powerpoint presentation...anu climate change institute [email protected] @bec_colvin emily...
TRANSCRIPT
2/17/2017
1
New Voices in Energy Impacts Research:
GRADUATE RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS
FEBRUARY 16, 2017
Fostering Cross-Disciplinary Research on Energy Development
Dylan Bugden, Ph.D. Candidate | Cornell University
Dr. Bec Colvin | Australian National University
Emily Grubert, Ph.D. Candidate | Stanford University
Shawn Olson-Hazboun, Ph.D. Candidate | Utah State University
Community Impacts of Energy Development Webinar Series
July 26-27, 2017
Columbus, Ohio USA
● Paper presentation & Poster
submissions open now
● Book chapter submission open now
● April 1: Symposium registration open
● Graduate & Early Career Scholar travel
and fellowship scholarships
www.energyimpacts.org/symposium
www.directory.energyimpacts.org
2/17/2017
2
Dr. Bec Colvin
Australian National University
@bec_colvin
Community engagement for wind energy in King Island, Tasmania – using social psychology to understand social conflict
Dr Bec Colvin
[email protected] | @bec_colvin
@bec_colvin | [email protected]
2/17/2017
3
Wind energy in King Island
“People became so polarised... like if you were an undecided, you just about couldn't hang out with an anti or a pro, because you felt like you were constantly being hammered... and you
know, if you went to a BBQ or something, the room was divided... literally.”
@bec_colvin | [email protected]
Wind energy in King Island
“So if you weren't with them you were against them, and that does not for debate make... it couldn't ever be a productive outcome if you
were always... you know, they were never going to give any ground. They were always going to
be against it, no matter what you said, they were always coming at, and they got very negative, and they got very aggressive.”
@bec_colvin | [email protected]
Wind energy in King Island
“We were told that we were blow ins and we should just piss off, and those were the words that were used in the paper to us. And it was
almost word for word... 'these blow ins should just piss off'.”
@bec_colvin | [email protected]
2/17/2017
4
Wind energy in King Island
Colvin, RM, Witt, GB & Lacey, J 2016, 'How wind became a four-letter word: Lessons for community engagement from a wind energy conflict in King Island, Australia', Energy Policy, vol. 98, pp. 483-494.
@bec_colvin | [email protected]
Wind energy in King Island
Colvin, RM, Witt, GB & Lacey, J 2016, 'How wind became a four-letter word: Lessons for community engagement from a wind energy conflict in King Island, Australia', Energy Policy, vol. 98, pp. 483-494.
@bec_colvin | [email protected]
Wind energy in King Island
• Pre-feasibility engagement
• Consultative committee
• Community vote
• Place for opposition
• Local context
@bec_colvin | [email protected]
Turbines at Huxley Hill, King Island. Photo: B. Colvin
2/17/2017
5
Wind energy in King Island
This presentation is based on the following work:
Colvin, RM, Witt, GB & Lacey, J 2016, 'How wind became a four-letter word: Lessons for community engagement from a wind energy conflict in King Island, Australia', Energy Policy, vol. 98, pp. 483-494.
Link to the open access article:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516304888
@bec_colvin | [email protected]
Thank you
Turbines at Huxley Hill, King Island. Photo: B. Colvin
Dr Bec Colvin
ANU Climate Change Institute
@bec_colvin
Emily Grubert,
Ph.D. Candidate
Environment and Resources
Stanford University
2/17/2017
6
What is Important to You?Community-based Multicriteria Prioritization in Life Cycle Assessment
Emily Grubert
Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources,
Stanford University
16 February 2017
Communities are affected by their energy development
Sources: WSJ, International
Business Times
Energy communities are diverse in setting, needs, and cultures
All photos: Emily
Grubert
2/17/2017
7
Outcomes are evaluated with tools like Life Cycle Assessment: but how are tradeoffs made?
Multicriteria decision making is a major challenge in sustainability assessment
• Two major steps are needed to compare fundamentally noncomparable things like water pollution versus job creation
• Both represent value judgments
• Prioritization
• Arguably the single most sensitive parameter in LCA
• Normalization
• Can be done based on financial basis, policy basis, carrying capacity basis, and many others
• Both prioritization and normalization are even more challenging when both environmental and social (including economic) factors are considered
My focus is on prioritization, particularly on transparency and whose priorities are used
2/17/2017
8
Rigorous social science methods are needed to support LCA as an engineering tool
My work generates empirical prioritization archetypes for sensitivity analysis in LCA
Qualitative interview research enriches understanding of survey-based archetypes
Bakken Shale, ND
Eagle Ford Shale, TX
All photos: Emily
Grubert
2/17/2017
9
Shawn Olson-Hazboun,
Ph.D. Candidate
@OlsonHazboun
Sociology
Utah State University
Public Responses to Renewable Energy:
The Nexus of Climate, Politics, and
Economy
Shawn Olson-HazbounPhD Candidate, Sociology
Utah State UniversitySociology
2/17/2017
10
“What types of politics can make the
numerous energy and climate policies
we discuss achievable?”
Ben Sovacool, 2014. “What are we doing here? Analyzing 15 years of energy
scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda.” Energy Res. Soc.
Sci. 1: 1-29.
Research Areas
1. Renewable energy & environmental beliefs
– Carbon framing of renewables
2. Political & ideological stances
3. Renewable energy & extractive communities
2/17/2017
11
Saliency of carbon framing for
renewable energy
• Two in three Americans believe
climate change is occurring
• Half of Americans think this is
due to human activities
• Extreme political polarization
on climate change(Yale Project on Climate Change
Comm.)
How linked are public responses to
renewable energy to environmental concern?
• Survey of 5 communities
experiencing wind energy
development
• Findings:
Environmental beliefs and
climate change beliefs
completely attenuated by
local-level factors
Qualitative Research
• Interviews with 68 community representatives in 3 rural energy production communities in Utah– Wind and solar
– Coal
– Oil & natural gas
Findings• Notable lack of environmental concern overall
• Renewables seen through economic & energy security lens
• Pervasive climate skepticism across communities
• Negativity toward renewable energy linked to annoyance about climate ‘alarmism’ & anger toward liberal government interference in free market
2/17/2017
12
Political Ideology
Do the following contribute to political
polarization over renewable energy?
• Political division on climate change (Jacques and
Knox 2016)
• Policy tools for renewables seen as
manipulation of free market (Chassot et al. 2014; Klick and
Smith 2010)
• Anger over government investments
(Solyndra, etc.) (Carlisle et al. 2015)
Political Ideology – Findings
5-Community Survey
• Political ideology not a predictor of local views about renewable energy
• Opposition to environmental governance does show up
Qualitative Research
• Free-market ideology normalized in all 3 study sites
• Neoliberal views used as justification for why renewables “don’t work”
• Renewable energy viewed as ‘liberal project’
• More accepted/less political in renewable energy community
“I think it should be left to private business, that's going to be a
caveat that you catch me on, because I would like to see more
renewable energy to be located [here] but I think that they should
stand on their own two feet. If it's not feasible then our
government should stay out of it and go back to the
hydrocarbons.”
- Peter, County Commissioner in renewable energy community
2/17/2017
13
Renewables & extractive communities
• How is renewable energy technologies
& policies perceived?
• Geographic overlap
• Are traditional energy
communities more or
less friendly toward
renewable energy?
Nationally representative opinion dataset: “Climate
Change in the American Mind” (2008-2015)
Counties with oil or gas production
2/17/2017
14
Renewables & extractive communities
Results: National quantitative model– Residence in mining-dependent county or oil- or natural gas-producing
county as important as sociodemographics
Results: Qualitative community research– Role of economic dependence (e.g. Boudet et al. 2016; Freudenburg 1992)
– Feeling that structural vulnerabilities are exasperated by push toward renewable energy
– Role of culture & identity (e.g. Bell and York 2010; Dampier et al. 2014; Evans and
Phelan 2016; Ceresola and Crowe 2015)
Future research: ‘Just transitions’– How can proponents of the clean energy transition better incorporate fossil
fuels communities being left behind?
– "the costs of environmental change will be shared fairly” (Canadian Labour Congress 2000: 3)
References
• Bell, S., and York, R., 2010. Community economic identity: the coal industry and ideology construction in West Virginia. Rural Sociology, 75 (1), 111–143.
• Boudet, Hilary, Dylan Bugden, Chad Zanocco, and Edward Maibach. 2016. "The effect of industry activities on public support for ‘fracking’." Environmental Politics 25(4): 593-612.
• Canadian Labour Congress. 2000. “Just Transition for Workers During Environmental Change.” CLC, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
• Carlisle, J. E., Kane, S. L., Solan, D., Bowman, M., & Joe, J. C. 2015. “Public attitudes regarding large-scale solar energy development in the US.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48: 835-847.
• Ceresola, R.. and Crowe, J., 2015. Community leaders perspectives on shale development in the New Albany shale. Rural Social Sciences 30 (1), 62-86.
• Chassot, S., Hampl, N. and Wüstenhagen, R., 2014. When energy policy meets free-market capitalists: the moderating influence of worldviews on risk perception and renewable energy investment decisions. Energy Research & Social Science, 3, 143-151.
• Dampier, J.E.E., R. H. Lemelin, C. Shahi, and N. Luckai. 2014. "Small Town Identity and History's Contribution to a Response in Policy Change: A Case Study of Transition from Coal to Biomass Energy Conversion." Energy, Sustainability and Society 4: 26.
• Evans, G. and L. Phelan. 2016. “Transitions to a post-carbon society: Linking Environmental Justice and Just Transition Discourses.” Energy Policy 99: 329-339.
• Freudenburg, W.R. 1992. “Addictive economies: Extractive industries and vulnerable economies in a changing world order” Rural Sociology 57: 305-332.
• Klick, H. and E.R. Smith. 2010. “Public understanding of and support for wind power in the United States.” Renewable Energy 35(7): 1585-1591.
• P.J. Jacques and CC. Knox. 2016. "Hurricanes and hegemony: A qualitative analysis of micro-level climate change denial discourses." Environmental Politics 25(5): 831-852.
2/17/2017
15
Thanks!
Shawn K. Olson-Hazboun
Utah State University
Dylan Bugden,
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Natural Resources
Cornell University
2/17/2017
16
2/17/2017
17
2/17/2017
18
2/17/2017
19
Age Household
size
Education Employment Household
income
Mean = 51.24 Mean = 2.02 49.6% college
educated
46.1%
employed
52% retired
48.8% living
on less than
$60,000
Chesapeake Appalachia 44.4%
Cabot Oil and Gas 17.5%
Fortuna Energy 9.4%
Alta Resources 4.6%
Chief Exploration 2.7%
Everybody else <1.5%
2/17/2017
20
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Addendum not present 53 14.8
Addendum present 304 85.2
N Valid Percent
Did not
attend 569 67.6
Did attend 273 32.4
Total 842 100
Missing 31
N Valid Percent
Did not use 434 52.7
Not useful 73 8.9
Somewhat useful 150 18.2
Very useful 166 20.2
Total 823 100
Missing 50
2/17/2017
21
2/17/2017
22
2/17/2017
23
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
I LOST $ 10 1.1 1.2 1.2
$0-9999 243 27.8 29.9 31.2
$10000-49999 190 21.8 23.4 54.6
$50000-100000 114 13.1 14 68.6
$100000-250000 152 17.4 18.7 87.3
$250000+ 103 11.8 12.7 100
Did not respond 61 7
873 100
Worse off Same Better off
Family Quality of Life 4.4% 61.8% 33.8%
Relationship with
Community
2.2% 88.4% 9.4%
Relationship with
Extended Family
4.1% 88.2% 7.8%
2/17/2017
24
Worse off Same Better off
Land 9.1% 79.7% 11.2%
Surface
Water
4.1% 94.2% 1.7%
Drinking
Water
6.3% 92.3% 1.4%
Very
dissatisfied
Slightly
dissatisfied
Neither
satisfied nor
dissatisfied
Slightly
satisfied
Very satisfied
8.7% 7.6% 19.4% 20.0% 44.2%
Much better Slightly better About what I
expected
Slightly worse Much worse
31.1% 25% 30.1% 7.2% 6.7%
Unst.d Coefficients Std. Coefficients Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
Procedural fairness 0.535 0.061 0.535 0
self_efficacy 0.147 0.057 0.161 0.011
Earnings 0.187 0.056 0.249 0.001
Knowledge -0.065 0.055 -0.072 0.243
Chesapeake Lessor -0.038 0.157 -0.016 0.811
Education -0.012 0.056 -0.013 0.827
Extraction 0.115 0.167 0.045 0.49
Pre-lease income 0.001 0.04 0.002 0.979
Addenda 0.201 0.209 0.059 0.337
Royalty -0.015 0.023 -0.041 0.526
Parcel Size -0.001 0.001 -0.068 0.326
Wells/ sq mile 0 0 -0.036 0.533
Violation rate 0.001 0 0.172 0.008
2/17/2017
25
2/17/2017
26
Thank You!
Questions or Comments?
Fostering Cross-Disciplinary Research on Energy Development
Dylan Bugden, Ph.D. Candidate | Cornell University | [email protected]
Dr. Bec Colvin | Australian National University | [email protected]
Emily Grubert, Ph.D. Candidate | Stanford University | [email protected]
Shawn Olson-Hazboun, Ph.D. Candidate | Utah State University | [email protected]
Community Impacts of Energy Development Webinar Series