IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v10y2020i4p2158244020983007.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Debating Extractivism: Stakeholder Communications in British Columbia’s Liquefied Natural Gas Controversy

Author

Listed:
  • Sibo Chen

Abstract

Shale gas extraction via hydraulic fracturing has been a controversial issue in many countries. In Canada, the provincial government of British Columbia (BC) has made relentless efforts on developing a liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry targeting potential Asian importers, which has been a heatedly debated public controversy since late 2011. Focusing on the two contending discourse coalitions formed by this policy initiative’s supporters and opponents, respectively, this article explores the intricate economic, political, and ideological struggles underlying Canadian extractivism. A qualitative discourse analysis of related stakeholder communications reveals that the pro-LNG coalition led by the BC Liberal government developed a “progressive extractivism†storyline to frame LNG exports as an unprecedented and ethical economic opportunity deserving the political support of environmentally minded British Columbians. By contrast, the anti-LNG coalition formed by progressive civil organizations, Indigenous groups, and concerned citizens engaged in fierce discursive resistance, notably via (a) adopting mainstream economic knowledge to highlight the fragile economic basis of BC LNG and (b) incorporating potent political issues such as democratic governance and reconciliation to expand public debates beyond the “jobs versus the environment†dichotomy.

Suggested Citation

  • Sibo Chen, 2020. "Debating Extractivism: Stakeholder Communications in British Columbia’s Liquefied Natural Gas Controversy," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:4:p:2158244020983007
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244020983007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244020983007
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244020983007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yves Pepermans & Pieter Maeseele, 2016. "The politicization of climate change: problem or solution?," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(4), pages 478-485, July.
    2. Stephenson, Eleanor & Doukas, Alexander & Shaw, Karena, 2012. "“Greenwashing gas: Might a ‘transition fuel’ label legitimize carbon-intensive natural gas development?”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 452-459.
    3. Robert W. Howarth & Anthony Ingraffea & Terry Engelder, 2011. "Should fracking stop?," Nature, Nature, vol. 477(7364), pages 271-275, September.
    4. Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Sabatier, Paul A., 1994. "Evaluating the Advocacy Coalition Framework," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 175-203, April.
    5. Howell, Rachel A., 2018. "UK public beliefs about fracking and effects of knowledge on beliefs and support: A problem for shale gas policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 721-730.
    6. Evensen, Darrick & Stedman, Rich, 2017. "Beliefs about impacts matter little for attitudes on shale gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 10-21.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frances Drake, 2018. "Risk Society and Anti-Politics in the Fracking Debate," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-22, November.
    2. Susan T. Zimny & Margaret C. Reardon, 2021. "Environmental justice expansion in the context of fracking," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(2), pages 234-246, June.
    3. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & García-Valiñas, María Á. & Matesanz, David, 2019. "Public Attitudes towards Hydraulic Fracturing in Western Newfoundland," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    4. Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Rose, Jonathan & Humphrey, Mathew & Knight, Wil & O'Hara, Sarah, 2019. "The structure of attitudes towards shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 693-697.
    5. Yasminah Beebeejaun, 2024. "Fracking and epistemic injustice: A feminist critique of knowledge formation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 42(2), pages 250-267, March.
    6. Cotton, Matthew & Rattle, Imogen & Van Alstine, James, 2014. "Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: An argumentative discourse analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 427-438.
    7. Thibaud Deguilhem & Juliette Schlegel & Jean-Philippe Berrou & Ousmane Djibo & Alain Piveteau, 2024. "Too many options: How to identify coalitions in a policy network?," Post-Print hal-04689665, HAL.
    8. Monica Santillan Vera & Lilia Garcia Manrique & Isabel Rodriguez Pena & Angel de la Vega Navarro, 2021. "Drivers of Electricity GHG Emissions and the Role of Natural Gas in Mexican Energy Transition," Working Paper Series 1021, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    9. Gürsan, C. & de Gooyert, V., 2021. "The systemic impact of a transition fuel: Does natural gas help or hinder the energy transition?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    10. Chhetri, Netra & Ghimire, Rajiv & Wagner, Melissa & Wang, Meng, 2020. "Global citizen deliberation: Case of world-wide views on climate and energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    11. Mockshell, Jonathan & Birner, Regina, 2020. "Who has the better story? On the narrative foundations of agricultural development dichotomies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    12. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    13. Silin Mihail & Magadova Lyubov & Malkin Denis & Krisanova Polina & Borodin Sergei & Filatov Andrey, 2022. "Applicability Assessment of Viscoelastic Surfactants and Synthetic Polymers as a Base of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-19, April.
    14. Eleanor Stephenson & Karena Shaw, 2013. "¨ A Dilemma of Abundance: Governance Challenges of Reconciling Shale Gas Development and Climate Change Mitigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(5), pages 1-23, May.
    15. Jeremy S. Brooks, 2013. "Avoiding the Limits to Growth: Gross National Happiness in Bhutan as a Model for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(9), pages 1-25, August.
    16. Kovanic, Martin & Steuer, Max, 2023. "Fighting against COVID-19: With or without politics?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 337(C).
    17. Jungrav-Gieorgica, Natalia, 2020. "Narrative Policy Framework - polityka publiczna jako walka opowieści," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 7(2), pages 1-27, July.
    18. Wang, Jianliang & Mohr, Steve & Feng, Lianyong & Liu, Huihui & Tverberg, Gail E., 2016. "Analysis of resource potential for China’s unconventional gas and forecast for its long-term production growth," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 389-401.
    19. Gluck, Peter, 2000. "Theoretical perspectives for enhancing biological diversity in forest ecosystems in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3-4), pages 195-207, December.
    20. Liuyang Yao & Dangchen Sui & Xiaotong Liu & Hui Fan, 2020. "The Psychological Process of Residents’ Acceptance of Local Shale Gas Exploitation in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-20, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:4:p:2158244020983007. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.