Global discourses of protest and support of offshore wind energy

Abstract

As offshore wind energy (OWE) grows popular, stakeholder support and opposition are critical for ongoing development. Platforms like Twitter (X) allow stakeholders to engage and discuss energy sources, often catalyzing future energy movements and actions. The global nature of wind energy development and the diminished geographical boundaries of social media intersect while studying OWE development. This study explores how social media users discursively construct the global nature of OWE through Twitter. Through a discourse analysis of 4,922 tweets, this project reveals that users readily adopt a “globalization lens” when communicating about OWE. When users adopt the globalization lens, they connect local examples to global goals, generalize activist groups, analyze the value of OWE, call for international support of local or national groups, and position regions and countries against each other as leaders in OWE.

Keywords:

• Discourse analysis
• globalization
• offshore wind
• social media

Developing and introducing new energy sources engage the public in discussion of use, impact, and purpose (Dawley, 2014). Since January 2020, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) reports that over 600 offshore sites have begun permits and construction of wind energy turbine systems- equaling a 300% increase in the development of sites over three years (IRENA, 2023). Throughout their development, OWE projects require supportive actions from stakeholders like national/state governments, local governments, oceanic and environmental agencies, engineering firms and developers, regional energy companies, and citizen activist groups (Memmott et al., 2021; Neukirch, 2016). While scholarship identifies these stakeholders, future site development may rely upon how these groups communicate support and opposition while focusing on the global nature of OWE. Recent examples of projects abandoned after opposition demonstrate the importance of public discourses (Gupta et al., 2019; MacKinnon et al., 2019).

As noted by Borch and Dahlgaard (2020), stakeholders discuss wind energy online through social media sites like Twitter (X)¹ that connect users globally. From January 2020 to December 2022, the #windenergy hashtag was used 1.4 million times, becoming a central space for users to discuss global projects. Journalists anecdotally credit the hashtag with (1) connecting supporters and opposition internationally, (2) negotiating meaning and response to organizational involvement in OWE, and (3) publicizing activist messages to a wider audience (Groom, 2022; Lopez, 2022). Previous studies call for an academic investigation into offshore development because, historically, public responses can bolster or prevent future development (Schmidt, 2017).

Acampa et al. (2023) argue tweets featuring shared hashtags can be characterized as part of a spectrum of communication types designated by intended outcomes, strategy, and community identity. This includes “debates,” “asynchronous constructions,” and “meaning-making partnerships.” When centered upon controversial or new topics, each type frames how users interact, frame, and discursively position their comments. As Canute et al. (2023) noted, tweets within a shared hashtag dataset can be analyzed wholistically or individually for their typology as individuals apply group norms and individual communication strategies. Because typology lends insight into group norms and collective intention, identifying the type of posts using a shared wind energy hashtag is crucial to understanding engagement in the subject. Thus, this study aims to answer:

RQ1

: How do users adopt discussion post styles when using #windenergy to discuss OWE?

As offshore wind development transcends regional boundaries and involves cooperation among states (New York and New Jersey), countries (Denmark and UK) or regional blocs (EU and Turkey), it is discursively constructed by political leaders using the globalization lens (Jessup & Rubenstein, 2012; Lim & Prakash, 2015). Pingali (2007) defines the “globalization lens” as language or discourses constructing projects by their required inter-regional cooperation and cross-boundary impact. Leaders use offshore wind turbines as examples of global cooperation and unified sustainability efforts (Johansen & Upham, 2019). As theorized by Luoma-Aho and Canel (2020), the discursive adoption of the globalization lens is significant because it may result in five outcomes: (1) unite diverse communities around causes, (2) generate support for inter-regional cooperation, (3) gain media attention from non-local sources, (4) bring in resources from global activist networks, and (5) enhance the perception of cause popularity. Despite these theoretical outcomes Luoma-Aho and Canel (2020) call for applied research examining how these outcomes may be articulated as goals within energy projects. This study identifies how citizens construct these goals while adopting a globalization lens.

Research also establishes the globalization lens in citizen communication (Zhu, 2017). The development of offshore wind offers an opportunity to examine how citizen users discursively construct global cooperation in online communication because of the inter-regional nature of these projects (Frömming et al., 2017). Maragh-Lloyd and Corsbie-Massay’s (2022) work finds Twitter to be a frequent space of inter-regional communication on policy projects and calls for studies of user discursive construction of inter-regional cooperation, particularly in spaces where opposition can impact project outcomes. Currently, citizen use of the globalization lens is unknown in online discussions of offshore wind development despite digital opposition and support (Sanei, 2022). Thus, this project aims to answer:

RQ2

: How do Twitter users adopt the globalization lens to construct OWE projects discursively?

Examining social media content about OWE shows the topic generates both support and opposition, often extended from existing international tensions and conflicts (such as concerns about outsourcing). Offshore wind exacerbates these because many projects require regional and global cooperation (ex: Orsted is a European company working in NJ) and because the projects take place outside of the traditional landmass of a region and require inter-region support (ex: cooperation between Denmark for project design, China for parts production, and USA for labor). Several studies show that the public was more likely to use Twitter to formalize support or opposition when they relate current events to global social issues or concerns from 2010 to 2022 (Chen et al., 2021). Other energy project social movements are organized through Twitter, and it is unknown if a similar pattern occurs here (Hopke, 2015; Pattison & Marichal, 2022). For example, global users encouraged followers to join existing pro and anti-nuclear power groups when they posted about proposals for local projects (Bakerman et al., 2022). Thus, this project aims to identify if a similar pattern occurs with OWE so future studies can investigate how outcomes are tied to such developments:

RQ3

: How is Twitter used to formalize support or opposition to OWE projects?

Methodology

Data acquisition

With a focus on how users discursively construct wind energy and globalization, this project examines tweets using “#windenergy” collected using the “TwitteR” package from CRAN from January 1, 2020 until December 31, 2022 (This 24-month period represents the greatest increase growth in OWE according to IRENA). This initial dataset included 1.4 million tweets, garnering approximately 745 million impressions. From this dataset, search criteria specified only posts including “#windenergy” combined with any keywords selected based on the top Twitter hashtag related to OWE at the time of data collection: “offshore.” This search resulted in 29,114 posts. Then, a Python script was written and applied to the dataset to remove any retweets (repeated messages), which resulted in 4,922 original posts. The results below were derived from the dataset of 4,922 posts but were reviewed in the context of the 29,114 posts (see Appendix A for a step-by-step procedure). The final dataset included all textual and visual elements (emojis), links from each posting, user information including username, geographic tagging data, time/date of posting, and minimal engagement data such as re-tweets, comments/replies, and favorites. See Appendix B for a description of the dataset and users.

Discourse analysis

This project adopts a discursive analysis approach from Gee (2011) and Lindstadt et al. (2022) to analyze Tweets about offshore wind and globalization. This approach allows for qualitative insight into the patterns of discourse, terms of reference, and constructions that describe the impact of offshore wind (Moghaddam, 2022). A team of researchers applied Gee’s seven meaning-making tasks to identify a set of discourses that exhaustively reflect the nuances of #offshorewind and globalization. For reliability purposes, examples from the dataset are provided with each discourse. See Appendix A for a step-by-step procedure of the acquisition process and Appendix C for an application of meaning-making tasks.

Discourse 1: Local examples, international goals

First, international users shared stories from local projects to support or oppose OWE development elsewhere. For example, “The construction of a #windfarm in Poland PL begins! Clean and home grown energy for 40.000 families there. Let’s continue leading the #EnergyTransition around the world. #renewables” (Yacoubou, 2022). This self-identified Polish user² identified the Polish project, then linked it to a global movement they discursively label as “energy transition.” Posts like these connect local projects to global goals and connect to a global movement. “EnergyTransition” appeared in 91 tweets (<1%), but like this post, it was adopted when describing large-scale global adoption of green energy sources that replace traditional sources like coal or oil. Other adjectives associated with “EnergyTransition” included “needed” (18 times), “anticipated” (12 times), and “global” (45 times).

However, reflections on local and global connections were not all supportive, and some users saw developments in wind energy hurting power availability and reliability. For example, a user from North Carolina reflects on their power outage and connects it to his energy company’s work in Delaware: “Sure, North Carolinians are facing rolling blackouts when it’s not even historically that cold outside, but take comfort knowing our power companies will be building offshore wind farms near Wilmington Deleware that will do absolutely nothing about it” (Rando, 2022). Here, the critical nature of the tweet illustrates the user’s frustration over the national approach of his energy company. Similarly, this user identified the source of renewable energy originating on Indigenous land, thus creating tension between regions: #DYK An estimated 54% of #EnergyTransition minerals are located on or near #IndigenousPeoples’ land, underscoring the need for free, prior and informed consent #FPIC. (Doeer, 2022). The connection between the regionality of projects and global impact was framed negatively, whereas offshore wind projects elsewhere harmed the local experience.

Discourse 2: Activists as global groups

Second, users discursively constructed activist groups as global, speaking about activism without boundaries such as geographic divides. Posts suggest that wind energy transcends regional boundaries through language like “world” and “global.” For example, “ … metals necessary to build offshore wind, solar, and EV batteries by these dates aren’t able to deliver the required amounts (many won’t be able to deliver a small fraction of what’s necessary). The world must develop an energy transition policy” (Bass, 2022). Here, this user adopts the phrase “the world must” to summarize problems and propose solutions. Rather than providing a specific or local example, this user speaks generally and applies the proposed solution to all situations. This discourse reinforces the global connection of wind energy initiatives by erasing the uniqueness of each project and applying a one-size diagnosis of problems and proposal of solutions.

Further, reflections on wind energy discursively construct these groups as global rather than local. For example, this user describes types of activists without local or specific examples, reinforcing them as global positions: “The biggest war in eco-activism right now is between old-school conservationists who think all development of nature is bad, and climate activists who support development that reduces carbon intensity. An offshore wind farm, for example, would divide these two groups” (Chapman, 2022). Using language that divides activists along ideological rather than geographical lines, OWE is presented using globalizing discourses that connect stakeholders through an opinion to an energy source.

Discourse 3: Constructing value

Third, users described the value of OWE using projects from other regions. For example, an exchange featured a Danish supporter of projects happening outside Frederikshavn. An American replied, “I’m all for offshore wind but you know Denmark only gets 10% of their energy from offshore wind right? We still need O&G until we start building nuclear at scale” (Flyvholm, 2022) Responded by a German user:

That’s energy overall. Nuclear power plants create electricity. Denmark doesn’t have a problem with decarbonising that. Denmark gets nearly 70% of electricity from renewables. Just like Germany they have a problem with transport and heating – too slow EV and heat pumps adoption.

This exchange is filled with references to global projects to challenge and support wind energy. This reinforces the globalization lens by comparing projects while discursively constructing the value of OWE. Often, exchanges compare offshore wind to other energy sources, such as nuclear power. In another example, two users replied to each other about the cost of offshore wind development. After one German complained it caused tax prices to increase, a British user replied, “Your bill is not high because of wind energy alone… Global energy prices are main reason and spike in 2022 was caused by fascist Putin” (Abbott, 2022). The users debate the reason for increases in tax and inflation while blaming correlating issues like war and energy.

Discourse four: Formalization

Fourth, users called for creating formal international organizations in support or opposition. Tweets like this asked users to join official groups or form their own to impact development. For example, this US user posted: “Don’t let support for offshore wind be drowned out by fossil fueled campaigns! Offshore wind = hope! Speak out!@NJWindWorks @NJLCV” (Cronheim, 2022). Here, the user encouraged followers to verbalize support and join the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters. Mentioning formal groups in tweets is a way to direct users to act and support an organization that aligns with their opinions. Other organizations include activist groups (Sierra Club, World Wildlife Foundation, and the School Strike for Climate) and government agencies (UN’s Sustainable Development Taskforce). Even organizations linked their efforts to nonprofits, encouraging followers to support these groups: “Engineered Rigging has joined the @offshorewindUSA, a nonprofit dedicated to growing the OWE industry in the U.S.A.” (Engineered Rigging, 2021). By linking to these organizations, tweets directed users to join existing communities with established opinions on OWE.

Importantly, there were no calls to create new groups or protest actions within the dataset. Unlike the findings of scholarship on energy protest and support, users did not propose any new petitions, organize in-person protest activities (marches), or engage in collective action behaviors (buycotts/boycotts). This may reflect that without regional boundaries, the global nature of the discourse makes it difficult to direct protest toward a singular entity.

Discussion

Although all three discussion post styles were apparent in the dataset, most posts fit within Acampa et al. (2023) “asynchronous constructions.” In this type, users posted content using a related hashtag, but rarely interacted with each other through replies or comments on other posts (less than 5% of tweets included replies). Users often posted about similar topics, but did not link them in response to each other, as would be expected with debates or discussions. For example, these two users post within hours of each other about the same offshore site but do not acknowledge each other’s content: “Whales and other marine life are still dying. The crisis at the NJ Shore remains urgent” (Marty, 2022), and “86 #whales have washed up dead on the East Coast from December 2022 til now” (Renee, 2022). Tweets like this support the applied call of Borch and Dahlgaard (2020) and demonstrate how discursive types may appear using the globalization lens. In this dataset, asynchronous discussion means that users contribute to discourses and help construct meaning without direct ties to other participants. Canute et al. (2023) found that asynchronous discussion is associated with diminished activist productivity and limited group centrality, such as the inability to form non-digital actions like protest group formation. This aligns with discourse four’s finding that no one proposed new activist groups but instead linked to existing efforts. Future research should study how these connections diminish activist productivity or limit group centrality. It may also reflect a missing combined hashtag for offshore wind energy. This project relies upon the use of #windenergy and the keyword “offshore.” This finding may reflect this search parameter and a unified hashtag or keyword of both concepts should be an area of future research.

Combined, the first two discourses construct wind energy projects through a globalization lens. The calls for globalization, the erasing of geographic boundaries, and the connection of local projects to global goals demonstrate that users construct wind energy through globalization language. This answers the second question and supports Bakerman et al. (2022) findings that users readily adopt the globalization lens and acknowledge wind energy as an inter-regional initiative requiring support from international stakeholders. Second, the globalization lens was also used when users opposed offshore wind development. Building on Pattison and Marichal (2022) findings, users adopted three characterizations of their opposition: (1) draining local resources to help other areas, (2) unequal benefits and costs between regions, and (3) questions of impact. For example, Upadaya’s (2022) tweet summarized these oppositions as identified in his reading of other tweets: “curious to see deeper dives into why the attempt to auction off parcels in the Gulf of Mexico for offshore wind was such a flop; at a glance, seems like the fundamentals around local resources, cheap prices, and no mandates are not good for offshore wind” (Upadaya, 2022). This confirms Zhu’s (2017) finding that citizen communication can use the globalization lens and answers Sanei’s (2022) call by providing discursive categories for its application. It also demonstrates the importance of studying how anti-wind activists construct criticism of energy development. Initially, “energy transition” reflected how offshore wind may impact electricity production worldwide. By the end of 2022, it became a term of reference for those critiquing the replacement of fossil fuels and the growth of offshore wind. For example, “The world population is still growing, and people are getting richer. That means more energy. Sounds like bad news for the energy transition” (Tveitdal, 2022). This change should be studied to understand the evolution of critique.

Finally, the globalization lens appeared in calls to formalize support and opposition to offshore wind development through partnerships or mentions of existing organizations. While these actions are locally based, the calls for global support demonstrate how users see the projects connecting and relying upon resources from multiple regions. Connecting with established energy-focused organizations was the only formalization technique adopted by users.

The globalization lens is utilized within the discourses of this dataset as users describe OWE development. This is similarly established in other stakeholder communication, such as news coverage. It is unclear how journalist and user adoption may link or impact each other, but a potential relationship should be investigated further.

As OWE projects move beyond licensing and begin physical development, public engagement with the energy source is likely. Continued monitoring of user discourses may help developers adjust communication strategies, policymakers motivate interest by linking projects globally, and users cultivate support and opposition. This dataset indicates that the globalization lens remains a necessary discursive tool for stakeholders.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Data collection for this project took place while the platform was called “Twitter” It since changed its name to “X.”

2. When users provide geographical data through their bios or previous posts, it is labeled as “self-identified” in the findings section. Otherwise, geographical data is included based on geo-tagging collected through R.

Appendix A.

Step-by-step procedure

1. Tweets “#windenergy” were collected using the “TwitteR” package from CRAN from January 1, 2020 until December 31, 2022.

2. From initial dataset, search criteria were used to narrow to offshore wind development: search criteria specified only posts including “#windenergy” combined with keywords selected based on top Twitter hashtags related to OWE at the time of data collection: “offshore,” “turbine,” “power.”

3. A Python script was written and applied to the dataset to remove any retweets (repeated messages).

4. The final dataset (including all visual and textual elements, replies, and metadata) was reviewed independently by researchers to apply Gee’s (2011) meaning-making tasks. Each researcher developed a set of discourses.

5. Researchers met and reviewed proposed discourses. A final set of four discourses was agreed upon.

6. Researchers re-reviewed each discourse for examples from the text.

Appendix B.

Dataset description

Table

Initial data collection: “#wind energy”	1.4 million tweets, 745 million impressions
Narrowed data collection: “offshore,” “turbine,” “power”	29,114 posts, 91 million impressions
Final data collection (without retweets)	4,922 posts, 18 million impressions
Number of countries represented in final dataset	41 (Denmark: 764 tweets; USA: 314 tweets; Germany: 310 tweets)
Average number of followers of authors of tweets in final dataset	298
Average number of replies of tweets in final dataset	4.2

Appendix C.

Gee’s meaning making tasks

Table

Task	Description (adapted from Gee, 2011)	Example
Significance	Importance of energy source, stakeholders, or impact	“OWE is the most important step we can take to prevent climate change.”
Practices	Describes the energy source, attribution, or impact for stakeholders	“I’m all for working with European companies, but make sure there were no American ones able to construct offshore wind turbines first.”
Identities	Adopts terms of reference or adjectives to describe the energy source, stakeholders, or impact	“Denmark will be the world’s leader on wind energy.”
Relationships	Connects the energy source, stakeholders, or impact to other events, or foci	“If we wait around for OWE to be perfect, what will LCV do in the meantime?”
Politics	Reflects on the social, historical, civic, or political nature of the energy source, stakeholders, or impact	“No one wants to take offshore wind on because it’s a decade long project. They will be long out of office before its done and someone else will take credit for it.”
Connections	Discusses the relevance of the energy source, stakeholders, or impact by comparing or relating to other issues	“Offshore wind is the opposite of coal. It’s clean, green, and could be even cheaper.”
Sign systems and knowledge	Uses common language practices, jargon, or cultural knowledge	“Like we did with anti-fracking, let’s show support for offshore wind.”