Surpassing the era of disengaged acceptance: The future of public discourse on nuclear energy

Gabor Sarlos; Mariann Fekete

doi:10.19195/1899-5101.11.1(20).5

Authors

Gabor Sarlos RMIT University Vietnam
Mariann Fekete University of Szeged

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.19195/1899-5101.11.1(20).5

Keywords:

nuclear discourse, disengagement, social values, communication package

Abstract

Both the United Kingdom and Hungary run ambitious nuclear power plans to keep nuclear power as an important element of their energy mixes. The objective of the analysis is to identify if there is the intent and possibility for a different form of public engagement in shaping the nuclear future. The study builds on the comparative analysis of the cases of Hungary and the United Kingdom. The ‘communication packages’ theory serves as reference of comparison. The study finds that changing social value sets and communication technology developments create challenges to governments in securing support for the nuclear agenda. Th is challenge creates an opportunity for members of the public with ‘reluctant acceptance’ of the nuclear agenda. Building on global uncertainty, challenges to the prevailing political and economic status quo, together with the growing influence of social media might assist the public to become vocal in their opinions about nuclear energy.

Author Biographies

Gabor Sarlos, RMIT University Vietnam

Gabor Sarlos is the Discipline Lead, Communication at the School of Communication and Design of RMIT Vietnam. Previously, he had various teaching roles in the field of business and social communications at the Universities of Wolverhampton and of Worcester in the United Kingdom. He is the author of several publications and a book in the field of social discourse on nuclear energy, risk and crisis management, and sustainability communication. Prior to his academic career, as founder and managing partner of Pepper Communications PR, he took part in the development and implementation of a full range of communication campaigns, and built communication strategies for a range of for-profit, governmental and NGO organisations across Europe.

Mariann Fekete, University of Szeged

Mariann Fekete, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Department of Sociology of the University of Szeged, Hungary. She has an MA and a PhD in Sociology, with a focus on generational cultural consumption in the digital age, eTime, and networking of leisure time. She lectures in subjects related to methodology, database management, political public opinion research, and sociology of youth, education, culture, and society.

References

Bickerstaff, K., Lorenzoni I., Pidgeon, N.F., Poortinga, W., & Simmons, P. (2008). Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Public Understanding of Science, 17(2), pp. 145–169.

Brüggemann, M., Engesser, S., Büchel, F., Humprecht, E., & Castro, L. (2014). Hallin and Mancini revisited: Four empirical types of Western media systems. Journal of Communication, 63, pp. 1037–1065. DOI:10.1111/jcom.12127.

Catellani, A. (2012). Pro-nuclear European discourses: Socio-semiotic observations. Public Relations Inquiry, 1(3), pp. 285–311.

Corner, A., Venables, D., Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Demski, C., & Pidgeon, N. (2011). Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes. Energy Policy, 39, pp. 4823–4833.

Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (2013). The Long Term Nuclear Energy Policy. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fi le/ 168047/bis-13-630-long-term-nuclear-energy-strategy.pdf), retrieved 30 November 2016.

Dragomir, M. (2017). The State of Hungarian Media: Endgame, http://blogs. lse.ac.uk/media-policyproject/2017/08/29/the-state-of-hungarian-media-endgame/, accessed 17 December 2017.

Eco, U. (1976). A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Edelman (2017). Edelman Trust Barometer 2017, http://www.edelman.com/global-results/, accessed 26 January 2017.

Eiser, J.R., Hannover, B., Mann, L., Morin, M., van der Pligt, J., & Webly, P. (1990). Nuclear Attitudes after Chernobyl: A cross national study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10, pp. 101–110.

Friedman, S. M. (2011). Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima: An analysis of traditional and new media coverage of nuclear accidents and radiation. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 67(5), pp. 55–65. DOI: 10.1177/0096340211421587.

Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 96(1), pp. 1–37.

Genys, D. (2013). The role of scientists in Lithuanian energy security discourse formation. Baltic Journal of Law and Politics, 6(1), pp. 166–183.

Hendriks, C. M. (2006) Integrated deliberation: reconciling civil society’s dual role in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 54(3), pp. 486–508.

International Energy Agency (IEA) website (2017) https://www.iea.org/topics/energysecurity/ sub-topics/whatisenergysecurity/, retrieved 6 January 2017.

Irwin, A., Allan, S., & Welsh, I. (2000). Nuclear risks: Three problematics. In: B. Adam, U. Beck, J. Van Loon (eds.), The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory. London: SAGE, pp. 78–104.

Johnson, B. B. (1999). Exploring dimensionality in the origins of hazard related trust. Journal of Risk Research, 2(4), pp. 325–354.

Keay, M. (2016). UK energy policy — Stuck in ideological limbo?. Energy Policy, 94, pp. 247–252. Kepplinger, H. M., & Lemke, R. (2016). Instrumentalizing Fukushima: Comparing media coverage of Fukushima in Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. Political Communica-tion, 33(3), pp. 351–373. DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2015.1022240.

Kinsella, W. J. (2005). One hundred years of nuclear discourse: Four master themes and their implications for environmental communication. In: Senecah, S. L. (ed.), The Environmental Communication Yearbook, Volume 2. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 49–72.

Knight, R. (2012). Nuclear Energy Update Poll. London: Ipsos-MORI.

Lehtonen, M. (2010). Deliberative decision-making on radioactive waste management in Finland, France, and the UK: influence of mixed forms of deliberation in the macro discursive context. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 7(3), pp. 175–196. DOI: 10.1080/1943815X. 2010.506487.

Mitchell, R. C. (1980). Polling on nuclear power: A Critique of the Polls after Three Mile Island. Polling on the Issues. Washington, D.C.: Seven Locks, pp. 66–98.

Nealey, S. M., Melber, B. D., & Ranking, W. L. (1983). Public Opinion and Nuclear Energy. Lexington, Mass.: Heath.

Nemzeti Fejlesztési Minisztérium (Ministry of National Development) (2012). Nemzeti Energias-tratégia 2030 (National Energy Strategy 2030), http://2010-2014.kormany.hu/download/4/f8/70000/Nemzeti%20Energiastrat%C3%A9gia%202030%20teljes%20v%C3%A1ltozat.pdf, retrieved 2 December 2016.

Perko, T. (2011). Importance of risk communication during and after a nuclear accident. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 7, pp. 388–392.

Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon N. (2003). Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 23(5), pp. 961–972.

Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., & Lorenzoni, I. (2006). Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power, Climate Change and Energy Options in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted during October and November 2005. Understanding Risk working paper 06–02. Centre for Environmental Risk + Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

Renn, O., & Levine, D. (1991). Credibility and trust in risk communication. In: R.E. Kasperson and P. J. M. Stallen (eds.), Communicating Risks to the Public. The Hague: Kluwer.

Róbert, P., & Nagy, I. (1998). Újraelosztó állam vagy öngondoskodó polgár? (Redistributing state or self-sufficient citizens?) In: TÁRKI Társadalompolitikai Tanulmányok 8. Budapest, 1998. http:// www.tarki.hu/adatbank-h/kutjel/pdf/a392.pdf, retrieved 23 January 2017.

Sarlos, G. (2015a). Risk and Benefit Perceptions in the Discourse on Nuclear Energy. Saarbrücken: LAP Lamberts.

Sarlos, G. (2015b). Risk perception and political alienism: Political discourse on the future of nucle-ar energy in Hungary, Central European Journal of Communication, Vol. 8(14), pp. 93–112.

Sarlos, G. (2015c). A közvéleménykutatások szerepe a magyarországi atomenergia diskurzus alakítás-ában (The Role of Public Opinion Polls in Shaping Hungarian Nuclear Discourse). Jel-kép, 2015(1). pp. 21–38.

Schneider, M., Froggatt, A., Hazemann, J., Katsuta, T., & Ramana, M. V. (2016). The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2016, Mycle Schneider Consulting http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/ IMG/pdf/20160713MSC-WNISR2016V2-LR.pdf, retrieved 1 December 2016.

Schneider, M., Froggatt, A., Hazemann, J., Katsuta, T., Ramana, M.V., Rodriguez J.C., Rüdinger A. & Sitenne, A. (2017). The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2017, Mycle Schneider Consult-ing. https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/20170912wnisr2017-en-lr.pdf, retrieved 17 December 2017.

Szabó, M. (2006). Politikai idegen (Political alien). Budapest: L’Harmattan.

Thomas, S. (2015). A Comparison of the Hinkley Point and Paks Projects (presentation to the European Parliament, 15 March 2015).

Wagner, A., Grobelskia, T., & Harembski, M. (2016). Is energy policy a public issue? Nuclear power in Poland and implications for energy transitions in Central and East Europe. Energy Research & Social Science, 13, pp. 158–169.

Wallard, H., Duffy, B., & Cornick, P. (2012). After Fukushima — Global Opinion on Energy Policy. Retrieved from http://www.ipsos.com/public-affairs/sites/www.ipsos.com.public-affairs/ fi les/ Energy%20Article.pdf, retrieved 5 January 2017.

Wilkin, P. (2016). Hungary’s Crisis of Democracy: The Road to Serfdom. Lexington Books.

World Nuclear Association / Country Profiles / Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom (2016) / 25 Nov 2015 (p. 2). http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profi les.aspx, accessed 2 December 2016.

Surpassing the era of disengaged acceptance: The future of public discourse on nuclear energy

Authors

DOI:

Keywords:

Abstract

Author Biographies

Gabor Sarlos, RMIT University Vietnam

Mariann Fekete, University of Szeged

References

Downloads

Published

How to Cite

Issue

Section

License

Make a Submission

Information