Underlying EU/US Differences Contributing to the Lesser Acceptance of Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the European Union

Symposium Proposal Paper #6: PERCEPTION AND GOVERNANCE OF FRACKING RISKS: US AND EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES The US has moved ahead more rapidly than the EU in developing tightly-bound shale gas resources. In the EU the general... [ view full abstract ]

Symposium Proposal Paper #6: PERCEPTION AND GOVERNANCE OF FRACKING RISKS: US AND EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES

The US has moved ahead more rapidly than the EU in developing tightly-bound shale gas resources. In the EU the general trend has been initial governmental support which is then totally or partially overcome by public opposition. But significant differences also exist in perceptions and political impacts among EU countries, for example as between Germany and Poland, and among US States. Evaluation of why the US has moved ahead more rapidly than the EU has been based on well-explored EU/US differences such as the role of the precautionary principle, extent of litigation, and acceptance of new technology. Of particular importance has been citizen ownership of underground mineral rights in the US but not the EU. Social amplification of risk due to industry lack of transparency and poor communication is occurring in the US, and we have previously compared EU and US public response. In addition, review of the success of advocates of shale gas development in most US states but not the EU suggests other potentially unexplored EU/US differences. In the EU it appears that all environmental NGOs are firmly against shale gas drilling while in the US some, including the Environmental Defense Fund, are willing to cautiously enter working arrangements with industry that explores best practices, transparency and related issues. This unity of views of environmental NGOs in the EU but not the US also appears true for GMOs. In the US a number of boundary organizations containing diverse stakeholders, but not the government, have been established. But we can find no example in the EU in which industry and environmental organizations are consistently at the same table. Potential reasons for this EU/US difference include the much larger role in the US of charitable donations to independent foundations that are active in social issues; the difference in funding sources for environmental NGOs; and EU/US differences in the political opportunities and role of EU Green Parties. The strengths and weaknesses of these boundary approaches are discussed, including examples of anti-regulatory forces in the US hiding behind these arrangements. Additionally of note is the apparent absence in the EU of the shale industry’s massive US advertisement media blitz. We also consider new EU approaches to develop standards, address public concerns and facilitate dialogue, particularly the Best Available Techniques reference document (BREF; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/hc_bref_en.htm)