Participation, Power, and the Role of Community Psychology in Environmental Disputes: A Tale of Two Nuclear Cities

Abstract

This paper examines public participation and the role of community psychology in an emerging environmental dispute relevant to global climate change (GCC)-whether nuclear power represents a "green" solution. From a dialectical position, we explore the nuclear debate as it is linked to GCC, and more specifically, how participation in related federally-mandated processes may be shaped by power. We present qualitative data from public meetings in two nuclear communities and analyze these data through a lens of social power and environmental justice, including an examination of nukespeak and telepolitical appeals to highlight the complexity of the issues, how the appearance of successful participation may be deceptive, and how consensus may be manipulated. We argue that CP should consider GCC to be one of the most significant social problems of our time and make every effort to be involved in the search for truly "green" solutions.

To Fukushima With Love: Lessons on Long‐term Antinuclear Citizen Participation From Three Mile Island

“…In the United States, public support for nuclear power recently fell below levels that were reported immediately after the TMI accident (Cooper & Sussman, ). Ongoing distrust was reported in our earlier research (Culley & Angelique, ; ; ), where area residents described faulty government and industry oversights and regular reports of misconduct at TMI. This distrust is not without some support, as the TMI plant owners were found guilty by the DC Court of Appeals of illegal venting of radioactive gases, including Krypton‐85, over a 10‐day period in June and July of 1980 (Dickinson College, ).…”

“…Within the field of community psychology the notion of “environmental” citizen participation has been linked with psychological attributes such as empowerment (Rich et al., ) and has addressed coping mechanisms (Edelstein, ; Hallman & Wandersman, ; Mercuri & Angelique, ) as well as catalysts and barriers to action (Quimby & Angelique, ). Other literature in the field has focused on sociopolitical dimensions, such as community decision making (Culley, Zorland & Frere, ; Rich et al., ), crises intervention (Heffron, ), media framing of activism (Angelique & Cunningham, ; Culley et al., ), and social power dynamics (Culley & Angelique, ; Culley & Hughey, ). With regard to long‐term participation around environmental issues, community psychologists have focused on gendered experiences (Culley & Angelique, ) and community narratives (Culley & Angelique, ).…”

“…In the United States, a nuclear resurgence is still underway, despite the ongoing tragedy in Japan, and new reactors have been approved for the first time since the TMI accident (Culley & Angelique, ; ). In light of renewed support for nuclear power in the United States, Cunningham and Angelique () recently called for the reemergence of an engaged public sphere.…”

Media coverage and government policy of nuclear power in the People's Republic of China

“…Considering that news media primarily provide information about a social issue and directly and indirectly influence public perception (Soroka et al, 2013;Vreese et al, 2011), to gain the public's confidence, few anti-nuclear opinion pieces were presented in the two newspapers. For instance, few articles addressed the public's main concerns, such as radiation effects, nuclear waste disposal risks, and health problems related to nuclear power (Culley and Angelique, 2011;IEER, 2006;MIT, 2003). News coverage is thought to encourage specific audiences to think, perceive, and believe in a particular way (Entman, 2007); therefore, providing one-sided information (little negative impact of nuclear power was published) impedes a full and balanced debate.…”

Sun, Wind, Rock and Metal: Attitudes toward Renewable and Non-renewable Energy Sources in the Context of Climate Change and Current Energy Debates

“…For example, previous published works have explored how individuals perceive GCC (Heath and Gifford 2006), how psychological research can shape environmental policy (Culley and Angelique 2011;Vlek 2000), and how to develop effective interventions that facilitate environmentally-sustainable behavior change (Bator and Cialdini 2000;Clayton and Brook 2005;Kaplan 2000;McKenzie-Mohr 2000).…”