Transcript Plug-In 2009 Template

Media framing of unconventional fossil fuels:
The absence of climate dialogue in Canada’s Northern
Gateway Project
Paper: Nichole Dusyk, Jonn Axsen & Kia Dullemond
Presenter: Dr. Jonn Axsen, Associate Professor,
Director, Sustainable Transportation Action Research Team (START),
Simon Fraser University
January 9, 2017
1
Sustainable
Transportation
Action Research
Team (START)
Pipelines, politics, and society
3
4
Controversy
and
unconventional fossil fuels
NGP: Proposed to transport bitumen 1,172 km 5
from Alberta oil sands to Northern BC Coast
Controversy over new fossil fuel extraction
6
Benefits:
Industry
Job creation
Economy
Local risks:
Pipeline spills
Tanker spills
Land rights
Air quality
Water quality
Ecosystems
Global risks:
Climate change
Carbon budget: we can only burn so much
more fossil fuel to stay within 2°C limit
Source: Nature, 2012
7
Federal rhetoric…
Joe Oliver, Natural Resource Minister:
“There are environmental and other radical groups that would
seek to block this opportunity to diversity our trade…
…[these groups] threaten to hijack our regulatory system to
achieve their radical ideological agenda.”
- CBC news, January 9, 2012
8
9
What do Canadian citizens think
about the pipeline?
Substantial regional variation in support:
Highest resistance in British Columbia
10
Statement: “I support the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project”
60%
Alberta
50%
Central
40%
30%
BC
20%
Strongly
Agree
10%
Agree
Atlantic
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
-40%
Source: Axsen (2014), Energy Policy
Alberta perceives more economic benefits;
BC perceives more environmental risks
11
Canadian Oil Sands
There are major environmental impacts from oil sands.*
Alberta
BC
Canada should keep or expand the size of the oil sands.*
Canada should decrease or shut down the oil sands.*
The pipeline project…
...will create jobs.*
...will provide benefits to my province.*
...will provide economic benefits to Canadians.*
...has unacceptable environmental risks.*
...will increase overall greenhouse gas emissions.*
...should instead be built to eastern Canada or the United States.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
* Chi-square association at 99% confidence level
Source: Axsen (2014), Energy Policy
Substantial within-region variations
in support among value segments
BC sample (n = 813)
12
AB sample (n = 508)
Traditional
80%
Self-oriented
60%
Self-oriented
Unengaged
Traditional
Unengaged
40%
Strongly
Agree
20%
Agree
0%
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
-20%
Multi-valued
-40%
Multi-valued
Mildly aware
Strong enviro.
Mildly aware
-60%
Strong enviro.
Statement: “I support the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project”
Source: Axsen (2014), Energy Policy
13
Media analysis:
How is the Northern Gateway
Pipeline “framed” in Canadian
media (2008-2014)
The study
Research objectives:
1. Characterize media framing
2. Identify regional difference
3. Explore “environmental” frame
Method: 2097 print articles
Socio-political evaluation of energy deployment (SPEED) framework
(Stephens et al. 2008)
• Economic
• First Nations
• Technological
• Health & Safety
• Socio-cultural
• Political
• Environmental (Climate, coastal, terrestrial, other)
14
Articles by year: 2012 peak in political activity
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Most focus on economic benefit and
environmental risks
1800
Pro
1600
1400
1200
Risk
“As a resource driven economy, there's no question that
Canada needs access to tidewater and the project is
going to generate billions in terms of spinoffs,
thousands of jobs and benefits to communities”
(Globe and Mail A246)
“…the most critical element of the proposal is the risk it
poses. First, pipelines do leak…. tis northern pipeline
would cross a thousand streams and rivers, including
two of Canada's most important salmon-bearing
watersheds,.”
(Province A178)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Economic
Environment First Nations
Health
Political
Socio-cultural
Project feasibility statements tend to be
negative; little regional difference
10
5
% Sources
0
British Columbia
Alberta
National
-5
-10
-15
-20
Positive
-25
Negative
Little difference in regional focus on
benefits and risks
60%
British Columbia
Alberta
National
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Benefit
Risk
Pro
Mentions of environmental risks are mostly
general or “spill” related;
little mention of climate change
900
800
700
“The proposed line has prompted fierce
opposition in B.C….about potential oil
spills and increased greenhouse gas
emissions from expanding the oil
sands.” (Herald A119)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Climate
Coastal
General/Other
Territorial
Some Take Home Points
20
1. Strong media focus on economy versus environment
2. Little regional variation in media frames, although citizen
support and opposition strongly vary
3. Media coverage largely ignores climate change impacts—
environmental groups could better invoke climate framing
Much has changed post-2014…
• New national government (Trudeau) in 2015
• Serious climate policy announced, including carbon pricing
• Northern Gateway pipeline rejected
• …but Trans-mountain pipeline (Kinder-Morgan) approved
• “Eco-modernization” frame, but not “carbon budget”