People make much of opinion surveys to back up their arguments. But even the most extensive and professional surveys can be misleading, as the polling prior to last year’s UK government elections demonstrated only too clearly. If such large-scale exercises, designed to be unbiased, can be wrong, then it’s easy to see how much more scope there is for deceptive or at least ambiguous results to emerge from less objective studies.
Even carefully-designed questions can give biased responses, as can the order in which questions are presented. Perhaps more important still is the hypothetical nature of many questions. A good example is the apparent rejection of genetically modified food by many consumers. When given details of the environmental or nutritional benefits which may be delivered by this route, reactions tend to be much more nuanced.
In similar vein, nuclear energy often gets a bad press. One reason for this is the association in people’s minds with nuclear weapons. Indeed, the same process of nuclear fission lies behind both reactors and bombs, but it’s the application of a technology which is the important factor, rather than the technology itself. This is not a distinction which necessarily cuts much ice with the general public, although it’s fair to say that more people are actually undecided rather than either for or against.
Another reason for negative reactions to nuclear energy is the distinction between the hypothetical and the real. Because of the overall rather negative connotations ascribed to the word ‘nuclear’, a common reaction from those a long distance from a power station is also negative. Generally, though, there is a more favourable response from those close to a nuclear station, partly through familiarity and partly because of the employment it offers.
We see pretty much the opposite effect for wind energy. In this case, messages about the clean, green nature of wind turbines makes people see them in a generally favourable light if the question is asked hypothetically. The opposite tends to be true for people living close to a proposed or actual wind farm, where the reality of their impact on the landscape is taken into account.
In this context, it is interesting to see the latest findings in a long-running series of surveys on key energy policies by the Department of Energy and Climate Change: DECC Public Attitudes Tracker – Wave 16. According to this, support for the use of renewable energy stands at 78%, with only 4% opposed. This is hardly surprising; the thought of cleanly harvesting ‘free’ energy without the need for coal mining or unlovely conventional power stations is superficially appealing.
It is only when applications for wind farms are made that reality begins to bite and real opposition becomes apparent. Protestors may be dismissed as NIMBYs, but it’s probably truer to say that they have seen the real-life implications of wind energy and don’t like them. Other factors which few take into account are that wind farms cannot replace conventional or nuclear power generation without large-scale energy storage and that many individual sets of turbines are needed to come close to the output of a single gas-fired station, even on a windy day.
These issues are all long-standing ones, but more recently the extraction of shale gas via the technique of fracking (hydraulic fracturing) has come to the fore. This has been driven largely by headline stories of ‘earthquakes’ near Blackpool and high profile opposition to proposed exploratory drilling (not even fracking) by Cuadrilla near Balcombe in Sussex.
The results of this wave of research showed that fully 44% neither supported nor opposed shale gas extraction, with 29% opposed and 23% supportive. This is a reversal of the findings from two years ago, when 21% of respondents were opposed and 27% supported it. The change is undoubtedly due to the high profile campaign at Balcombe, which clearly sowed the seeds of doubt.
It is interesting to read the BusinessGreen website’s take on these results: The more people know about fracking, the less they like it – Five things we’ve learnt from the latest DECC tracker poll. The article covers a range of issues, including ‘Opposition to renewables remains negligible’ and ‘Energy saving is failing to excite’, but focuses on those who oppose fracking.
According to the DECC results "Support for fracking appears to be inversely linked to awareness, as those who know more about fracking tend to be more likely to oppose it. There is more opposition than support amongst those who know a lot about it (53% vs. 33%), and know a little about it (40% vs. 26%)." The key thing to note here is that the extent of knowledge is self-reported, and may just as easily have come from campaigners’ leaflets as from any attempt to learn the basic facts.
The reasons given for opposition bear witness to this. Loss or destruction of natural environment was cited by 61% of opposers, followed by the risk of contamination to the water supply (32%) and the risk or uncertainty of fracking being too high. These seem to represent the views of anti-fracking campaigners rather well and take no account either of long-term experience of on-shore oil extraction in rural England or of the realities of fracking today.
Such negative perceptions are not overcome easily, and it can take brave politicians to push even well-justified policies through in the face of vocal opposition. However, on this occasion, the government seems to be sufficiently convinced by the case for shale gas recovery to make decisions centrally on such important infrastructure issues. In the meantime, the concerns of a vocal minority will continue to make headlines.
Bob Carter
Last but not least, some readers may already know something of Prof Bob Carter, late of James Cook University, and his untimely death. Bob was a true sceptical scientist who used evidence to support his well-argued criticisms of mainstream climate science. For an eloquent tribute, see A clock tune in honor of a true man of true science
Martin Livermore
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
_______________________________________________________