Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology Volume 2
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Methods
- Part II Embodied Environmental Sociology
- Part III Beyond the Human
- Part IV Sustainability and Climate Change
- Part V Resources
- 18 Enclosing Water: Privatization, Commodification, and Access
- 19 Speech Is Silver, Silence Is Gold in the Fracking Zone
- 20 Environmental Sociology and the Genomic Revolution
- 21 The Future Is Co-Managed: Promises and Problems of Collaborative Governance of Natural Resources
- Part VI Food and Agriculture
- Part VII Social Movements
- Index
- References
19 - Speech Is Silver, Silence Is Gold in the Fracking Zone
from Part V - Resources
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology Volume 2
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Methods
- Part II Embodied Environmental Sociology
- Part III Beyond the Human
- Part IV Sustainability and Climate Change
- Part V Resources
- 18 Enclosing Water: Privatization, Commodification, and Access
- 19 Speech Is Silver, Silence Is Gold in the Fracking Zone
- 20 Environmental Sociology and the Genomic Revolution
- 21 The Future Is Co-Managed: Promises and Problems of Collaborative Governance of Natural Resources
- Part VI Food and Agriculture
- Part VII Social Movements
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter discusses the critical role of discourse in politics, highlighting the benefits to development advocates that accrue when the voices of concerned citizens are silenced. Seeking consent for industrial development has always been a game of claimsmaking, involving what Sheila Jasanoff refers to as “sociotechnical imaginaries” designed to solicit endorsement for particular development pathways. But behind the curtain of overt claimsmaking lay efforts to keep certain claims out of the limelight, when those claims may be perceived as particularly threatening to development. Davidson explores the manifold strategies employed by development advocates to silence concerned rural residents in southern Alberta, where natural gas reserves are being extracted through hydraulic fracturing, a technique associated with a host of environmental, climate, and health risks.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology , pp. 324 - 341Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Adam, B. (1996). “Beyond the present”: Nature, technology and the democratic ideal. Time and Society, 5(3), 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blüdorn, I. (2013). The governance of unsustainability: Ecology and democracy after the post-democratic turn. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 16–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blüdorn, I. (2007). Sustaining the unsustainable: Symbolic politics and the politics of simulation. Environmental Politics, 16(2), 251–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. (2015). The Facts on Canada’s Natural Gas. Available at: www.capp.ca/publications-and-statistics/publications/272337Google Scholar
Carter, A.V., Fraser, G. S., & Zalik, A. (2017). Environmental policy convergence in Canada’s fossil fuel provinces? Regulatory streamlining, impediments, and drift. Canadian Public Policy, 43(1), 61–76.Google Scholar
Colborn, T., Kwiatkowski, C., Schultz, K., & Bachran, M. (2011). Natural gas operations from a public health perspective. Human and Ecological Risk assessment, 17(5), 1039–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosgrove, B. M., LaFave, D. R., Dissanayake, S. T. M., & Donihue, M. R. (2015). The economic impact of shale gas development: A natural experiment along the New York/Pennsylvania border. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 44(2), 20–39.Google Scholar
Council of Canadian Academies (CCA), 2014. Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction in Canada. Ottawa (ON): The Expert Panel on Harnessing Science and Technology to Understand the Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction, Council of Canadian Academies.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. J. (2017). The effort factor: An adjustment to our understanding of social-ecological metabolism in the era of Peak Oil. Social Problems, 66(1), 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. J. (2018). Evaluating the effects of living with contamination from the lens of trauma: A case study of fracking development in Alberta, Canada. Environmental Sociology, 4(2), 196–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. J., & Andrews, J. (2013). Not all about consumption. Science, 339(15 March), 1286–1287.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. J., & Gismondi, M. (2011). Challenging Legitimacy at the Precipice of Energy Calamity. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, R., Foulger, G., Bindley, A., & Styles, P. (2013). Induced seismicity and hydraulic fracturing for the recovery of hydrocarbons. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 45, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, M. (1985 [1964]). The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Edelstein, M.R. (2004). Contaminated Communities: Coping with Residential Toxic Exposure. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Elliot, J., & Short, D. (2014). Fracking Is Driving UK Civil and Political Rights Violations, The Ecologist (30 October), https://theecologist.org/2014/oct/30/fracking-driving-uk-civil-and-political-rights-violations.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, W. R. (2005). Privileged access, privileged accounts: Toward a socially structured theory of resources and discourses. Social Forces, 84(1), 89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freudenburg, W. R., & Alario, M. (2007). Weapons of Mass Distraction: Magicianship, misdirection, and the dark side of legitimation. Sociological Forum, 22(2), 146–173.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, W.R., Gramling, R., & Davidson, D.J. (2008). Scientific certainty argumentation methods (SCAMs): Science and the politics of doubt. Sociological Inquiry, 78(1), 2–38.Google Scholar
Gold, R. (2014). The Boom: How Fracking Ignited the American Energy Revolution and Changed the World. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Government of Alberta. 2000. Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. RSA 2000, c. E–12.Google Scholar
Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Hare, Q., & Nowell-Sm, G. (Ed. and trans). London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
Gullion, J. S. (2015). Fracking the Neighborhood: Reluctant Activists and Natural Gas Drilling. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haarstad, H., & Wanvik, T. I. (2017). Carbonscapes and beyond: Conceptualizing the instability of oil landscapes. Progress in Human Geography, 41(4), 432–450.Google Scholar
Hajer, M. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Leicester, UK: Clarendon Books.Google Scholar
Herman, E. S. & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Howarth, R. W., Santoro, R. & Ingraffea, A. (2012). Venting and leaking of methane from shale gas development: Response to Cathles et al. Climatic Change 113, 537–549.Google Scholar
Hudgins, A., & Poole, A. (2014). Framing fracking: Private property, common resources, and regimes of governance. Journal of Political Ecology, 21, 222–348.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S-H. (2013) Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Science as Culture, 22(2), 189–196.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S-H. (2009) Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear regulation in the U.S. and South Korea. Minerva, 47(2), 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerolmack, C. & Berman, N. (2016). Fracking communities. Public Culture, 28(2), 193–214.Google Scholar
Kassotis, C. D., Tillitt, D.E., Davis, J. W., Hormann, A. M. & Nagel, S. C. (2014). Estrogen and androgen receptor activities of hydraulic fracturing chemicals and surface and ground water in a drilling-dense region. Endocrinology, 155, 897–907.Google Scholar
Kuchler, M. (2017). Post-conventional energy futures: Rendering Europe’s shale gas resources governable. Energy Research and Social Science, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.028.Google Scholar
Ladd, A. E., & York, R. (2017). Hydraulic fracking, shale energy development, and climate inaction: A new landscape of risk in the Trump era. Human Ecology Review, 23(1), 65–79.Google Scholar
Latour, B. 2004. The Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Le Billon, P., & Carter, A. (2012). Securing Alberta’s tar sands: Resistance and criminalization on a new energy frontier. pp. 170–192 in Schnurr, M., & Swatuk, M. (eds.), Natural Resources and Social Conflict: Towards Critical Environmental Security. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mitchell, T. (2011). Carbon Democracy: Political Power in the Age of Oil. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Myers, T. (2012). Potential contaminant pathways from hydraulically fractured shale to aquifers. Ground Water, 50, 872–882.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nikiforuk, A. (2017). Canada’s methane leakage massively under-reported, studies find. The Tyee, April 27. Available at: https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/04/27/Canada-Methane-Leakage-Under-Reported/, accessed December 27, 2017.Google Scholar
O’Riordan, T. (2015). Fracking, sustainability, and democracy. Environment, 57(1), 2–3.Google Scholar
Perry, S.L. (2012). Development, land use, and collective trauma: The Marcellus Shale gas boom in rural Pennsylvania. Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment, 34(1), 81–92.Google Scholar
Rahm, B.G. & Riha, S.J. (2014). Evolving shale gas management: Water resource risks, impacts, and lessons learned. Environmental Science Processes & Impacts, 16, 1400–1412.Google Scholar
Roy, A.A., Adams, P.J. & Robinson, A.L. (2014). Air pollutant emissions from the development, production, and processing of Marcellus Shale natural gas. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 64, 19–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryan, M.C. Alessi, D., Mahani, A.B., et al. (2015). Subsurface Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing: Contamination, Seismic Sensitivity, and Groundwater Use and Demand Management. Report prepared for the Canadian Water Network, October.Google Scholar
Sandreas, R. (2012). “Evaluating Production Potential of Mature U.S. Oil, Gas Shale Plays.” Oil and Gas Journal Online, Retrieved December 3, 2012 (www.ogj.com/articles/print/vol-110/issue-12/exploration-development/evaluating-production-potential-of-mature-us-oil.html).Google Scholar
Small, M.J., Stern, P.C., Bomberg, E., Christopherson, S.M., et al. (2014). Risks and risk governance in unconventional shale gas development. Environmental Science and Technology, 48, 8289−8297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szeman, I. (2012) Crude aesthetics: The politics of oil documentaries. Journal of American Studies, 46, 423–439.Google Scholar
Warner, N.R., Christie, C.A., Jackson, R.B. & Vengosh, A. (2013). Impacts of shale gas wastewater disposal on water quality in Western Pennsylvania. Environmental Science and Technology, 47, 11849–11857.Google Scholar
Weber, B. (2017). Alberta research shows fracking fluids cause ‘significant’ harm to fish. CBC News, Jan. 24. Available at: www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-research-shows-fracking-fluids-cause-significant-harm-to-fish-1.3950539, accessed December 22, 2017.Google Scholar
Willow, A.J. & Wylie, S. (2014). Politics, ecology, and the new anthropology of energy: exploring the emerging frontiers of hydraulic fracking. Journal of Political Ecology, 21(12), 222–236.Google Scholar
Yergin, D. (2011). The Quest: Energy, security, and the remaking of the modern world. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar