Parliamentary and press discourses on sustainable energy in Italy: No more hard paths, not yet soft paths

Abstract This article examines the way hard and soft energy paths are discussed by policy makers, key informants and the press in Italy. Adopting a psycho-social and constructivist perspective, we explored what representations of energy and users, and what technologies are associated with centralised and decentralised energy systems. A large textual corpus was gathered from the online archives of the Chamber of Deputies, using as search criteria the Italian keywords energ * and/or sostenibil * [sustainab*] for the period 2009–2012. Selected corpora ( N  = 143 parliamentary debates and N  = 841 newspaper articles) were submitted to content analysis. Results show that contents related to hard paths prevail over those typical of soft paths. However, while the contents expressed by the press fit with the hard/soft path dichotomy, political discourse is largely polyphasic and mixes elements of the two systems. These traces of incoherence suggest that energy transition is far from being completed and that sustainable energy is still a contended object of representation.

[1]  V. Dijk,et al.  Opinions and ideologies in the press , 1997 .

[2]  Caroline Howarth,et al.  A social representation is not a quiet thing: exploring the critical potential of social representations theory. , 2006, The British journal of social psychology.

[3]  Tao Zhang,et al.  A Three-Dimensional Model of Residential Energy Consumer Archetypes for Local Energy Policy Design in the UK , 2012, ArXiv.

[4]  W. Poortinga,et al.  Values, Environmental Concern, and Environmental Behavior , 2004 .

[5]  A. Lovins.  Energy strategy , 1976, Nature.

[6]  Paul C. Stern,et al.  Individual and household interactions with energy systems: Toward integrated understanding , 2014 .

[7]  Marie-Line Félonneau,et al.  Social representations theory and environmental studies , 2005 .

[8]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  Social Representations Theory: A Progressive Research Programme for Social Psychology , 2008 .

[9]  Claudine Provencher.  Towards A Better Understanding of Cognitive Polyphasia , 2011 .

[10]  Patrick Devine-Wright,et al.  Making electricity networks “visible”: Industry actor representations of “publics” and public engagement in infrastructure planning , 2012 .

[11]  G. Carrus,et al.  Psicologia ambientale, sostenibilità e comportamenti ecologici , 2006 .

[12]  A. Lovins,et al.  Soft energy paths: Toward a durable peace , 1977 .

[13]  Sarah C. Darby,et al.  Social learning and public policy: Lessons from an energy-conscious village , 2006 .

[14]  M. Lima,et al.  Old and New Ideas about the Environment and Science , 2001 .

[15]  W. Wagner,et al.  ‘I have some faith and at the same time I don't believe’ — cognitive polyphasia and cultural change in India , 2000 .

[16]  Iain Walker,et al.  The ways that people talk about natural resources: discursive strategies as barriers to environmentally sustainable practices. , 2005, The British journal of social psychology.

[17]  Jim Watson,et al.  Centralisation, decentralisation and the scales in between , 2011 .

[18]  Regina Lafuente,et al.  Defining and measuring environmental consciousness , 2010 .

[19]  Peter J. G. Pearson,et al.  Past and prospective energy transitions: Insights from history , 2012 .

[20]  Karl Dake.  Myths of Nature: Culture and the Social Construction of Risk , 1992 .

[21]  Richard F. Hirsh,et al.  History's contributions to energy research and policy , 2014 .

[22]  Troy D. Abel,et al.  A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism , 1999 .

[23]  G. Walker,et al.  Carbon reduction, 'the public' and renewable energy: engaging with socio-technical configurations. , 2007 .

[24]  L. Steg,et al.  Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework , 2012 .

[25]  Kate Burningham,et al.  Imagined publics and engagement around renewable energy technologies in the UK , 2012 .

[26]  A. Kollmuss,et al.  Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? , 2002 .

[27]  K. Araújo.  The emerging field of energy transitions: Progress, challenges, and opportunities , 2014 .

[28]  Patrick Devine-Wright,et al.  Representing the demand side: 'deficit' beliefs about domestic electricity users , 2005 .

[29]  Paula Castro,et al.  A social representations approach to the communication between different spheres: an analysis of the impacts of two discursive formats , 2009 .

[30]  Ruth Wodak,et al.  Language, power and ideology : studies in political discourse , 1989 .

[31]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Public responses to the Chernobyl accident , 1990 .

[32]  Mara Maretti,et al.  Energy and social change: an introduction , 2012 .

[33]  Petra Schweizer-Ries,et al.  Energy sustainable communities : Environmental psychological investigations , 2008 .

[34]  Bruna Zani,et al.  The Effect of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident on Risk Perception, Antinuclear Behavioral Intentions, Attitude, Trust, Environmental Beliefs, and Values , 2013 .

[35]  S. Jovchelovitch.  Social representations, public life and social construction , 2001 .

[36]  I. Marková.  The Epistemological Significance of the Theory of Social Representations , 2008 .

[37]  Yvonne Rydin,et al.  Mapping the Coevolution of Urban Energy Systems: Pathways of Change , 2013 .

[38]  P. Devine‐Wright.  Energy Citizenship: Psychological Aspects of Evolution in Sustainable Energy Technologies , 2007 .

[39]  Patrick Devine-Wright,et al.  Towards a better understanding of people’s responses to renewable energy technologies: Insights from Social Representations Theory , 2015, Public understanding of science.

[40]  B. Sovacool.  What Are We Doing Here? Analyzing Fifteen Years of Energy Scholarship and Proposing a Social Science Research Agenda , 2014 .

[41]  Wonjoon Kim,et al.  Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy , 2013 .

[42]  G. Osti.  Frames, organisations, and practices as social components of energy , 2012 .

[43]  P. Stern.  New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior , 2000 .

[44]  W. Gamson,et al.  Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach , 1989, American Journal of Sociology.

[45]  S. Jovchelovitch.  Knowledge in context : representations, community and culture (author summary) , 2006 .

[46]  P. Stern.  Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. , 2011, The American psychologist.

[47]  Paula Castro,et al.  Psycho-Social Processes in Dealing with Legal Innovation in the Community: Insights from Biodiversity Conservation , 2011, American journal of community psychology.

[48]  Elliot Aronson,et al.  Energy use: the human dimension , 1986 .

[49]  Paula Castro,et al.  Applying social psychology to the study of environmental concern and environmental worldviews: contributions from the social representations approach , 2006 .

[50]  I. Walker,et al.  Talking about transplants: social representations and the dialectical, dilemmatic nature of organ donation and transplantation. , 2002, The British journal of social psychology.

[51]  Sandra Jovchelovitch,et al.  Re-thinking the diversity of knowledge : cognitive polyphasia, belief and representation , 2002 .

[52]  Andreas C. Goldthau,et al.  Rethinking the governance of energy infrastructure: Scale, decentralization and polycentrism , 2014 .

[53]  Paula Castro,et al.  Social Representation, Change and Resistance: On the Difficulties of Generalizing New Norms , 2008 .

[54]  C. Ader.  A Longitudinal Study of Agenda Setting for the Issue of Environmental Pollution , 1995 .

[55]  R. Gifford.  Environmental psychology matters. , 2014, Annual review of psychology.