Nuclear forces : a study of discourse coalitions in the dispute over nuclear power plants in Belgium

(1)

(2)

“Nuclear Forces”

A Study of Discourse Coalitions in the Dispute over Nuclear Power Plants in Belgium

Master’s Thesis

Tessa van Staden 12243620

28-06-2019

MSc Conflict Resolution & Governance University of Amsterdam

Graduate School of Social Sciences

Dr. David W. Laws Dr. Anne M. C. Loeber

Words: 29996

Front cover image credit: [Nuclear power plant logo PNG]. Retrieved from: https://www.kisspng.com/png-logo-atom-energiyasi-nuclear-power-plant-energy-wi-442360/

(3)

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to David Laws, for guiding me throughout the process of conducting this research, for providing me instructive feedback, suggesting useful literature, and helping me ask the right questions and structure my thoughts and ideas. Moreover, David has taught me valuable skills in terms of writing. More specifically, he inspired me to write a thesis that does not merely tell, but also ‘shows’; an effort that I have tried to be faithful to at the best of my abilities. Another thing that I am thankful for learning from David, is how to create clarity and structure in something that is complex, both at the level of analyzing, and of writing it down. Finally, I would like to thank David for his efforts in helping me push to the standard that I expected of myself.

I am also very thankful to all the people that participated in my research, or otherwise contributed to it by providing me with the relevant contacts, literature or other useful information. More particularly, I would like to thank the people from WISE Nederland, ENGIE Electrabel, Nucleair Forum, locals around Doel and Antwerp, and the members of the Flemish Parliament who were willing to share with me their opinions, knowledge, experience and insights.

In addition, I want to thank Lianne and Daria for being my ‘study companions’, and for being there when I wanted to ask questions, talk about my research, or air frustrations about difficulties that I was encountering. I would like to thank Daria in particular for teaching me all that she knows about conducting a discourse analysis, helping me with the questions that I had, and pointing me to useful tools and programs that have assisted me greatly during my research.

Another thank you goes out to Ray Heistek, who kindly offered that I could print and bind my finished work at his expense. I appreciated this gesture very much!

Lastly, I must not forget to state my gratitude to my hosts in Brussels and Antwerp, with whom I could stay during my research in Belgium. Their hospitality has been wonderful, and their homes provided me a safe and comfortable space in which I was able to read, write and think, and work on the thesis that I am now very proud to present!

(4)

List of Acronyms

*English translations in italics.

ADA Argumentative Discourse Analysis CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CD&V Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams

Christian-Democratic and Flemish

FANC Federaal Agentschap voor Nucleaire Controle

Federal Agency for Nuclear Control

FOD Federale Overheidsdienst

Federal Government Service

INES International Nuclear Event Scale

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISR Institute for Safety/Security and Risk Sciences NDC Nationally Determined Contributions

NPP Nuclear Power Plant N-VA Nieuw Vlaamse Alliantie

New Flemish Alliance

PA Paris Agreement

sp.a Socialistische Partij Anders

Socialist Party Different

UN United Nations

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change WISE Word Information Service on Energy

(7)

Abstract

Looking at the dispute over nuclear power plants Doel and Tihange in Belgium, this study aimed to identify whether the intrusion of climate change as a competing concern has brought about changes between opponents and supporters of nuclear energy. Departing from the perception that this conflict has been trapped in a deadlock, it questioned what dynamics and observations lay beneath the surface of this impasse, and whether they have changed in the context of prioritizing climate change mitigation. Following a discursive approach, the present study understands this deadlock as one that is sustained by two discourse coalitions: a pro-nuclear discourse coalition and an anti-pro-nuclear discourse coalition. In order to deal with the complexity of the matter at hand, both of these coalitions resort to the use of storylines. An argumentative discourse analysis and interviews with key players were conducted to track and trace pro- and anti-nuclear storylines. The analysis commenced with and built on the examination of these storylines, and showed that the emergence of climate change discourse (1) has prompted the adjustment and reframing of storylines on both sides of the dispute, (2) has led to shifts of allegiance between discourse coalitions, generally to the benefit of the pro-nuclear side, and (3) has instigated convergence and marginal overlap between discourse coalitions, marked by ‘meaningful disagreement’. These dynamics of change are influenced and counteracted by positioning efforts on both sides, which has been impeding further convergence and real steps towards conflict resolution.

(8)

1. INTRODUCTION: Two controversial nuclear power plants

1.1 Presenting the dispute: “A Chernobyl-like fate”

“Nuclear disaster in Tihange makes Chernobyl out of Limburg”. This was a headline in Het Belang van Limburg, an online local Belgium newspaper, in 2016 (Bruijns, 2016a). The tone of the article is clear: the Tihange nuclear power plant (NPP), located in the province Liège, poses a threat to public safety. The author describes the efforts of Dutch and Flemish municipalities to close Tihange as soon as possible (Bruijns, 2016a). This opposition to the NPP gained strength after a research report by the Institute of Safety/Security and Risk Sciences (ISR) concluded that the safety of Tihange could simply not be ensured if an accident were to take place in reactor 2 (Arnold, Gufler, Sholly & Müllner, 2016, in Bruijns, 2016a). The news article went on to describe the 10 percent chance that the German city Aachen and a large part of the Dutch province of Limburg face “a Chernobyl-like fate” when something goes wrong inside the NPP. Clearly, the article did not shy away from speaking to its readers’ imagination, using terms like “uninhabitable ghost area” to portray the worst-case scenario (Bruijns, 2016a). Also featured is a quote from a professor of the Institute for Safety/Security and Risk Sciences (ISR) who provided his assessment: “the reactor is covered with cracks all over” and he would “close down Tihange 2 immediately” if the decision was up to him (Bruijns, 2016a). The nuclear sector in Belgium responded by refuting these claims, citing a “discrepancy between perception and reality” (Nucleair Forum, 2018).

Doel, Belgian’s second NPP, located in the province Antwerp right below the border with the Netherlands, has faced similar opposition. In 2016, the Flemish green and social political parties GROEN and sp.a called for Doel 1 to be closed down for good, in the wake of a series of incidents including an automatic shutdown of a reactor that took place earlier that week (Peeters, 2016). Jan Jambon, a party member of liberalist conservative N-VA, put a different spin on the situation. In his view, this was a minor incident that, in fact, proved that the reactor’s safety system works perfectly. “I understand that the opposition wishes to use recent events for their own gain, but stating that this is a matter of nuclear unsafety simply jeopardizes the truth” (Peeters, 2016).

Apart from being a hot topic for politicians, Doel has also attracted the attention of the public. Last year, protest movements and over twenty municipalities from both Belgium and the southern provinces of the Netherlands gathered, to explore options for taking action against the NPP in Doel (Hagenaars, 2018). They are committed to present the Belgian and European

(9)

parliaments with a manifest calling for the closure of Doel. A representative of one of the larger municipalities involved, argued that responsible institutions in Belgium and the EU had failed to attach appropriate importance to the NPP and the questions it raised about public safety (Hagenaars, 2018).

Considering the above, both Tihange and Doel have been under a bright and hot spotlight lately. The debate, or conflict one might argue, around nuclear energy in Belgium, however, covers far more than has been touched upon this far. The current positions against Doel and Tihange build on a history that dates back to the beginning of the previous century and that has followed some interesting twists and turns over time.

1.2 A chronology of nuclear energy in Belgium

Belgium’s history with nuclear power traces back all the way to the early 20th_century,

when uranium was discovered in what was then the colony of the Congo (Starckx, 2016). Following the experiment in 1939 that made splitting uranium atoms to produce energy a practical reality, Belgium became the supplier of the uranium that the United States used to fuel the bombs that brought an end to the Second World War. In return, the US granted Belgium the resources needed to launch their own nuclear program, with the provision that it would not be used for military purposes (Starckx, 2016). Given Belgium’s status as an energy importer, the prospect that nuclear raised of becoming independent generated a great deal of optimism. (“Waar komen elektriciteit en gas in België vandaan?”, 2019). As Laes (2011) puts it, nuclear energy was the promise for the future. Not only would nuclear furnish a safe and “quasi-inexhaustible” supply of energy, it would do so at relatively low costs (Laes, 2011; Laes, Meskens, Eggermont & Chayaphati, 2006).

The economic advantages that nuclear energy offered fit with the élan that marked the pursuit of growth and prosperity in post-war Belgium (Laes et al., 2006; Bombaerts & Laes, 2007). In contrast to other European states, nuclear power developed strong cultural roots as it established itself in Belgium relatively early on. The perceived advantages of nuclear power played a significant role in the way attitudes towards this new technology were shaped. In this context, the Belgian government commissioned seven nuclear reactors in 1966 (Laes in Starckx, 2016). Three of these belong to the Tihange plant, the other four to Doel. The two oldest reactors of Doel, Doel 1 and 2, came online in 1975, followed by Doel 3 in 1982 and Doel 4 in 1985. Tihange 1 was operationalized in 1975, Tihange 2 in 1983, and Tihange 3 in 1985 (“De kerncentrale van Doel”, n.d.-a; “De kerncentrale van Tihange”, n.d.-b).

(10)

A second phase in Belgium’s nuclear history started in the mid-seventies, when the “naïve technological optimism” that characterized the first phase, gave way to, doubts and criticism, predominantly from environmental and peace activists (Laes, 2011, p. 11). Within the grand scheme of ‘Cold War tension’, protests against nuclear power were closely – and often – tied to protests against nuclear weapons and the risk of proliferation. Nevertheless, concerns for the risks associated with nuclear power steadily came to prominence, and, as this concern grew, anti-nuclear groups increasingly questioned the balance between these risks and the benefits. They highlighted the questions raised by radioactive waste. Where should it be stored? What risks does it actually present? What risks of exposure to radiation are associated with an accident? And what would happen if the technology ended up in the hands of people who intent on inflicting serious harm? (Van Impe, 2018).

A range of incidents, from minor to more serious, began to confirm that the claims these opponents made reflected legitimate causes for concern. In 1979, radioactive radiation escaped from the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in the US, as a result of a partial meltdown in one of the plant’s reactors (Dekker, de Goede & Van der Pligt, 2010). Belgium had already committed to its investments in nuclear at that time, however, and carried its own nuclear program through. From the fifties to the mid-seventies, these investments expanded the necessary infrastructure and the construction of both NPPs. Protest movements and other forms of contestation lagged behind and were still very much in their infancy as the investments were made that committed Belgium to nuclear power. The only card opponents had to play following the completion of Doel and Tihange was to fight plans for additional NPPs (Laes, 2011). These opponents’ continued efforts bore fruit in 1986, when the Belgian government instituted a moratorium on the construction of new reactors. This followed on the heels of the meltdown in the Chernobyl reactor in Ukraine. Details of the Chernobyl disaster incited an unprecedented rise in fear of nuclear technology that has left its stamp on subsequent debates about civil applications. Belgium was no exception to the fear that spread across Europe following Chernobyl (Dekker et al., 2010; Laes, 2011). This infamous incident was a major marker for Belgian protest movements against nuclear power; it revealed the far reaching impacts a nuclear disaster could have in tangible detail (Laes, 2011). Chernobyl remains the event that most evokes images of disaster and legitimizes fears of nuclear. Visions of radioactive pollution, cancer, physical deformities resulting from exposure to radiation, and ghost towns serve as constant reminders of the serious the dangers of nuclear power. This pessimistic trend held its ground, breaking down almost every source of social support for nuclear power that was once perceived as the solution that would provide Belgium with an

(11)

independent, inexhaustible energy source. In 2003, the Belgian government voted for a “Kernuitstap”, a law that initially proscribed the eventual closure of the oldest reactors both Doel and Tihange by the end of 2015, but was later on revised to extend this deadline (“Wat zijn de mogelijke gevolgen van een kernuitstap in 2025?”, n.d.).

In 2011, another high-profile nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan, put nuclear energy under fire again. This time, however, the debates about whether Belgium should stick with its nuclear program have followed a line that is quite different from what followed Chernobyl. Despite the fact that opposition was still present, a new counterbalance was introduced when another source for concern interrupted.

This calls attention to a second significant change that developed in the period between 1986 and 2011, and has reshaped the context in which the debate over nuclear power plays out. Fears of nuclear disaster that had dominated headlines gave way to concerns about climate change. An international consensus among scientists led to warnings that global temperature is rising at an increasing rate. Pictures of melting ice caps and extreme weather events presaged the experts’ warnings that the worst is yet to come (NASA Global Climate Change, 2019). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) described climate change as an urgent “threat” that demands a global response. Politicians, activists and the public have been presented with the challenge to make sense of predictions like the IPCC’s warning that a global temperature increase of more than 1,5 C° would have grave consequences for the planet (IPCC, n.d.). In 2015, the Paris Agreement (PA) expressed the commitment of the global community to a common effort to mitigate climate change.

The Belgian federal website for information on climate change (2013) spells out the local risks associated with rising global temperatures. More frequent extreme weather events would increase precipitation and changes of flooding. At the same time, the likelihood of drought and water shortages during summers would also rise. Moreover, Belgian citizens can expect a rise in sea level of up to 2 meters. The website also reports on a public survey conducted in 2017, which shows that 85% of Belgians perceive of climate change as an urgent problem that must be dealt with. This represents a significant increase in comparison with a 2013 survey. The same study describes the growing consensus among Belgians that the national government is the responsible party and must take action to tackle climate change (Federale Overheidsdienst: Volksgezondheid, Veiligheid van de Voedselketen en Leefmilieu, 2017). According to a 2014 IPCC report on climate change mitigation scenarios, nuclear energy is one way to mitigate greenhouse gas. It is much less polluting from a climate perspective than its main alternative – gas (Bruckner et al., 2014; Berger et al., 2017).

(12)

1.3 The current research

This study builds on this brief history to analyze the ongoing dispute over Doel and Tihange. It focuses on the time period from 1980 to the present, to gain insight into how the discourse of nuclear power has changed. It takes discourse coalitions, and the actions and argumentations that follow from the way they present risks around nuclear energy, as the objects of study. This is in effort to understand how the discourse about nuclear power has changed in light of the emergence of climate change as a competing concern. The resolutions to tackle climate change as declared in the 2015 Paris Agreement are taken as the formal confirmation of climate change onto the political agenda.

The objective of this study is to attain a better understanding of how the urgency of climate change mitigation, and presentations of associated risks, have changed the context in which disputes over nuclear energy play out. The goal is not to evaluate the merits of positions in favor of, or against, nuclear energy. The point is not to support or subvert either side in this dispute, but to unravel and better understand the dynamics that propositions of each of these sides are submitted to from a discursive perspective.

As subsequent chapters will show, the debate about nuclear power is active in Belgium in an intense and tangible way. What is interesting about this debate is that it has a broader resonance that extends to governments around the globe that need to rethink and revise their energy systems in light of climate change. They are likely facing issues similar to the ones that rise up in this case. Moreover, a better understanding of the processes of change and stability in and between discourse coalitions may open up new ways to approach these conflicts, and to seek constructive resolution around climate change and similar issues.

Contestation around nuclear energy and climate is part of a domain of technically complex conflicts that involve in-depth knowledge from a variety of technical fields, and that raise strong popular sentiments and concerns. In this case, nuclear technology, environmental protection, energy production, and transport are all part of the technical demands that now also include climate modeling, along with technical fields like flood management, that are associated with adaptation. Public opinion remains a strong and divided countervailing influence. One effect of the multifaceted nature of these issues and the conflicts around them is that few of the actors involved are likely to have access to comprehensive knowledge that the problem calls for. Most will, at best, have command of only one or a few of these aspects, and remain dependent on media reports, which may vary greatly, for the rest of the issues.

(13)

A consequence of these features is that the complex –technically and socially– nature of the issues raised confronts the actors involved on all sides with ambiguity. They must navigate their way in light of this ambiguity. A central challenge, then, is to influence the problem, the issues that flow from it, and the way these are made sense of by the actors involved. As Hajer (2005, p. 182) notes, debates around intangible issues such as those around environment or climate also “often take place in a situation of institutional ambiguity, in which there are no generally accepted rules and norms according to which politics is to be conducted and policy measures are to be agreed upon”. Within that space of ambiguity, discourse coalitions, which will be expanded on in the following chapter of this thesis, provide the context in which actors can make sense of questions that are raised, and the basis for acting in concert with groups holding similar positions. This shared social construct, in turn, serves as a tool that facilitates coping with such ambiguity in complex social issues (Hajer, 1993). Thus, a better grip on how discourse coalitions work, and how they deal with the presentation of risks around nuclear energy and climate change, may help improve conflict resolution efforts in disputes, like that over nuclear power, that are characterized by high levels of ambiguity.

1.4 Research question and chapter overview

This study explores the question: ‘In the dispute over Doel and Tihange, how have discourse coalitions, and their actions and argumentations that follow from presentations of risks around nuclear energy, changed, in light of the emergence of climate change as a competing concern?’.

The next section provides a theoretical framework that addresses what discourse coalitions are, and why this study focuses on discourse and discourse coalitions in analyzing the dispute. It will highlight features such as language and storylines, as well as different dynamics that these can be subjected to. This is to help create a better understanding of the role that discourse coalitions play in the ongoing conflict over nuclear energy in Belgium, and how these coalitions have changed in the context of climate change. After that, a research design and methodology chapter will outline how the study was set up, how the data was gathered and analyzed, and what considerations the author has made in conducting this research. Subsequently, an extended section on background information and academic perspectives will set the stage for the analysis, which will then explore the aspect of ‘change’ in great detail. Finally, a conclusion will summarize key points, and highlight and discuss this study’s findings.

(14)

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: Coalitions in discourse

In trying to gain a better insight into whether, how and why discourse coalitions have changed in this dispute over nuclear power, it is helpful to bring a conceptual framework into play that facilitates the practice of sense-making in relation to the complexity of this case, and will more specifically provide a lens through which the dynamics that advance in this case can be studied. A number of such lenses are available to choose from. For instance, given that this case includes pressure groups that organize to have Doel and Tihange closed, one option would be to study it from a social movement perspective. Studying social movements around nuclear energy in Belgium would raise interesting questions about collective identities, for instance, and patterns of interaction that sustain these identities and facilitate collective action (Poletta & Jasper, 2001). However, the emphasis on groups or movements individually, rather than the dynamics that they are shaped by, would fail to capture not only the account of change that this study is trying to get at, but also the importance of written and spoken language in this process of change, and the development of the conflict more generally.

A discursive approach, on the other hand, is better suited to bring out the discursive character of this dispute and the account of change connected to it. It allows for a focus on what is said and by whom, and it helps raising questions about what argumentations thrive and compete around the contestation of nuclear energy, and in what social and practical context this competition is set. One way to go about this is to conduct a discourse analysis.

Maarten Hajer (2006) describes discourse analysis as the “examination of argumentative structure in documents and other written or spoken statements and practices” (p. 66). His idea of studying argumentative structures was inspired by the ‘argumentative turn’ that Fisher and Forester introduced in 1993. This work devoted special attention to the increasing importance of language and argumentations in policy analyses, thereby opening up new ways to confront policy disputes.

Hajer (1993) shows that there are a number of advantages to such an argumentative, discourse analysis approach. He states that “[t]he argumentative turn requires the analysis to go beyond the investigation of differences of opinion about technical facts alone”; it helps to finds ways of “combining the analysis of the discursive production of reality with the analysis of the (…) social practices from which social constructs emerge and in which the actors that make these statements engage” (p. 45). The ensuing sections of this chapter will touch on what these benefits entail in more detail, and what implications they have for the current research.

(15)

2.1 Discourse and discourse coalitions

The introduction provided a brief historical overview of what has preceded the situation around Doel and Tihange as it is today, which ultimately informs the inquiry of the current research. This narrative illuminates two key features of this dispute. First, are the discrepant stories about, opinions on and attitudes towards Belgium’s NPPs. These stories are associated with two coalitions: one that is in favor of nuclear power –at least for the time being– and a second of opponents who are firmly against nuclear power and thus in favor of the nuclear phase-out as is stipulated in the country’s 2003 Kernuitstap law. Second, these polarized coalitions tell very different stories about the risks and benefits associated with nuclear power. Following Hajer’s (1993, p. 46) ideas, this study treats this combination as evidence of the existence of different discourse coalitions in this dispute. This idea of discourse coalitions is elaborated on below, following a discussion of what a discourse is and what benefits a discursive approach to controversy provides.

A discourse is defined here as an “ensemble of ideas, concepts and categories through which meaning is given to social and physical phenomena, and which is produced and reproduced through an identifiable set of practices” (Hajer, 2006, p. 67). As an example, the discourse on nuclear power gives meaning to the technology of nuclear power and to associated phenomena like radioactive waste, to concepts of risks and benefits, to ideas about how these should be related or weighed against each other on a balance, and to events like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and the fears that they provoke. The effort to give meaning to these “social phenomena” and to organize them into pro or anti-nuclear positions helps the actors involved to make sense of the issues that nuclear power involves, and to persuade others of the sense of the position that they advocate. For example, in the controversy over nuclear power in Belgium, the NPPs Doel 3 and Tihange 2 are given meaning to through the way terms like risk, safety and energy are used in the practices of managing, regulating, contesting, and defending nuclear power’s future.

Discourse should not be confused with discussion. For example, the groups and organizations that participate in the political debate over the reactors draw on terms like safety, risk, waste, and energy, to argue for positions on Tihange and Doel and nuclear power more generally. They agree or disagree, persuade or dissuade, influence decisions and try to stake out a middle ground through their use of “the set of concepts that structure [their] contributions (…) to [the] discussion” (Hajer, 2005, p. 300). A focus on discourse thus serves to bring analysis closer to the language, arguments, images, and practices through which individuals,

(16)

groups, and organizations make sense of a complex set of objects and events and try to influence others through the stories that they tell and the arguments that they present. In other words, the analysis of such a discourse provides a way to trace and elicit regularities in the terms, stories, arguments, categories, and metaphors that participants draw on to present the particular ideas “in which terms” the subject of the discourse is discussed (Hajer, 2005, p. 300). Some may be intentional and strategic, others may serve to stabilize beliefs, others may be so internalized that they are used without conscious attention.

To grasp what this actually means, it may help to briefly deconstruct the idea of a discourse into its constitutive elements. Hajer (2005) identifies these as metaphors, narratives, and storylines. The essence of a metaphor is the way it gives meaning to thing A through reference to the terms and experience of thing B (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, in Hajer, 2005). A good example would be the term ‘meltdown’. When a person suffers a meltdown, feeling overwhelmed, overstimulated and robbed of control, his or her experience is explained and understood as the disastrous collapse of an overheated, out-of-control nuclear reactor vessel.

A narrative organizes these metaphors into a comprehensive whole that consists of a beginning, a middle and an end, and a notion of sequence in and connection among events. Narratives can be an effective way to mobilize evidence for a certain position and to convey a certain message. Storylines are a “condensed version” of such narratives (Hajer, 2005, p. 302), that serve to summarize the complexity of a narrative, narrowing it down to a discursive device that is manageable and employable, and that can allow groups to relate to one another. Given that storylines are an important tool in the array of strategies employed by a discourse coalition, the implications of their usage are spelled out in more detail.

In any debate over complicated issues, mutual understanding is often presupposed, rather than actually established. Actors develop and draw on storylines as a simple “short hand in discussions, assuming that the other will understand what they mean”, while in many instances that is not the case (Hajer & Versteeg, 2005, p. 177). These discussions are conducted along the lines of shared terms, while, in fact, there may be no shared interpretation of what these terms really mean or entail. For instance, actors in favor of nuclear energy consider ‘clean energy’ to include nuclear, as it emits no CO2 in the production of energy. Those against it,

however, do not see nuclear as ‘clean’, arguing that the mining of uranium is harmful to both people and the environment. False assumptions like this one can contribute to the “concealing of [the] discursive complexity” that those involved in controversy face (Hajer & Versteeg, 2005, p. 177). Thus, even when storylines are shared by different groups and organizations, their meaning might differ greatly.

(17)

In developing and using storylines, participants in a discourse face a form of the general challenge that ambiguity poses for language use and communication. This becomes clear if one considers Hajer’s and Versteeg’s (2005) argument that the implications of this dynamic are not necessarily counterproductive. They maintain that “precisely the effect of misunderstanding can be very functional for creating political coalition (Hajer, 1995, in Hajer & Versteeg, 2005, p. 177). This is because storylines facilitate the discussion of a complex issue in terms that are assumed to be shared and understandable, but which may be used with different meaning. As long as the terms make it possible for the members of a coalition to agree on and coordinate their actions, the effort to work out the remaining ambiguities may not be necessary and could even be counterproductive.

A related example is the way shared terms may provide a way for groups involved in a controversy to meaningfully disagree (Laws, 2007). In other words, absent the shared vocabulary that storylines provide, actors could easily get lost in details and technicalities, or in working out irrelevant shades of meaning, all the while failing to even establish what they could or should disagree about.

Thus, despite this variability in storylines, a “communicative miracle” can take place in which groups occupying distinct positions can effectively unite (Hajer, 1995 & Black, 2002, in Laws, 2007). Through their use of storylines, participants in a discourse are able to locate what they know and want in light of others’ knowledge and preferences, hence enabling the creation of coalition between different actors and, with it, the potential to change practical reality (Black, 2002, in Laws, 2007). Studying the storylines that are brought forward within a discourse allows one to illuminate how a variety of different actors, with different viewpoints and different backgrounds, can coordinate in their efforts to give and sustain meaning, to coordinate action, and to influence how the problem at hand is defined.

Circling back to the wider discussion of discourse, in practice discourses form and shape the context within which the phenomena they address are discursively made sense of and acted upon. Language plays a key role. Hajer (1993) argues that discourses are made up of an ensemble of structures that have their foundation in language, and that “the way a phenomenon is linguistically represented has repercussions for politically essential questions such as ‘Who is responsible? What can be done? What should be done?’” (p. 5). Especially considering the recurrent use of terms such as ‘risk’, ‘danger’ and ‘threat’ in relation to either nuclear power or climate change, it is interesting to analyze the part that language plays in the discourses that make and shape the dispute. Moreover, language also carries positioning effects, which take

(18)

place between actors or parties, but also amongst or within them, and often structures who has, and who does not have, the right to speak, whose views are seen as credible, and whose actions are accepted as legitimate.

Positioning is one of the ways in which discourse can present dilemmas or “traps” such as when, via positioning, a “reasonable view is excluded” or an unreasonable view is included. The former will undermine legitimacy and the latter can stagnate constructive conversation via the strategic use of rhetoric accompanied by a “tenacious unwillingness to listen to alternative views” (Laws, 2007, p. 57).

A discourse coalition, then, is the “ensemble of a set of storylines, the actors that utter these storylines, and the practices that conform to these storylines, all organized around a discourse” (Hajer, 1993, p. 47). It is a group of actors who use and are able to sustain a shared social construct in a discourse (Hajer, 1993). More specifically, this entails that the actors in a discourse coalition share a way of using a particular set of metaphors, terms and storylines, in relation to a particular set of social practices over a particular time period (Hajer, 2005)

Hajer (2005) underscores the importance of the particularity that marks a given case, by using the concept of practice, which he explains as “embedded routines”. An example would be the practice of ‘backdoor’ policymaking around Doel and Tihange, and more specifically around the Kernuitstap Law that decides the NPPs’ future, which was first influenced by the discourse around nuclear dangers and later contested with the emergence of climate change discourse. It is important to take notice of the significance that operational practices carry here, as any presented argument about a certain issue can only be fully understood if it is seen as being part of the practice within which it is presented. Through such practices, discourses are able to transform or change over time, assuming different shapes as they are subject to processes of reframing and reproduction (Hajer, 2005). The background chapter will therefore shed light on some of these practices that are attached to this case.

The advantages of focusing on discourse coalitions are threefold (Hajer, 1993). First, this approach helps to place the analysis of strategic action into the context of specific practices and discourses, and offers the opportunity to analyze controversies over issues such as ‘nuclear energy’ in their wider political context. Second, the discourse coalition approach does not just focus on certain interests and how they are played out in discourses and practices; it goes beyond that. And third, it “illuminates how different actors and organizational practices help to reproduce or fight a given bias without necessarily orchestrating or coordinating their actions or without necessarily sharing deep values” (p. 48).

(19)

2.2 When established discourses are called into question

Given that discourses and discourses coalitions exist around social practices, and given that, in Arendtian terms, these social practices are inherently subject to change in their existence within an intricate “web of human relationships, with its innumerable, conflicting wills and intentions” (Arendt, 1958, p. 184), it is unsurprising that discourses and the coalitions that form around them too are not unassailable to transformations. Thus, the structuring effect that Hajer refers to is almost always incomplete in the facing of changing circumstances and changing wills and intentions. Laws and Rein (2003), discuss the related concept of frames and the process of reframing through which change occurs.

In their view, the scope for transformation, which they term reframing, is strongest when the theories, ideas and concepts that this reframing draws on are derived from a combination of understanding, experience and the active involvement of the groups impacted by a particular social situation. Put in a different way, the more people feel connected to an issue, and the more this connection is grounded in active participation in and around that issue, the greater the potential for transformation. Laws and Rein (2003) draw on Fay (1976, p. 96), to show how it is “stubborn persistence”, perhaps even more than a clarity or depth of insight, that creates the potential for change. Drawing on “felt needs and experienced…sufferings of the agents involved” this persistence has the potential to eventually lead to “an increased capability to act effectively that involves adjustments in actions that spill over into a reframing of beliefs (Fay, 1976, p. 96, in Laws & Rein, 2003). In turn, this reframing of beliefs may alter the ‘status quo’ within or between discourse coalitions.

Given the structuring character that language has on a discourse, and the prominence of routine in the practices that discourse is attached to, change is what needs to be explained. On the one hand, the scope of change seems to depend on the extent to which the actors involved feel concerned about the subject. The connection to the issues keeps actors involved, and as they work persistently at the margins of this issue, taking actions and making adjustments that accumulate over time, those involved may recognize that ‘things have changed’. Actors discuss it differently, think about it differently, and act upon it differently. Ambiguity also contributes to the possibility and process of change. If an issue or incident can be interpreted in more than one way, alternatives may come into play as new perspectives are adopted and acted on. In such contexts, ambiguity and uncertainty tend to create openings for change. Laws and Rein (2003) describe how the experience of ambiguity, when actors begin to find that things can be seen in more than one way, can trigger doubt that

(20)

opens up beliefs, and the patterns in discourse that express these beliefs, to new meaning: new insights, new ideas and new practices. Change, here reframing, develops in opposition to the urge to ‘fix belief’, restore stability and close doubt. (Laws & Rein, 2003). Thus, some of the power language holds may derive from the impulse to avoid ambiguity, and feelings of unease or powerlessness that are presumably involved (Laws & Rein, 2003). Especially when stakes are high, people can be expected to re-establish clarity as soon as the opportunity arrives. As this process persists over time, opposition is likely to arise as the dominating discourse faces challenges from opposing coalitions.

The possibility of change is facilitated by the dynamics that play out on a policy level. Laws and Rein (2003) show how local developments can raise doubts about whether established policies fit with current problems and provide an appropriate basis for action. Initially, this questioning might lead to marginal adaptions rather than broad changes. As these adaptations start to accumulate over time, however, a more substantial reframing may become visible retrospectively, suggesting new, and more appropriate, forms of action (Laws & Rein, 2003).

Taking account of the above, an argument can be made that discourses, as well as discourse coalitions, are far from static constructs or phenomena. Changes or transformations within and between these can occur. The way in which they occur may not be through intentional action, but, in line with Albert Hirschman’s (1969) thinking, pulled forward by the imbalances created by ambiguity, incompleteness, uncertainty, and doubt (Laws, personal communication, June 10, 2019).

2.3 Discourse coalitions and change around NPPs in Belgium

This study places changes in the discourse, the discourse coalitions, and the reframing of actions and events on center stage. The following section builds on the preceding discussion to make the practical link that is essential. The point here is not to move to an abstract discussion, but to draw on the working concepts to make sense of the case of NPPs in Belgium. It is their usefulness in making sense of an actual discourse that confirms the veracity of the concepts employed. The initial connection to the case will be made on the basis of a schematic rendition of the issue under investigation (see Figure 1). Each aspect of the schematic will first be explained separately, then in connection to corresponding aspects.

(21)

The discourse of nuclear power came into being in Belgium around events that occurred in or near World War II. Over time, this discourse changed from an initial optimism and belief in technological advancement to distrust and opposition. This change was marked, as anticipated above, by the persistent involvement of groups that saw themselves as affected – potentially deeply– by the development of nuclear power. From the seventies and especially the eighties onwards, questions have been persistently raised about the risks posed by nuclear power. The latter stage of this time period will be taken as a point of departure in this study. It was at this point that a first clear division between supporters and opponents of nuclear power could be observed. These provided the starting points for the pro-NPPs coalition and the anti-NPPs coalition. Each of these coalitions consisted of diverse individuals, groups and organizations that shared an ensemble of metaphors, concepts, and storylines that they drew on in practices associated with nuclear power. This helped them to formulate and substantiate their opposition to or support for nuclear power and to coordinate actions with other members of their coalition to formulate and substantiated their opposition to or support of the NPPs. The descendants of these early pro- and anti- coalitions still remain engaged with contesting the future of Doel and Tihange.

This pattern of contestation has been affected by the rise of discourse around another set of risks. Climate change has crowded its way onto the stage alongside nuclear power, as it has gained prominence and triggered a sense of urgency that has been difficult to match in the

(22)

contest over nuclear power. Climate discourse has begun to set the context for other discourses about risk and environmental change. The discourse over nuclear power has felt the impact of the growing concern for climate change. Eventually, the discourses of nuclear power and climate change have begun to overlap and interact with each other.

Fears about nuclear power were strengthened recently by breaking news about ‘incidents’ at the NPPs (WISE, n.d.). Thus, while the global context of climate change has cast a shadow on the debate over nuclear power, raising for instance the question of whether nuclear power has become a necessity –at least in the short run– if climate change is to be kept in check, a more local1_{discourse persists around questions about risk, safety, and the conditions and}

practices that prevail at the Doel and Tihange reactors. The current research aims to identify whether and how the initial discourse coalitions that formed in the eighties have changed over time, particularly in relation to the new global context set by climate change.

Analyzing the case through the lens of discourse will facilitate an analysis of how actors across different levels holding similar views, shaped perceptions of risks, and how their presentations changed or remained stable as the context for their stories changed. The theory of reframing practice provided by Laws and Rein (2003) will serve as a useful supplement to the repertoire of argumentative discourse analysis. Moreover, shedding light on the discourses these coalitions employ will push the development of a more thorough account of the dynamics of controversy. It will do so by illuminating the rationality and the ambiguity that characterize the arguments that the members of these coalitions employ. The present study takes this account of change as a guiding principle for research design and the analysis of findings about changes in discourse coalitions, and their use of arguments about and presentations of the risks around Doel, Tihange and climate change.

To make sure that the connections between the discussed elements are clear, this final section will reiterate once more the key points that have been elaborated on this far.

This study focuses on discourse, because it carries the advantage of taking an analysis beyond the mere investigation of differing opinions. It helps to make clear the connections between discursive processes and the social practices that exist around those, providing a more complete account of how the use of language and discourse around an issue can have implications for the wider context in which it is set and played out.

1_{Local referring to Belgium, as well as the bordering parts of the Netherlands and Germany that have}

(23)

It has been discussed this far that ‘discourse’ is understood as a collection of ideas, concepts and categories that is used to give meaning to phenomena, and that this meaning is produced and reproduced through a certain set of practices (Hajer, 2006). Among its constitutive elements are storylines, a sort of ‘simplification devices’ that help to conceal the discursive complexity of a given case, and coordinate actors in giving meaning to and planning action around difficult issues (Hajer, 2005). Through the use of storylines, actors from different backgrounds can engage around an issue or conflict on the basis of a shared idea of what the problem is, and a shared vocabulary through which the reality of this problem is expressed, all the while frequently lacking a shared understanding of what meaning actually lies underneath it. Yet, absent a common substance to this meaning, storylines enable individual actors or groups from different backgrounds to at least know what they should or could disagree on (Laws, 2007).

Disagreement plays a central role in the dispute that this study analyzes. Building on Hajer’s work, the current research conceptualizes and approaches this dispute from the idea that it is sustained by two opposing, polarized discourse coalitions. Discourse coalitions are made up of the ensemble of different storylines, the actors that utter them, and the practices that conform to them (Hajer, 1993). Because of their embeddedness in social practices, these discourse coalitions are susceptible to change, which, inspired by Laws and Rein (2003) this study understands as reframing.

In order to conduct a discourse analysis on the dispute over nuclear power in Belgium, and to see what changes have occurred in and between the polarized discourse coalitions that have been established around this dispute with the emergence of climate change discourse, it is necessary to first collect the storylines that are employed by these coalitions. The Research Design & Methodology chapter will move on to describe the empirical approach to collecting these storylines, and how particularities of this case have contributed to the choice for a case study design.

(24)

3. STATEMENT OF ETHICS

In any research it is of utmost importance to be aware of aspects that pose ethical challenges. Especially when a research design involves people, actors in the field of study, integrity and prudence are crucial. It had to be ensured that the people who participated in this research would not experience discomfort, nor experience that their participation would be harmful to them, their social environment and/or their career. Therefore, at points during which respondents had been unwilling or unable to express certain opinions, or particular pieces of sensitive information, and as a result of that requested discretion on that specific information, this was respected and taken very seriously.

For every participating respondent, great importance had been attached to anonymity, if so desired. All respondents had been notified of the possibility to remain anonymous in the eventual published work. The invitation for participation also included a notification that pertained to the researcher’s desire to record the interview, so that it could be transcribed and used for analysis. Additionally, it had been pointed out to the participants that the thesis will be published after approval, and will be publicly accessible from thereon. Before each interview, participants were thus notified on these points once more, and asked for permission on each of these.

Throughout the discussion of these points, transparency on the researcher’s behalf about privacy issues, how the information derived from the interviews would be handled and stored and by whom, was attached great importance to. For analysis-technical reasons, respondents were asked if they would grant permission for linking their spoken statements to the ‘group’ that they are part of (e.g. “person X works in the nuclear lobby sector”)

I thoroughly believe that ethics also encompasses integrity in relation to transparency around one’s own biases, and being reflective of what this means to the research that is conducted. A researcher is never free from preconceived notions of right and wrong, and what ought to be the ‘right’ or appropriate course of action in a given dispute or dilemma, as the one this study focuses on. Throughout the entire process of doing research it is therefore important to be reflective of own shortcomings, and to try to contain the effects of personal biases as much as possible. Apart from being a challenge in conducting interviews, this ‘reflective practice’ is also imperative to a sound discourse analysis.

(25)

4. RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODOLOGY

4.1 Case study design: setting boundaries

The core issue this thesis sets out to investigate is whether and how discourse coalitions, their argumentations about and presentations of risks, and actions stemming from those, around Doel and Tihange have changed in light of set climate change mitigation resolutions that were formulated in the PA in 2015. The current research confronts this dispute and the discourse coalitions that sustain it from a case study perspective, which presents a number of helpful advantages. The following section will expand on what these advantages are, and foreshadow how they have been useful during the empirical phase of this study.

One great advantage of the case study approach is that it enables the researcher to set clear boundaries; it helps decide what must be included in the study and what can be left out. As the methodology section will describe in more detail, setting boundaries in this case has been very important. For example, given that this research takes a discursive approach, and given that the object of this case, Belgium, is a bilingual country, linguistic boundaries had to be considered. This included a decision on whether this study required its data in Dutch, French, or both, as well as a reflection on what the implications are of either choice.

A second advantage is that a case study design accepts and embraces the uniqueness of the context that is studied. Although the debates over nuclear power in bordering countries France, Germany, and the Netherlands connect with the debate in Belgium, these are excluded in the current approach as they widen this study’s scope too much, and hence might interfere with the specific idiosyncrasies that make this case particularly interesting. In Belgium’s dispute over NPPs, such idiosyncrasies may include the heavy dependency on nuclear power, for example, or the contested nature of the safety of the two power plants, or the fact that both plants are located close to the border of neighboring countries.

An additional validation for a case study design enters into possibilities for ‘vertical generalization’ (Burawoy, 1998). As mentioned earlier, similar debates about nuclear power have been going on in different contexts too. More and more countries are pushed to revise established energy systems and make careful cost-benefit considerations in the process. Especially in the context of the contemporary ever-growing demand for energy, that develops next to growing efforts to reduce the effects of global warming, this urgent need for revision is more relevant now than it has ever been before. In that regard, it is interesting to look at how

(26)

the results of this study connect to the unique contexts of similar cases, and see how all these different cases are in turn part of their broader social context (Burawoy, 1998).

Approaching the topic from a case study perspective also creates an excellent opportunity to see how this particular unique case stands in relation to the theory with which it is analyzed (Burawoy, 1998). It guides the researcher in formulating questions that link case-specifics to theoretical constructs: ‘What effect has the emergence of climate change discourse had on the discourse coalitions around nuclear energy in Belgium?’, ‘How did pro- and anti-coalitions employ positioning and reframing efforts in this (unintentional) process of change?’, What influence did climate, or the series of incidents in Doel and Tihange, have on storylines?’. Finally, a case study design allows for the integration of different methods, which ties in well with this study’s choice for a dual-method approach. To analyze how pro- and anti-nuclear discourse coalitions, and their presentations of and arguments about risks, have changed over time in light of climate change developments, this study required data that would discursively bring out this development over time on both a meta and microscale. More specifically, it required storylines from two opposing discourse coalitions over different periods of time. An argumentative discourse analysis (ADA) has been conducted inspired by Hajer’s (2006) guiding principles, in effort to construct a more general ‘meta’ account of change. To analyze for change on a microlevel, and to support and build on the account of change that the ADA had brought out, interviews with key players in the dispute have been conducted. The next sections will elaborately explain both methods respectively.

4.2 Method I: Argumentative discourse analysis

Key to a sound ADA is the examination of the context in which arguments are put forward (Hajer, 2006). In his discussion of coalitions, practices and meaning in environmental politics, Hajer (2005) provides a useful strategy of how to go about such an examination and as such, this study chose to consult it for its analysis. Before moving on to an elaborate description of this strategy, however, an important note must be made in relation to the context and boundaries of the case. Earlier sections already touched upon how the uniqueness of this case stems in part from the fact that both NPPs are placed nearby neighboring countries. Doel is located in close proximity to the border with the Netherlands with an approximate distance of 5 kilometres between the two. Tihange is removed a bit farther from the German border, but a disastrous incident in the plant will arguably have grave consequences for the area around Aachen (Bruijns, 2016b). As a result, the opposition around these NPPs is not confined to

(27)

Belgium alone, but includes actors from the Netherlands and Germany as well. Another remark must be devoted to the political complexity of Belgium. The country is divided in several ways, culturally, politically and, most importantly here, linguistically. Roughly the northern half of Belgium is made up of Flanders, a predominantly Dutch-speaking region, whereas the southern half, Wallonia, is made up of mostly French-speaking people. Due to reasons of language proficiency, as well as a deliberate effort to maintain a narrow scope of what this case study includes and what it will not, the following analysis will limit itself to discourse conducted in Dutch. Thus, only taking into consideration are texts and involved actors and parties from Belgium as well as the Netherlands, provided that the ‘case of nuclear power and power plants in Belgium’ is the main topic or objective of engagement.

Taking Hajer’s (2006) recommendations as a source of inspiration, this study’s ADA builds on the points that are outlined below:

• Preparatory desk Research

This initial step includes creating a general overview of the subject. What has been published about nuclear energy and NPPs in Belgium? What about climate change in Belgium? What about the country’s PA resolutions? What positions are taken up by whom, and in what context? What terms do actors use? What practices do they engage in? What order of events can be derived from the literature, and which events were key in the development of the dispute? Can a chronology be constructed from this? These questions will all be answered in the sections on background and academic literature review that will follow this section on methodology.

• ‘Helicopter interviews’

The basic understanding of the subject that will be established after gaining knowledge from the extended background information, can then be tested through experts’ accounts of this understanding. By looking at the overview they provide as a knowledgeable, preferably independent ‘outsider’, actor, the researcher can build on her existing understanding of the subject, as well as detect gaps or inconsistences in case they are present. A conversation published in NRC between Bart Coenen (co-author of ‘Ecomodernism: The new thinking about green and growth’ and science communicator at the Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Science) and Peer de Rijk (director of WISE) led by Luttikhuis (2018) will serve as a useful illustration of the

(28)

arguments that pro- and anti-NPPs coalitions embrace. This aspect too will feature in the discussion of background information around the case, as it will, usefully, shed a first light on the types of storylines that both pro and anti employ, setting the stage for the actual analysis that will follow.

• Choosing sites of argumentation

This study consulted the media as a ‘site’ where argumentations about the dispute are played out. From these media sources, data was extracted from which an ‘argumentative exchange’ around Doel and Tihange could be reconstructed. As the term ‘media’ already suggests, they serve as intermediate platforms where opinions and arguments about risks from different layers of society, different actors, and in this case different discourse coalitions around a dispute, discursively meet. As Gamson and Modigliani (1989) have put it, “media discourse is part of the process by which individuals construct meaning, and public opinion is part of the process by which journalists and other cultural entrepreneurs develop and crystallize meaning in public discourse” (p. 2). Another advantage of taking the media as a site of argumentation, is that it allows for the inclusion of both local, national and international discursive productions and practices. After all, media are where political debate, policy decisions, nuclear lobby and civilian protest meet, and where they are merged into discursive units, such as newspaper articles or online news item.

• Analyzing for positioning effects

The theory on discourse coalitions that serves as a theoretical backbone to the analysis suggests that actors within those coalitions actively and intentionally position themselves, depending on what discourse they prefer to adhere to. It is also possible, however, that actors are not positioning themselves but others, forcing them to take up a particular role that they did not intend to play. In relation to the case, politician A might position politician B as ‘anti NPPs, thus indifferent to climate change’, even though politician B is in fact ‘anti NPPs, but proactive about climate change mitigation’, or, more strongly ‘pro NPPs and pro climate”. The analysis will touch upon this effect in further detail, and will illustrate its expression with examples.

(29)

4.2.1 Data selection

Once more specifying ‘boundaries’, the research included in its selection Dutch online news articles that cover the dispute in its Belgian context, and items published on local news websites from the Southern provinces of the Netherlands. Flemish news outlets, digital and print, national and local have been incorporated in the analysis as well. Examples of such outlets include: De Morgen, De Tijd, Het Laatste Nieuws, De Nieuwe Gazet, VOORUIT, Het

Belang van Limburg. Dutch articles that discuss nuclear power and climate change in relation

to a context other than the one in Belgium about Doel and Tihange have been excluded, as well as German or French articles that discuss the Belgian case. Articles have been gathered through online news outlet databases, through digital access to the Belgian Gopress database, acquired via the Munt Library in Brussels. An analogue approach was required to consult older material that was published before the year 2000. This meant scanning through the Mic Perm Catalogue of microfilm-converted newspapers in the Royal Library of Belgium in Brussels.

Concerning the ‘context’ aspect of selection, the focus was on what is published about nuclear energy in Belgium, Doel and Tihange, and climate change (mitigation) around three key events that are significant markers in the development of this debate, each of which has been placed in a time period. More specifically, the ADA has been set up in way that would help shed a light on how presentations of risks in relation to nuclear energy, NPPs, climate change, or a combination of these, emerged or developed from and around these key events. The three key events and time periods around which this ADA has been conducted are:

o Time period 1980-2000

Containing the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine, 1986 o Time period 2000-2015

Containing the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, 2011 o Time period 2015-present

Containing the signing of the Paris Agreement, 2015

The choice to emphasize these three events stems from their resonance in past and current debates over nuclear power, and the dispute over its safety in light of necessity. Chernobyl has been one of the biggest and most influential nuclear disasters to date, and has greatly impacted the way people in Western Europe perceive of nuclear power. Fukushima, on the other hand, was a nuclear disaster with large-scale consequences too, but took place in a time where climate change was already a well-established and recognized issue. What happened then to storylines around risks? Which was more important? Finally, although the Paris Agreement did not unveil

(30)

much new about climate change and what it entails, it is an important marker in that its international ratification first made it very concrete what must be done, globally and by nations individually, to prevent a worst-case climate change scenario.

The number of texts, articles and reports that has been assigned to each of these three time categories are 36, 20 and 16 respectively. As was previously stated, the data in the first category was gathered from Mic Perm. The material in the first category is of a shorter and more varied nature than that of the following two categories, and for this reason outnumbers its counterparts. For the ensuing time categories, the online database Gopress has been consulted. It contains archived (background) articles published on Belgian news outlets. The search words that were used are “Kernenergie”, “Kerncentrale”, “Doel”, “Tihange”, “Publieke opinie”, “Burger” and “België”2_{. It was carefully considered to only use search terms that}

would lead directly to articles about nuclear energy and nuclear power plants in Belgium, without skewing the search into a more specific theme around this issue. To minimize the risk of skewed sampling, and “cherry-picking texts that support (…) personal views and [ignore alternative ones]”, ‘climate’ has not been used as a search term, and neither have positioning words such as ‘support’ or ‘opposition’ (Wodak & Krzyžanowski, 2008, p. 37).

To stick to the three time categories, the search was defined over specific time periods. The analogue Mic Perm search yielded data from 1980, 1981, 1986, 1996, 1997 and 1999. The search within the second time period ran from the beginning of the year 2000 to the 11th_of

December 2015. Another specified search within this category was run from the 11th_{of March}

onwards, which marks the date at which the Fukushima nuclear disaster took place. On the 12th

of December, 2015, the Paris Agreement was signed. As such, this date was taken as the starting point for the last search within the third time period.

4.2.2 Sorting out the data I

The texts that fulfilled the aforementioned criteria, and that were selected through the described procedure, were subsequently gathered in a single file, grouped chronologically within their corresponding time periods. After a careful reading of each individual text, it was summarized right next to, or below, the original, to extract the essence if the content. Salience

2_{Translated: “Nuclear energy”, “Nuclear power plant”, “Doel”, “Tihange”, “Public opinion”,}