In smarter networks through better narratives, I noted that there needs to be a dominant narrative to counter “folks who’ve got nothing but conspiracies and medieval fantasies to base their arguments upon.” A new frame is required, not factual counter-arguments. This is how George Lakoff explains it, “1) Repetition strengthens the synapses in neural circuits that people use in thinking 2) Whoever frames first has an advantage 3) Negating a frame activates and strengthens it.” Basically, Lakoff states that whoever frames the narrative first has an advantage and that negating a frame only activates and strengthens it. So responding to trolls and conspiracy theorists, which we often feel compelled to do, only makes the buggers stronger — an understanding of my confusion.
Our local electric power utility (NB Power) is proposing a fracked gas and diesel powered electrical generating station in our town, population ±10,000. In one of the nearby towns the local council was given a presentation that used ‘framing’ to show the information imbalances in this situation. The town council proceedings are available on YouTube and the presentation starts just after 8:00 minutes. It is in French.
Stéphane starts by stating that the gas plant is a question of framing (cadrage in French), going on to note that how information is presented influences perception and that NB Power only presented the advantages and does not discuss risks. They use scare tactics of Winter power outages and people freezing in their homes, to push their agenda. Once these narratives are framed, they are hard to dislodge.
This plant will be built by an American company and will import fracked methane gas from the USA for 25 years. The proponents call it a “Swiss Army Knife” to address dips in power, while opponents (I am one) see it as a long-term source of air and water pollution as well as a risk to wildlife on a critical migratory corridor — the Chignecto Isthmus.
What I find most interesting is how those opposing the gas plant are portrayed by the proponents — hippies and tree-huggers comprised of the usual left-wing suspects. Comments on social media by a dedicated group here remind me of Mooks who will do anything to support their Knight (what Venkatesh Rao calls the Internet of Beefs). These Mooks are intent on creating constant doubt and outrage.
The framing by the proponents is focused on economic benefits only, while opponents are concerned with things not found on a balance sheet — health, nature, biodiversity. Proponents state that there will be a critical lack of power by 2028 if this plant is not built while simultaneously saying that the plant will only operate 7% of the time, at a cost of $1.52 billion to build and $3.5 billion to operate. While running, the plant will draw 7 million litres of water per day. Conversely, opponents have shown through expert witness at the utility board hearings that a battery system could be built for $1.2 billion with no recurring fuel costs and no emissions.
This is a story of competing narratives and we will soon see which one will dominate.
