IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v8y2008i2p67-98.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cool Rationalities and Hot Air: A Rhetorical Approach to Understanding Debates on Renewable Energy

Author

Listed:
  • John Barry

    (John Barry is Reader in Politics at the School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy, Queens University, Belfast. His recent publications include Environment and Social Theory, 2-super-nd edition (2007); and "Towards a Model of Green Political Economy: From Ecological modernisation to Economic Security", International Journal of Green Economics 1 (3/4) (2007). He is the co-author, with Peter Doran, of "Refining Green Political Economy: From Ecological Modernisation to Economic Security and Sufficiency", Analyse & Kritik 28 (3) (2006); and co-editor, with Robyn Eckersley, of The Nation-State and the Global Ecological Crisis (2005).)

  • Geraint Ellis

    (Geraint Ellis is Senior Lecturer in the School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Queens University, Belfast. His recent publications include "Many Ways to Say 'No', Different Ways to Say 'Yes': Applying Q-Methodology to Understand Public Acceptance of Wind Farm Proposals," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (4) (2007), co-authored with John Barry and Clive Robinson; and "Reparation or Retribution: An Investigation into Regulatory Compliance in Planning," Environment and Planning A 37 (4) (2005), co-authored with Stephen McKay.)

  • Clive Robinson

    (Clive Robinson is a PhD student at Queen's University, Belfast, and was research assistant on the Renewable Energy and Discourses of Objection Project from which this paper emerged. His main research interest is the application and development of Q-Methodology and increasing the profile of human subjectivity within sustainable decision making. He is the co-author, with John Barry and Geraint Ellis, of "Many Ways to Say 'No', Different Ways to Say 'Yes': Applying Q-Methodology to Understand Public Acceptance of Wind Farm Proposals," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (4) (2007).)

Abstract

A key obstacle to the wide-scale development of renewable energy is that public acceptability of wind energy cannot be taken for granted when wind energy moves from abstract support to local implementation. Drawing on a case study of opposition to the siting of a proposed off-shore wind farm in Northern Ireland, we offer a rhetorical analysis of a series of representative documents drawn from government, media, pro- and anti-wind energy sources, which identifies and interprets a number of discourses of objection and support. The analysis indicates that the key issue in terms of the transition to a renewable energy economy has little to do with the technology itself. Understanding the different nuances of pro- and anti-wind energy discourses highlights the importance of thinking about new ways of looking at these conflicts. These include adopting a "conflict resolution" approach and "upstreaming" public involvement in the decision-making process and also the counter-productive strategy of assuming that objection is based on ignorance (which can be solved by information) or NIMBY thinking (which can be solved by moral arguments about overcoming "free riders"). (c) 2008 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Suggested Citation

  • John Barry & Geraint Ellis & Clive Robinson, 2008. "Cool Rationalities and Hot Air: A Rhetorical Approach to Understanding Debates on Renewable Energy," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(2), pages 67-98, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:8:y:2008:i:2:p:67-98
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/glep.2008.8.2.67
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:tpr:glenvp:v:8:y:2008:i:2:p:67-98. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kelly McDougall (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    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.