fry et al. 2015), and/or the role of precautionary thinking in ethical approaches to evaluating unconventional gas development (de Melo-Martín et al. 2015, Finkel and Hays 2013, Law et al. 2014). Cotton’s (2016) article draws together the range of distributive and procedural justice considerations; as such, it is one of the most important social scientific or humanistic articles written to date on this much-debated form of energy development. It offers a solid point of departure for ethical thought on shale gas policy; nevertheless, there is more work to be done. Following Cotton’s analysis, aspects of the PPFPE arise as problematic or require additional clarification, including: the role of compensation in distributive justice, the definition of a ‘community’, the need for information provision, and the best way to ensure procedural justice. Two overarching issues that merit attention in relation to ethical thought on shale gas policy, but that were not addressed by Cotton (2016), are: (1) the role of shale gas development as just one means of energy extraction in a larger energy system – development does not occur in a vacuum – and (2) the role of virtue in determining ethicality of shale gas policies. I speak to these two issues and the four areas of Cotton’s argumentation requiring additional attention below

A drill by any other name: social representations, framing, and legacies of natural resource extraction in the fracking industry

How do people interpret ambiguous and uncertain events? This study explores this question in the context of unconventional oil and gas development, or “fracking”, with implications for natural resource extraction generally. Drawing on the theories of social representations and framing, we test the hypothesis that legacies of natural resource extraction—conceptualized here as collective schemata of interpretation—shape perceptions and actions toward new forms of energy development. Based on an analysis of survey data from the “Twin Tiers” regions of New York and Pennsylvania (n=590), we find that negatively perceived legacies of past resource dependence, net of other factors, lead to opposition and political behaviors related to unconventional oil and gas development. Our findings suggest that regional legacies of natural resource extraction act as a sense making tool, working to translate the ambiguous, novel phenomenon of unconventional oil and gas development into something understandable in light of past experiences