Social Movements against Wind Power in Canada and Germany

Energy Policy and Contention

Andrea Bues

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000078787
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Energy Industry
• Index: Business

Taking a comparative case study approach between Canada and Germany, this book investigates the contrasting response of governments to anti-wind movements.

Environmental social movements have been critical players for encouraging the shift towards increased use of renewable energy. However, social movements mobilizing against the installation of wind turbines have now become a major obstacle to their increased deployment. Andrea Bues draws on a cross-Atlantic comparative analysis to investigate the different contexts of contentious energy policy. Focusing on two sub-national forerunner regions in installed wind power capacity – Brandenburg and Ontario – Bues draws on social movement theory to explore the concept of discursive energy space and propose explanations as to why governments respond differently to social movements. Overall, Social Movements against Wind Power in Canada and Germany offers a novel conceptualization of discursive-institutional contexts of contentious energy politics and helps better understand protest against renewable energy policy.

This book will be of great interest to students and scholars of renewable energy policy, sustainability and climate change politics, social movement studies and environmental sociology.

1 Introduction

Renewable energy politics and protest

Environmental social movements have seen a major revival. Within just one year, climate activist Greta Thunberg’s weekly school strike turned into a new climate movement. The renewed public salience of mitigating climate change has prompted national governments to intensify efforts to meet the temperature targets of the 2015 Paris Agreement. The agreement unites 197 countries behind the goal of reducing emissions, keeping global warming well below 2° C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5° C. This practically means that global greenhouse gas emissions must peak no later than 2020 and then sharply decrease until 2050 (Rockström et al. 2017). As fossil fuels are among the major drivers of anthropogenic climate change, one could assume that phasing out fossil fuels and phasing-in renewable energy is to become a top priority for governments to meet the Paris Agreement and respond to public concerns.

Wind energy is among the most promising renewable energy technologies and has been regarded as a suitable source to replace high-emission fossil fuel-based energy systems. In 2017, renewables made up approximately 25.5 percent of global electricity generation, out of which 18 percent accounted for wind energy (IRENA 2019). A number of good reasons for governments to promote wind energy exist, besides their positive role in decarbonizing energy systems. The cost of wind power has declined substantially since its introduction (Veers et al. 2019) and on-shore wind energy is cost-competitive, or nearly so, with natural gas and coal-fired power plants in many regions (IRENA 2017). Harnessing domestic renewable energy sources such as wind power has also been regarded as a possible way to diversify a nation’s energy portfolio, decrease dependence on fossil fuel imports and increase energy security. There are also benefits on domestic revenue and employment. Studies show that per kilowatt hour, alternative energy including wind and solar requires more than double the workforce in comparison to fossil fuel technology (Valentine 2015, p. 21). A variety of other advantages exist, including benefits for human health, the environment and ecosystems, as well as technological innovation (IPCC 2014; Luderer et al. 2019; REN21 2017).

Notwithstanding these benefits of renewable energy and wind power, wind turbines often meet with local disenchantment. Raised concerns usually relate to aesthetics, noise, impact on wildlife (especially birds and bats), shadow flicker or electromagnetic interference, financial loss and community unrest (Ellis and Ferraro 2016; Krogh 2011; Leung and Yang 2012; Thygesen and Agarwal 2014; Valentine 2015). Opposition to wind turbines is not a new phenomenon and has long been subject to discussion in academic literature and beyond (e.g. Alt et al. 1998; Wolsink 1988). Among the earliest approaches to explain anti-wind protest is the “Not-In-My-Backyard” (NIMBY) concept. NIMBY contends that opponents may be in favor of wind energy in general, but reject them in close vicinity due to individualistic, ignorant and selfish behavior. Despite its appealing simplicity to explain resistance to wind turbines, the NIMBY concept has been refuted and is now widely recognized as overly generalizing and insufficient to dismiss protest against wind turbines (Burningham 2000; Devine-Wright 2009; Jobert et al. 2007; Wolsink 2007).

Organizing rallies, putting up protest signs, lobbying politicians: anti-wind protests have turned into forceful social movements in many jurisdictions. In some instances, protest has become powerful enough to prompt governments to curb their renewable energy programs, as recent examples illustrate. In late 2019, the German government tabled a draft federal law that would severely restrict possible turbine sites. Around the same time, the Norwegian government backed away from a national wind energy plan. The government of Canada’s most populous province, Ontario, cancelled support for renewable energy projects right after gaining office in 2018. Technological feasibility, lower costs and pressure from the streets to act on climate change are thus not the key predictors to the adoption, continuity and implementation of renewable energy policies. Other social and political forces play a part as well. They become evident in the discursive and institutional context against which disputes over wind turbines unfold.

Prevailing discourses in a society are one important aspect. Wind turbines can be framed as a viable solution to the urgent need to decarbonize energy systems – or as industrial constructions inflicting an overly heavy burden on rural areas. Both proponents and opponents of wind turbines may draw on arguments that embrace such publicly acknowledged discourses to support their cause. This is because both aim at displaying their opinion in a better light and seek to avoid appearing purely self-interested or profit-seeking. While opponents rather relate to the need to preserve the environment and the innate value of the proposed site, proponents invoke their contribution to the global fight against climate change (Haggett and Futak-Campbell 2011). If generally positive discourses on renewable energy and energy system change exist in a jurisdiction, it may thus be more difficult for anti-wind movements to garner support for their cause.

The existing institutional structure also has a major impact on how conflicts over wind turbines unfold. For instance, if local inhabitants perceive the local decision-making process over wind turbines as unfair, they may draw on arguments revolving around procedural injustice (Gross 2007). They may also refer to environmental or distributional injustice, which address the unequal allocation of environmental burden and benefits (Cowell et al. 2011). Institutional schemes that are perceived as just have consistently been linked with higher levels of social acceptance, for instance community energy schemes (Devine-Wright 2005; Ottinger et al. 2014; Wolsink 2007; Zoellner et al. 2008). However, it depends on the details whether these kinds of projects are perceived as just, for instance whether a sense of trust and similar understandings of justice exist between the involved actors (Goedkoop and Devine-Wright 2016; MacArthur 2016; Simcock 2016). A community energy scheme may therefore not be a guarantee for an embracing attitude toward wind turbines, but there is a greater chance of alleviating public disenchantment. Nonetheless, institutional structures play a key role in disputes over wind turbines and are also shaped by prevailing discourses on wind energy. While wind turbine development has for example taken the shape of small community schemes in Denmark, turbine development in the United States or the United Kingdom has developed as large-scale industrial projects. This difference is also due to diverging discourses around who should develop wind turbines.

Given the importance of the discursive and institutional context of wind disputes, the question arises how they matter for the response that anti-wind movements receive from governments. Decarbonizing energy systems is of utmost importance to meet climate targets and renewable energy represents an important technology to replace greenhouse gas intensive energy generation. It is therefore important to understand under which conditions governments will end previously successful renewable energy policies in the face of anti-wind protest. Many social movements start at the local level and therefore need to “scale-up” their struggle to the policy-making level. In order to do so, the movement needs to garner support in terms of being recognized “by its antagonists as a valid spokesman for a legitimate set of interests” (Gamson 1975, p. 28). Which discursive and institutional circumstances thus favor or hamper the scaling-up of protest, and how does the discursive dimension interact with the prevailing institutional structure?

Current approaches in the literature have fallen short of explaining the impact of both discursive and institutional context in the study of social movement’s impact. The classical literature on social movements has provided different explanations of government responses to social movements. Common explanations for different movement outcomes are the external institutional environment conceptualized as the political opportunity structure (Eisinger 1973; Kitschelt 1986; Meyer and Minkoff 2004; Vrablikova 2014) and the discursive environment in form of media discourses (e.g. Aydemir and Vliegenthart 2017; Koopmans and Olzak 2004; Koopmans and Statham 1999; Motta 2015). Notwithstanding the importance of these contributions, they are not enough to explain why governments respond differently to anti-wind protest. We do not only want to know how either the institutional or the discursive structure matters, but we are interested in both as well as in their interaction.

Analytical approach

Discursive institutionalism (Schmidt 2008, 2012, 2015) and the argumentative discourse analysis approach (Hajer 1993, 1995, 2006) can help. Discursive approaches have been used widely in the study of environmental politics (Dryzek 1997; Feindt and Oels 2005; Hajer and Versteeg 2005; Leipold et al. 2019; Szarka 2004). Discursive institutionalism aims at explaining “the dynamics of change (but also continuity) through ideas and discursive interactions” (Schmidt 2011, p. 60) and offers valuable explanations on how institutions and discourses interact. Following the argumentative discourse analysis approach, disputes over wind turbines can be regarded as a “struggle for discursive hegemony” (Hajer 1995, p. 59). This characterization emphasizes the discursive interaction between anti-wind movements and governments and highlights the role of discourses and framings. These two approaches offer valuable insights on the interaction between discourses and institutions and can be used as a basis for conceptualizing how the discursive-institutional context supports or hampers challengers such as anti-wind movements.

The book departs from the literature on social movements and combines it with elements of discursive-institutional analysis and notions of power to elaborate the concept of “discursive energy space”. The discursive energy space is made up of prevailing discourses and framings of the energy sector (the meaning context) and the formal institutional system, which consists of the way in which sub-national energy policy is connected to federal energy policy and the local space of citizen participation. In combination, the meaning context and the formal institutional system form the discursive energy space. The main argument is that discursive energy spaces provide “discursive strength” to the anti-wind movement, which considerably influences government response. Discursive strength is defined as the degree to which an anti-wind movement is able to scale-up its message from localized conflicts to the policy-making level by being accepted by the government as representing legitimate interests. The elements of the discursive energy space have different power effects that contribute to differences in a movement’s discursive strength. Those include the first, second and fourth face of power (Flinders and Buller 2006; Foucault 2000; Lukes 1974). Developing the concept of discursive energy space, the study focuses on the following three research questions: How do discourses and frames on energy transitions impact the discursive strength of anti-wind movements? How does the existing formal institutional system affect the discursive strength of anti-wind movements? How do these two aspects interrelate and influence government response? In combination, these three questions help us understand how context matters in the response that social movements receive from governments. The aim of the study is to explore disputes over wind turbines at the sub-national level of two frontrunner jurisdictions in energy system change, as other jurisdictions can possibly learn from their approaches and experience.

The study contributes to an emerging body of literature on the politics of energy transitions, investigating the discourses behind and the strategies of those advocating the implementation of wind energy as one important avenue for energy transitions, and the resistance strategies of those opposing them. The emphasis here is on the discursive interaction between a sub-national government and an anti-wind movement. In this way, the study also helps build a better understanding of the conflictual nature of energy transitions. Most of the studies on anti-wind opposition have narrowly focused on single case studies exploring the reasons behind protest, while few studies have involved cross-country comparisons of the outcomes of anti-wind opposition.

Geographic focus and case studies

The geographic focus of the book is Canada and Germany and the political focus is on the sub-national level. Due to their high energy sector emissions, especially the world regions of North America and Europe could substantially benefit from increasing their share in renewable power. In fact, wind power has represented the largest source of new electric capacity additions in many recent years in Canada and the United States (Rand and Hoen 2017). The European Union has also been a growing wind energy market with ambitious goals for further development (Lacal Arantegui and Jäger-Waldau 2018). The sub-national level of provinces and local communities has become more important in the past decade to formulate climate policies and programs (Jänicke et al. 2015). It plays a crucial role in efforts to combat climate change and increase the rate of renewable energy. As anti-wind protest usually becomes evident first at the local level, the sub-national level is directly targeted and is often the place possessing the most leverage for responding to this protest.

The two sub-national jurisdictions of Ontario (Canada) and Brandenburg (Germany) serve as examples of forerunners that have made great efforts in renewable energy development. Ontario comes in first place in Canada with regard to installed wind power capacity, while Brandenburg scores second place in Germany. Many other jurisdictions are encouraged to follow their example, decarbonize their electricity system and expand the rate of renewables. The book discusses and compares in detail these two sub-national forerunner jurisdictions. Brandenburg is a scenic, rather poor rural state surrounding Berlin. For years, the jurisdiction has benefitted from support schemes for renewable energy, so much so that it is difficult to find an area in Brandenburg where wind turbines are not visible. Brandenburg has won, on three consecutive occasions, the prize for the German federal state best promoting renewables (Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien 2012). In late 2019, the electric vehicle company Tesla has proposed building a large automobile plant in Brandenburg due to its forerunner status in generating renewable energy. The region is central to the ambitious renewable energy plans of the federal government....