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 ’5085’ 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, selfreferential 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
Analysis
Snowball Technique
Conduct Interviews
Collect
Q-Sorts
Run
Q-Analysis
Loop 3
Conduct Q-Sorts
Postal / F2F
Web / Group
Hold Focus Groups
Preliminary
Results
Value
Elements
Loop 1
Compile Results
Disseminate / Evaluate
Q -Statements
Loop 2
Non-Value
Elements
CAN Map
Some of the companies behind the project are big polluters and involved in nuclear industry
Climate change will destroy the area more permanently than a few wind turbines
Climate change is a fact exasperated by human activity that needs urgently to be addressed
This process is being driven by Kyoto which lacks credibility since the US has not signed up
Wind farms are part of a combined strategy to combat climate change
More should be done to stop existing emissions
Conventional power generation and fuel use drives climate change and should be changed
May provide nursery reefs for fish and protected area
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
Climate
Change
Disrupt bird migration paths (Whooper Swans)
There is no trustworthy process to assess impacts that is not
influenced by the developer
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
Affect fish migration (Salmon & Eels)
Blades may kill birds
All the impacts will be assessed and mitigated for
Planning
Decision should delayed until C Z Management Strategy is implemented
Effects are unknown
BioDiversity
Dispute over ownership of the seabed
Affect the movement of the sands and the formation of
the Tunns
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
May destroy blue flag beaches
CZM
Governance
Cause sands to move away from the spit
Undemocratic that Gov Dept can press ahead without Assembly debate
Negatively affect shipping routes
May cause turbulence and wind damage
Tunes Plateau – an invention
May affect future development associated with Derry Airport by
restricting flight paths
Can affect radar, mobile phones, radio communications,
sonar, television signals
Tunnes
The generating technology chooses the location, there are
limits to what can be achieved
Mythological importance of the Tunns
Infrastructure
Location
Culture
Restrict the size of vessels using the Foyle estuary and affect
ferry services
Turbines are temporary structures for 25 years which will be removed
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
There are other sites which have less intrinsic value
B9 did not have alternative sites to consider
FootPrint
Tourists will not be put off
Be visible from Shrove, Greencastle to Castlerock, Portrush
and Giants Causeway
Amenity
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
Navigation lights at night
We all live in a capitalist economy
Wind industry is heavily subsidised which distorts the real costs
Economics
Wave and tidal power would be less intrusive and more reliable
No power stations will close
Conventional power stations are very inefficient
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
Visual pollution
Noise pollution
Modern turbines are less intrusive
Supply
Supply is intermittent and unpredictable
The technology does not exist to store the power effectively
Red sails in the Sunset
Local
Benefits
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
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
Making facts,
questions of
fact
The worth of
something
that does
/could exist
Something
that should
/should not
exist
Asking a
question
Predicting an
outcome
Definitive
Designative
Evaluative
Advocative
Questioning
Predictive
A
B
C
D
E
F
Renewable
Energy
1
4
31
11
14
Wind Power
2
1
28
7
13
3
Local Impacts
3
2
77
44
14
2
Governance
4
115
53
37
1
1
+4
+3
+2
+1
0
-1
-2
-3




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 Sorting Sheet on a clear table in front of you. Empty
Envelope A, so that the 50 statements printed on self adhesive labels are all on the
sheet and turn each one over so you can see what is written it.
+ 4 comment
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 statements in turn and try and place them on to the
Sorting Sheet 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.
+ 4 comment
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
- 4 comment
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
- 4 comment
Strongly
Supportive
towards this proposal ___________________________________________
Signed:
-4
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
Sorting Sheet
© Geraint Ellis & Clive Robinson QUB 2005
Do not copy or re-distribute without the permission of the Authors
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
Completed sorts paper
32
Completed sorts email
1
spoilt
1
Non returns
1
Sub total 35
Objectors
Completed sorts paper
19
Completed sorts email
1
spoilt
3
Non returns
8
Presumed objectors who responded as
supporters
4
Sub total 35
Neutral
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 sitespecific 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 prodevelopment 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.