Talking About Shale in Any Language

Abstract

Discourse over hydraulic fracturing around the world has been contentious and divisive. The way this discourse will proceed matters. As incidents from Poland to Pennsylvania reflect, discourse that begins from adversarial positions tends to divide the participants in the debate into “tribes.” Once tribal identifications are engrained, participants tend to defend these identity positions based on affiliation and to become deaf to the positions of others. Real communication becomes difficult as each side goes to war. Some jurisdictions have begun to learn these lessons and adopt new processes for addressing identity-based conflicts that underlie hydraulic fracturing debate. This chapter highlights the need for more such innovative approaches beyond strict bargaining over resource allocation in order to prevent these conflicts from becoming intractable.