Politics and Knowledge Production: Between Securitisation and Riskification of the Shale Gas Issue in Poland and Germany

  • Aleksandra Lis
Chapter
Part of the Energy, Climate and the Environment book series (ECE)

Abstract

This chapter compares shale gas politics in Poland and Germany in terms of the securitization framework that has been extended for energy studies by the concepts of riskification, politicization and security jargon. The analysis shows that an important part of this politics has involved production of knowledge on the relation between shale gas extraction processes and the environment. Two different modes of knowledge production were organized in Poland and Germany. In Poland, the Polish Geological Institute conducted empirical measurements of environmental impacts in seven locations where companies drilled for shale gas. In Germany, ExxonMobil set up an expert panel which modeled the worst-case scenarios of hypothetical drilling. Knowledge produced in these methodologically different ways served not only to underpin different political moves around shale gas nationally—in Poland, securitization and in Germany, riskification—but, in the Polish case, it was also used by political actors to prevent riskification of the shale gas issue happening at the EU level.

References

  1. Boudet, Hilary, Christopher Clarke, Dylan Bugden, Edward Maibach, Connie Roser-Renouf, and Anthony Leiserowitz. 2014. ‘Fracking’ Controversy and Communication: Using National Survey Data to Understand Public Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing. Energy Policy 65 (2014): 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buzan, Barry, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde. 1998. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  3. Corry, Olaf. 2012. Securitisation and ‘Riskification’: Second-Order Security and the Politics of Climate Change. Millennium 40 (2): 235–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cotton, Matthew, Imogen Rattle, and James Van Alstine. 2014. Shale Gas Policy in the United Kingdom: An Argumentative Discourse Analysis. Energy Policy 73 (2014): 427–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Evensen, Darrick, Jeffrey B. Jacquet, Christopher E. Clarke, and Richard C. Stedman. 2014. What’s the ‘Fracking’ Problem? One Word Can’t Say It All. The Extractive Industries and Society 1 (2): 130–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ewen, C., D. Borchardt, S. Richter, and R. Hammerbacher. 2012. Hydrofracking Risk Assessment: Executive Summary, Study Concerning the Safety and Environmental Compatibility of Hydrofracking for Natural Gas Production from Unconventional Reservoirs. ISBN 978-3-00-038263-5.Google Scholar
  7. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jaspal, Rusi, and Brigitte Nerlich. 2014. Fracking in the UK Press: Threat Dynamics in an Unfolding Debate. Public Understanding of Science 23 (3): 348–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jaspal, Rusi, Brigitte Nerlich, and Szczepan Lemańcyzk. 2014. Fracking in the Polish Press: Geopolitics and National Identity. Energy Policy 74 (2014): 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lis, Aleksandra, and Piotr Stankiewicz. 2017. Framing Shale Gas for Policy Making in Poland. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 19 (1): 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mazur, Allan. 2014. How Did the Fracking Controversy Emerge in the Period 2010–2012? Public Understanding of Science 25 (2): 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mucha, Janusz. 2009. Uspołeczniona racjonalność technologiczna. Naukowcy z AGH wobec cywilizacyjnych wyzwań i zagrożeń współczesności. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo IFiS PAN.Google Scholar
  13. Ocelik, Petr, and Jan Osicka. 2014. The Framing of Unconventional Natural Gas Resources in the Foreign Energy Policy Discourse of the Russian Federation. Energy Policy 72 (2014): 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Thomas, Merryn Jane, Nicholas Frank Pidgeon, Darrick T.N. Evensen, Tristan Partridge, Ariel Hasell, Catherine Enders, and Barbara Herr Harthorn. 2016. Public Perceptions of Shale Gas Operations in the USA and Canada: A Review of Evidence. (Project Report). M4ShaleGas Consortium. Available at: http://m4shalegas.eu/reportsp4.html
  15. Upham, Paul, Aleksandra Lis, Hauke Riesch, et al. 2015. Addressing Social Representations in Sociotechnical Transitions with the Case of Shale Gas. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 16 (2015): 120–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wagner, Aleksandra. 2014. Shale Gas: Energy Innovation in a (Non-) knowledge Society: A Press Discourse Analysis. Science and Public Policy 42 (2): 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Williams, Laurence, Phil Macnaghten, Richard Davis, et al. 2017. Framing ‘Fracking’: Exploring Public Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing in the United Kingdom. Public Understanding of Science 26 (1): 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. World Shale Gas Resources: An Initial Assessment of 14 Regions Outside the United States. 2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aleksandra Lis
    • 1
  1. 1.Adam Mickiewicz University, PoznanPoznanPoland

Personalised recommendations