Are Quebecers Irrationally Opposed to Shale Gas?

University study shows strong sense of egalitarianism skews perception of risks and benefits

Released: 11-Jun-2014 9:10 AM EDT
Source Newsroom: Universite de Montreal
Contact Information

Available for logged-in reporters only

Newswise — Quebecers are particularly hostile toward the development of shale gas, but this aversion is driven less by ‘not in my backyard’ (NIMBY) attitudes than ‘not in anyone’s backyard (NIABY), according to a comparative survey of 2,500 Quebecers and Americans conducted by Éric Montpetit and Erick Lachapelle of the University of Montreal’s Department of Political Science. Professors Barry G. Rabe of the University of Michigan and Christopher P. Borick of Muhlenberg College co-led the study in the United States.

Media are welcome to use the information provided in this Q&A document to inform their own reporting. The answers provided are full citations given by Professor Montpetit and can be quoted as such. Professor Lachapelle is available for interview. He can be contacted at Erick.lachapelle@umontreal.ca or via the university’s media relations service (details below.)

Question: Your survey, commissioned by Quebec's Ministry of the Environment, has provided insight into why Quebecers oppose the development of shale gas so fiercely. According to your study, political-cultural traits are the source of bias in the perception of the issues. Explain.
Montpetit: The survey was conducted among 1,500 Quebec respondents, a large proportion of whom were sampled from the Montérégie region, where there are shale gas development projects, and 1,000 respondents from two U.S. states, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Our findings showed that opposition is much stronger in Quebec than in the United States, and this is true across the province, regardless of where one lives. The main reason is not related to a lack of information or proximity to existing wells. Their aversion is rather due to the importance of political values that shape the public’s understanding of issues more generally.

Question: But what political values are we talking about, and how do they skew perception?
Montpetit: In our survey, two values help explain differences in in public perception: egalitarianism and individualism. Egalitarians have high expectations regarding social justice and equality between citizens, while individualists value personal success. We found that egalitarians are more likely to perceive risks related to hydraulic fracturing methods used to extract gas from shale, while individualists are more likely to perceive the benefits. This is true in Quebec and the United States. That is to say, Quebecers are no less rational in their perceptions of the issue. The difference is that there are more egalitarians here than south of the border. This explains why opposition to shale gas is so strong in Quebec compared to what we find in the United States.

Question: You also say that the way journalists talk about the issues related to shale gas development has played a role in perceptions. Can you give some examples?
Montpetit: There has been little coverage in the media about the fact that Quebecers are large gas consumers and that the gas is currently imported from Alberta. Developing this sector would allow us to be more independent in terms of energy. It is an important argument that has been mostly ignored. Much discussion has focused on large multinationals from western Canada or abroad who come to explore and pay little in terms of royalities to the Quebec government. This way of talking about shale gas resonates with egalitarian values. Egalitarians are sensitive to this type of discourse, which refers to issues of social justice and equality. They say: "We pay for the cost of extraction, and the profits go into the pockets of big corporations, who are often from outside the province." This causes resentment among egalitarians, who are then more likely to be concerned about environmental risks.

Question: Could you talk about the risks associated with shale gas extraction?
Montpetit: The problem is that we don't exactly know about the possible adverse effects. There is a lot of uncertainty around this. Studies from the U.S. have reported methane leaks in Pennsylvania, but in other places, like Arkansas, evidence is mixed. Soil, rock, and groundwater characteristics are very important for determining risks. In order to better evaluate these risks for Quebec, these characteristics must be known. But there has so fare been very little exploration in the province, which prevents us from knowing the real risks of shale gas extraction on our territory.

Question: In your survey, you also conducted an experiment that shows that new information from a credible source would likely change opinions in the United States and Quebec. Could you discuss the results of this experiment in more detail?
Montpetit: A significant proportion of Quebec egalitarians would reduce their fears about the risks if the Office of Public Hearings on the Environment and credible scientists endorsed a report showing that the risks of shale gas extraction were low. However, such a change in the perception of risks would be insufficient to transform the high degree of reluctance of Quebecers into majority support. Note that opposition in Quebec toward shale gas extraction is currently at 70%. The main reason for this opposition is the great fear associated with potential risks. Credible sources would reduce this fear, but opposition would remain above 50%. On the other hand, in the United States, particularly in Pennsylvania, opinion is almost equally divided between those in favour and those against. A reassuring study about the risks of shale gas extraction would therefore have greater impact in Pennsylvania than in Quebec.
Notes:
The University of Montreal is officially known as Université de Montréal.
Reference: “L’opinion des Québécois sur les gaz de schiste : une comparaison avec la Pennsylvanie et le Michigan” (in French only) http://ees-gazdeschiste.gouv.qc.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Rapport-etude-S4-3a_CPDS_2.pdf


Comment/Share