Abstract
This chapter compares shale gas politics in Poland and Germany in terms of the securitization framework that has been extended for energy studies by the concepts of riskification, politicization and security jargon. The analysis shows that an important part of this politics has involved production of knowledge on the relation between shale gas extraction processes and the environment. Two different modes of knowledge production were organized in Poland and Germany. In Poland, the Polish Geological Institute conducted empirical measurements of environmental impacts in seven locations where companies drilled for shale gas. In Germany, ExxonMobil set up an expert panel which modeled the worst-case scenarios of hypothetical drilling. Knowledge produced in these methodologically different ways served not only to underpin different political moves around shale gas nationally—in Poland, securitization and in Germany, riskification—but, in the Polish case, it was also used by political actors to prevent riskification of the shale gas issue happening at the EU level.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
One project, titled “Towards a common European energy policy? Debates on energy security in Poland and in Germany”, was financed by the Polish-German Science Foundation and the other, titled “Shale gas as a new challenge for Europe: Re-thinking the role of expertise in European integration processes”, was financed by the Polish National Science Centre, project number UMO-2013/11/D/HS6/04715. I would like to thank all the interviewees for offering their time and expertise.
- 2.
In Poland: Gazeta Wyborcza (daily), Rzeczpospolita (daily), Polityka (weekly) and Wirtualny Nowy Przemysł (business monthly); in Germany: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (daily), Süddeutsche Zeitung (daily), Der Spiegel (weekly), Die Zeit (weekly).
- 3.
According to the latest data (May 2013), there is 145.8 trillion cubic feet of unproved technically recoverable wet shale gas https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/
- 4.
According to the latest data (May 2013), there are 17 trillion cubic feet of unproved technically recoverable wet shale gas https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/
- 5.
Interview 1, expert in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Warsaw, May 2015.
- 6.
Interview 1, expert in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Warsaw, May 2015.
- 7.
Interview 1, expert in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Warsaw, May 2015.
- 8.
Interview 1, expert in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Warsaw, May 2015.
- 9.
Interview 2, expert in the Polish Geological Institute, Warsaw, September 2015.
- 10.
Interview 2, expert in the Polish Geological Institute, Warsaw September 2015.
- 11.
Interview 2, expert in the Polish Geological Institute, Warsaw, September 2015.
- 12.
Interview 1, expert in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Warsaw, May 2015.
- 13.
Interview 3, expert in the Polish Geological Institute, Warsaw, September 2015.
- 14.
Interview 3, expert in the Polish Geological Institute, Warsaw, September 2015.
- 15.
Interview 3, expert in the Polish Geological Institute, Warsaw, September 2015.
- 16.
Interview 4, experts in the Ministry of the Economy, Warsaw, May 2015.
- 17.
Interview 4, experts in the Ministry of the Economy, Warsaw, May 2015.
- 18.
Interview 4, experts in the Ministry of the Economy, Warsaw, May 2015.
- 19.
Interview 3, expert in the Polish Geological Institute, Warsaw, September 2015.
- 20.
Interview 5, energy expert at IGBCE, Berlin, June 2016.
- 21.
Interview 7, energy expert in the Bundestag, Berlin, May 2015.
- 22.
Interview 6, energy expert in the Bundestag Berlin, May 2015.
- 23.
Interview 6, energy expert in the Bundestag, Berlin, May 2015.
- 24.
Interview 6, energy expert in the Bundestag, Berlin, May 2015.
- 25.
Interview 5, energy expert at IGBCE, Berlin, June 2016.
- 26.
Interview 7, energy expert in the Bundestag, Berlin, May 2015.
References
Boudet, Hilary, Christopher Clarke, Dylan Bugden, Edward Maibach, Connie Roser-Renouf, and Anthony Leiserowitz. 2014. ‘Fracking’ Controversy and Communication: Using National Survey Data to Understand Public Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing. Energy Policy 65 (2014): 57–67.
Buzan, Barry, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde. 1998. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Corry, Olaf. 2012. Securitisation and ‘Riskification’: Second-Order Security and the Politics of Climate Change. Millennium 40 (2): 235–258.
Cotton, Matthew, Imogen Rattle, and James Van Alstine. 2014. Shale Gas Policy in the United Kingdom: An Argumentative Discourse Analysis. Energy Policy 73 (2014): 427–438.
Evensen, Darrick, Jeffrey B. Jacquet, Christopher E. Clarke, and Richard C. Stedman. 2014. What’s the ‘Fracking’ Problem? One Word Can’t Say It All. The Extractive Industries and Society 1 (2): 130–136.
Ewen, C., D. Borchardt, S. Richter, and R. Hammerbacher. 2012. Hydrofracking Risk Assessment: Executive Summary, Study Concerning the Safety and Environmental Compatibility of Hydrofracking for Natural Gas Production from Unconventional Reservoirs. ISBN 978-3-00-038263-5.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Jaspal, Rusi, and Brigitte Nerlich. 2014. Fracking in the UK Press: Threat Dynamics in an Unfolding Debate. Public Understanding of Science 23 (3): 348–363.
Jaspal, Rusi, Brigitte Nerlich, and Szczepan Lemańcyzk. 2014. Fracking in the Polish Press: Geopolitics and National Identity. Energy Policy 74 (2014): 253–261.
Lis, Aleksandra, and Piotr Stankiewicz. 2017. Framing Shale Gas for Policy Making in Poland. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 19 (1): 53–71.
Mazur, Allan. 2014. How Did the Fracking Controversy Emerge in the Period 2010–2012? Public Understanding of Science 25 (2): 207–222.
Mucha, Janusz. 2009. Uspołeczniona racjonalność technologiczna. Naukowcy z AGH wobec cywilizacyjnych wyzwań i zagrożeń współczesności. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo IFiS PAN.
Ocelik, Petr, and Jan Osicka. 2014. The Framing of Unconventional Natural Gas Resources in the Foreign Energy Policy Discourse of the Russian Federation. Energy Policy 72 (2014): 97–109.
Thomas, Merryn Jane, Nicholas Frank Pidgeon, Darrick T.N. Evensen, Tristan Partridge, Ariel Hasell, Catherine Enders, and Barbara Herr Harthorn. 2016. Public Perceptions of Shale Gas Operations in the USA and Canada: A Review of Evidence. (Project Report). M4ShaleGas Consortium. Available at: http://m4shalegas.eu/reportsp4.html
Upham, Paul, Aleksandra Lis, Hauke Riesch, et al. 2015. Addressing Social Representations in Sociotechnical Transitions with the Case of Shale Gas. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 16 (2015): 120–141.
Wagner, Aleksandra. 2014. Shale Gas: Energy Innovation in a (Non-) knowledge Society: A Press Discourse Analysis. Science and Public Policy 42 (2): 273–286.
Williams, Laurence, Phil Macnaghten, Richard Davis, et al. 2017. Framing ‘Fracking’: Exploring Public Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing in the United Kingdom. Public Understanding of Science 26 (1): 89–104.
World Shale Gas Resources: An Initial Assessment of 14 Regions Outside the United States. 2011.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lis, A. (2018). Politics and Knowledge Production: Between Securitisation and Riskification of the Shale Gas Issue in Poland and Germany. In: Szulecki, K. (eds) Energy Security in Europe. Energy, Climate and the Environment. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64964-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64964-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64963-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64964-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)