Suchergebnisse

North America's West Coast represents some of the highest global potentials for wave energy output. We developed and conducted a survey of a sample of residents (N=2000) in California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia matched on gender, age, race, and education to the general population. Respondents were asked how much they had heard or read about wave energy; what first came to mind when they heard the term; their views of commonly cited risks and benefits; and their overall attitude toward wave energy development. Over half of our respondents had never heard or read about wave energy, and the most common "top of mind" associations indicated little or no knowledge about it. Oregon respondents indicated the highest levels of familiarity. Despite limited familiarity, the results suggest mainly positive attitudes toward wave energy with little variation by state of residence or proximity to the coast. Attitudes varied by gender, race, education and political ideology. In general, respondents who were male, white, college educated and politically liberal held more positive attitudes. Female respondents, in particular, wanted more information. Respondents expressed more agreement with statements about the benefits of wave energy development (e.g., for renewable energy, energy independence, economy/jobs, etc.) than its risks (e.g., to marine life, fishing, recreation, etc.). Risks to marine life, fishing and recreation were of more concern to those who reported visiting the coast at least once a month. Liberal respondents indicated higher levels of agreement with wave energy benefits and lower levels of agreement with its risks. Compared to other energy sources, respondents strongly preferred increasing the use of renewable energy sources like solar, wind and wave energy, as opposed to more traditional energy sources like hydro, geothermal, natural gas, nuclear, and coal.

Only sometimes do environmental protests that begin as not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) objections to proposed facilities become translated into more universal not-in-anyone's-backyard (NIABY) mobilizations. An examination of opposition to liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminals in the United States shows evidence of regional mobilization in the Gulf and West Coasts, but not in the Northeast. Opposition to LNG facilities in the United States thus provides an opportunity to study often overlooked regional mobilization. A narrative of events in each region is provided, with special attention to the key mechanisms of frame bridging, relational diffusion, brokerage and certification. In the case of the Northeast, two contextual factors also appear to have impeded the development of more coordinated opposition to LNG. Adapted from the source document.

Front Cover -- PUBLIC RESPONSES TO FOSSIL FUEL EXPORT -- PUBLIC RESPONSES TO FOSSIL FUEL EXPORT: Exporting Energy and Emissions in a Time of Transition -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- Contributors -- Acknowledgments -- I - Introduction -- 1 - An introduction to the social dimensions of fossil fuel export in an era of energy transition -- Fossil fuel export: status and trends -- What do we already know? -- Boomtowns, risk perceptions, and overadaptation -- Locally unwanted land uses and the environmental justice movement -- Renewables and fracking -- Summary -- Organization of the book -- Some concluding thoughts -- References -- II - The new landscape of fossil fuel technology, supply, and policy -- 2 - The new global energy order: shifting players, policies, and power dynamics -- Introduction: the emergence of a new energy order -- Global energy system -- COVID-19 energy impacts -- Between old and new -- Clean energy transition -- Winners and losers of the energy transition -- Conclusion -- References -- 3 - Fossil fuel export as a climate policy problem -- Why fossil fuel export is often ignored in climate policy -- The rationale for addressing fossil fuel export as a component of climate policymaking -- How public response has helped bridge the issues of climate change and fossil fuel export -- References -- III - Public opinion on export -- 4 - The evolution of US public attitudes toward natural gas export: a pooled cross-sectional analysis of time serie ... -- Background -- Natural gas: bridge fuel or a bridge too far? -- Research questions -- Materials and methods -- Data -- Measures -- Analysis -- Findings -- Patterns in agreement across time -- Modeling agreement with natural gas export -- Discussion -- References -- 5 - Drivers of US regulatory preferences for natural gas export -- Introduction -- Literature review -- Age.

The drastic increase in domestic production of natural gas due to the fracking boom prompted efforts to develop a robust infrastructure in the U.S. to export natural gas. Given environmental concerns over increased fossil fuel development, significant opposition mobilized to "keep it [fossil fuels] in the ground" by acting to prevent not only natural gas production but also its transportation via pipelines and shipping via export terminals. Our analysis focuses on the latter component, specifically examining the long history of proposed liquefied natural gas infrastructure in two coastal communities in Oregon. Members of the public engaged in the formal siting processes and mobilized both opposition and support. We examine their use of collective action frames in both comments at public hearings and letters to the editor in local newspapers ( N = 4618) over the 16 years that these proposals were under consideration, quantifying the dynamic nature of framing using computational text analysis. We find that both groups vary their use of framing over time and by venue, reacting to exogenous events (e.g., September 11th, Fukushima) and tailor their messages to the context (e.g., an in-person hearing or a letter to the editor). Opponents concentrated on potential threats, initially emphasizing local impacts like tanker and pipeline safety but eventually focusing on climate concerns. Supporters, meanwhile, stressed the economic benefits of the projects but alternated their specific framing based on venue—focusing on employment when talking to regulatory agencies and community economic benefits in letters. While this juxtaposition of economic benefits and environmental threats was a key part of public discourse, opponents also expanded their framing to questions of local sovereignty and governance, allowing a broader coalition to develop and ultimately succeeding in defeating the proposals.