Scaling up site disputes: strategies to redefine ‘local’ in the fight against fracking

ABSTRACT

Plans to replace an aging diesel backup energy plant with liquid natural gas (LNG) generators in Whitehorse, Yukon, resulted in a public outcry, involving community meetings, massive petitions, and demonstrations. Are these civil society protests just a case of a local siting dispute – a response to an unwanted industrial site in an urban neighborhood? Here, it is argued that siting debates are not the driver of these campaigns, but instead are harnessed by activists to advance a broader environmental movement. By linking the LNG project to more distant extraction, involving hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’), movement leaders portray the entire territory as part of the ‘local’ for Whitehorse residents. Movement leaders rely upon two key mechanisms: claiming insider status, and identifying visible symbols. This case reveals the strategic use by environmental movements of local concerns to recruit support for broader campaigns, and the value of local, place-based activism for broader environmental movements.

KEYWORDS:

• Fracking
• protest
• civil society
• LNG
• site disputes
• local–global
• environmental movements

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Sally Wright, JP Pinard, Don Roberts, the members of Yukoners Concerned, and many other Yukoners who shared their time and knowledge. We thank Alayne Potter, Yiying Teh, and Maria Prebble for research assistance. For generous and helpful critiques of the manuscript, we are indebted to Daniel Aldrich, Kim Marion Suiseeya, Chris Paul, Shana Starobin, Kate Harris, and four anonymous reviewers; any weaknesses and errors are our own.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Personal observation, see further details on these actions in the Methods section.

2. Yukoners Concerned email, April 28, 2015.

3. A ‘charrette’ is a planning exercise undertaken as an intensive, structured workshop, in which ideas generated during early sessions are integrated into later sessions (Lennertz 2005).

4. Yukoners Concerned email, March 5, 2014.

5. Message from YCS, circulated by Yukoners Concerned via email, March 15, 2014.

6. Online transcripts of community hearings (247 comments were recorded in 12 communities) and records of written comments (432 submissions from 375 individuals, organizations, and First Nations) are here: www.legassembly.gov.yk.ca/rbhf_submissions_report.html

7. Yukoners Concerned email, March 25, 2014.

8. Yukoners Concerned email, July 17, 2014.

9. Yukoners Concerned email, May 2014.

10. A Yukoners Concerned email, May 20, 2014, noted that nearly 2500 signatures had been obtained, with more than 1000 from the ridings of three Yukon Party MLAs, including the Premier.

11. Yukoners Concerned email, July 17, 2014, and personal observation.

12. Yukoners Concerned email, April 11, 2014.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) [756-2013-0076].