Apples and horned toads: On the framework-determined nature of the energy debate

Abstract

A common view of the energy problem holds that what is at stake in most energy policy debates are questions of fact that are in principle susceptible to resolution by objective, scientific research. It is argued in this paper that this view is misguided, and that underlying many of the factual issues apparently in dispute are differences at the framework level, that is differences in basic presuppositions and the patterns of thinking employed. By means of an examination of the debate over soft and hard energy paths, it will be argued that framework differences are fundamental to that debate and that such differences are not susceptible to factual resolution. As a result, the debate has taken on the character of a ritualized performance, as each side strives to convince, not their opponents, but policymakers of the rightness of their opinion. Some of the implications of these findings for energy policymaking are explored.