Sunday 4 December 2016

The role of public opinion

In previous posts to this page, I have mainly focused on the relative merits of different methods of sustainable energy production from an objective point of view, based on effective delivery of adequate generating capacity and minimisation of environmental impact.

However, in democracies in particular, government policy is often dictated not through rational scientific consideration, but is decided in large part to appease public opinion. Energy policy, often a high-profile and controversial matter, is no different. Public opinion (often propelled, amplified and escalated by the media; see Gamson and Modigliani, 1989) has frequently proved a significant obstacle to the development of sound energy strategies. Indeed, this page has already examined the likely impact of the results of the 2016 United States presidential election on that country's energy policy - arguably a prime example of an objectively reasonable energy programme being rejected by a dissatisfied electorate who would much rather see their fossil-fuel-extraction jobs return. Jeffs (2012), who's book this page reviewed back in November, places the blame for the lack of new global nuclear power development squarely at the feet of 'green anti-nuclear fanatics' (p.122), whom Jeffs accuses of using fear-mongering and misinformation to manipulate public opinion and cement opposition to nuclear power.

In evaluating options for sustainable future energy production, it is therefore obligatory to examine the state of public opinion regarding different means of energy production, and the public's priorities for government energy policy. This reality is, of course, widely understood, and as such a large volume of literature and research on the matter exists. Such analyses very often focus on nuclear power. Studies conducted based on polling conducted during the latter decades of the 20th century, and the beginning of the 21st century, have revealed a stark division in terms of public opinion on the issue of nuclear power in the United States, with many supporters and many opposed; however, the latter three decades of the 20th century saw a definite inversion of public attitudes, from majority support for further development of nuclear power in the mid-1970s to definite majority opposition during the 1990s (Rosa and Dunlap, 1994). Prevailing public opposition to nuclear power has continued into the 2000s and 2010s, although it has become a more closely-fought debate (Funk and Rainie, 2015). In the United Kingdom, support for nuclear power is stronger, with one study showing 46% in favour with 25% opposed (Chambers, 2013), while in France (which generates around 70% of its electricity from nuclear power), public opinion is also relatively favourable at 36% to 14% opposed (WNN, 2013). Globally, however, public support for nuclear power is low and declining (see Figure 1) - this is perhaps reflected in the fact that in Belgium, Germany, Spain and Switzerland, nuclear power is in the process of being permanently phased-out (Fertl, 2011; Kanter, 2011; Simpson and Fairlie, 2016), while at least 15 major countries have no nuclear generating capacity and no plans to install any (The Economist, 2011).

Figure 1. (from Black, 2011)
For other forms of renewable energy, public opinion is much less divided. Funk and Rainie (2015) found that 60% of U.S. respondents believe that developing renewable energy sources should be a priority, compared with 30% who believe that fossil-fuel development should continue. Globally, 71% believe that their country 'could almost entirely replace coal and nuclear energy within 20 years by becoming highly energy-efficient and focusing on generating energy from the Sun and wind', while just 22% believe that new reactors should be built (Black, 2011).

So, what may be the implications of these findings for energy policy? Is it the case that national energy strategies must answer primarily to public opinion, which is not only often irrational but also varies unpredictably over time? Studies and experience present a mixed picture. Governments have been shown to dramatically alter national energy policy in response to public opinion, such as those (above) which have abandoned nuclear energy - in the U.K., meanwhile, then-Prime Minister David Cameron pledged in 2014 to halt the development of on-shore wind farms, claiming that the public were 'fed up' with them (BBC, 2014). However, this picture is not as clear as it appears - a 2016 study actually found that 71% of U.K. respondents supported on-shore wind farms (RenewableUK, 2016). This may, therefore, be a case of a government wishing to appear to respond to public opinion (or at least being selective in referring to popular attitudes), while in fact developing an energy strategy grounded in more rational motivations. It has been further suggested that there is a simple explanation for the apparently frequent relationship between public opinion and government energy policy; far from public opinion dictating energy policy, it is suggested that energy policy dictates public opinion (Boehmer-Christiansen, 1990). Finally, Kovaks and Eng (2010) found that while people do take an interest in how the electricity they consume is generated, their primary concern (and therefore priority in terms of energy strategy) is the domestic cost of energy.

This impression of the role of public opinion in energy policy should be instructive. Governments must of course respect the voice of the public on any matter, not just from an ethical perspective, but for the simple, practical reason that they rely on democratic support to remain in power. However, governments should also not underestimate their ability to a) act against the tide of public opinion, hich may ultimately result in increasing sympathy for their approach, and b) encourage the dissemination of information of information about the costs and benefits of different sources of energy (from sources which the public trust - see Kovaks and Eng, 2010), based on public priorities, to manipulate public opinion and inspire more supportive attitudes.

No comments:

Post a Comment