Versus ‘Energiewende’
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 290 Miina Kaarkoski ‘Energiemix’ versus ‘Energiewende’ Competing Conceptualisations of Nuclear Energy Policy in the German Parliamentary Debates of 1991-2001 JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 290 Miina Kaarkoski ‘Energiemix’ versus ‘Energiewende’ Competing Conceptualisations of Nuclear Energy Policy in the German Parliamentary Debates of 1991-2001 Esitetään Jyväskylän yliopiston humanistisen tiedekunnan suostumuksella julkisesti tarkastettavaksi yliopiston Historica-rakennuksen salissa H320 syyskuun 3. päivänä 2016 kello 12. Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by permission of the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Jyväskylä, in building Historica, auditorium H320, on September 3, 2016 at 12 o’clock noon. UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ JYVÄSKYLÄ 2016 ‘Energiemix’ versus ‘Energiewende’ Competing Conceptualisations of Nuclear Energy Policy in the German Parliamentary Debates of 1991-2001 JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 290 Miina Kaarkoski ‘Energiemix’ versus ‘Energiewende’ Competing Conceptualisations of Nuclear Energy Policy in the German Parliamentary Debates of 1991-2001 UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ JYVÄSKYLÄ 2016 Editors Pasi Ihalainen Department of History and Ethnology, University of Jyväskylä Pekka Olsbo, Sini Tuikka Publishing Unit, University Library of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities Editorial Board Editor in Chief Heikki Hanka, Department of Art and Culture Studies, University of Jyväskylä Petri Karonen, Department of History and Ethnology, University of Jyväskylä Paula Kalaja, Department of Languages, University of Jyväskylä Petri Toiviainen, Department of Music, University of Jyväskylä Tarja Nikula, Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä Epp Lauk, Department of Communication, University of Jyväskylä URN:ISBN:978-951-39-6738-3 ISBN 978-951-39-6738-3 (PDF) ISSN 1459-4331 ISBN 978-951-39-6737-6 (nid.) ISSN 1459-4323 Copyright © 2016, by University of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä University Printing House, Jyväskylä 2016 ABSTRACT Kaarkoski, Miina ‘Energiemix’ versus ‘Energiewende’. Competing conceptualisations of nuclear energy policy in the German parliamentary debates of 1991-2001 Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, 2016, 200 p. (Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities ISSN 1459-4323; 290 (nid.) ISSN 1459-4331; 290 (PDF) ISBN 978-951-39-6737-6 (nid.) ISBN 978-951-39-6738-3 (PDF) The Fukushima nuclear accident in March 2011 made ‘die Energiewende’ the mainstream concept in German energy politics. In particular, it marked the most recent phase in a long evolving debate about the use of nuclear energy. This dissertation focuses on the decade from 1991-2001, as this was when greater attention was paid to the demands for energy reform. Indeed, it was in 2001 that the Bundestag finally passed an act to phase out nuclear energy. The study explains the gradual change in policy towards this phasing out in Germany and the eventual mainstream success of Energiewende. It also considers why the act passed in 2001 turned out to be more moderate than had been originally expected. The work contributes to the discussion about the fundamental source of the dispute, and helps to explain the continuity and success of the anti-nuclear discourse. The sources include plenary debates from the Bundestag and Bundesrat; protocols from the Committee on the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety; and selected newspaper articles. The work discusses competing conceptualisations in parliamentary policy debates by analysing micro-level speech acts by individuals which then contributed to semantic shifts at the macro-level of discourse with the politicisation of new topics. The success of Energiewende can be explained by the fact that the parliamentary debates evolved through the deliberate use of language applied to contemporary real world events. Macro- level semantic shifts explain the continuity of the discourse and the relative success of anti-nuclear demands, as the conceptualisations were being constantly brought up-to-date by the parliamentarians and other political actors. Anti-nuclear demands evolved with time, having accreted various meanings from real-life events that gradually transformed the key concepts at the macro- level. These macro-level changes brought the political views of the SPD and CDU at least somewhat closer, even if there was still a significant gap between their views in the early 2000s. Keywords: Germany, parliament, debate, energy policy, nuclear energy, 1990s, 2001 Author Miina Kaarkoski Department of History and Ethnology Univeristy of Jyväskylä P.O. Box 35 40014 (FI) Jyväskylä, Finland [email protected] Supervisors Professor Dr. Pasi Ihalainen Department of History and Ethnology University of Jyväskylä Professor Dr. Jari Ojala Department of History and Ethnology University of Jyväskylä Reviewers Dr. Esa Ruuskanen Department of History University of Oulu Professor Dr. Willibald Steinmetz Department of History Universität Bielefeld Opponent Dr. Esa Ruuskanen Department of History University of Oulu PREFACE Writing a doctoral dissertation is a long process. Mine began in October 2010. Even though I might have had some idea of what to expect at the beginning of this process, only the experience could have taught me what working with a doctoral dissertation truly means. When writing these words in July 2016, the manuscript has already been formally accepted for defence, of course, and the summer holiday begins in just a few days, but somehow the dissertation is still not yet finished. I know now that there will always be more things that the manuscript needs, but at some point you really have to let it go, accept its shortcomings, and move on. Luckily, I will have reached this point very soon! My colleagues, who have been variously experiencing this same journey with their own doctoral dissertations, have told me about the different kinds of situation that they have dreamt about during the process, especially at the points when they needed some motivation to keep going. These dreams have usually concerned the book getting published, or the public defence and the celebration that follows. In the Department of History and Ethnology, we have a tradition of hanging, or more precisely “nailing” the most recent doctoral dissertation in a certain cabinet (naulaus). For some of my colleagues, this has also been a driving force when writing the dissertation. Personally, I have gained strength from the thought that some day I will be at this very point when I can write the preface for my work. So it is with some relish that I can finally write this and know that the work is almost done. At the same time, I want to make it clear how grateful and happy I am and how privileged I feel to have been allowed to experience this long and eventful journey. It has certainly involved hard work and a number of difficult and desperate moments. Still it has been one of the most wonderful experiences in my life, in which time I have also been able to learn and do a great number of other important things than just writing the dissertation itself. It has included working with the best colleagues in the best working community. I want to express my deepest gratitude to Professor Pasi Ihalainen whose inspiration and support were the main reasons why I was willing and able to start this process in the first place. His guidance and assistance has not only helped me throughout the whole process, but also allowed me to start working on a new research project as well. I am very grateful that I will have the opportunity to continue enjoying this rewarding and captivating academic work straight after this doctoral dissertation project. Professor Jari Ojala, as the head of our department and the second supervisor of this work, also deserves my warm gratitude for his constant encouragement and faith in me, and for offering me the space to work and other facilities in our department. I also want to thank Professor Willibald Steinmetz for his encouraging pre-examination statement, and Doctor Esa Ruuskanen for his perceptive and highly competent suggestions that helped to finish the work. The text has been edited and proofread by Alex Reed, who has put a lot of effort into improving its quality. The Department of History and Ethnology and the Faculty of Humanities have enabled this project to take place by offering practical support and the largest share of funding for this project, for which I am very grateful. The project has also been funded by the Science Council of the University of Jyväskylä, the Emil Öhmann Foundation, and Finnish Cultural Foundation. Two projects by the Academy of Finland, “Parliamentary Means of Conflict Resolution in 20th Century Britain” and “Supra- and Transnational Foreign Policy versus National Parliamentary Government, 1914-2014”, have also advanced my work greatly with their broad international networks and travel aids. Discussing and associating with colleagues in seminars, workshops, and in other formal and informal events at home and abroad have, for the large part, made this journey particularly memorable. I want to thank everyone working at the research groups for the Comparative Study of Political Cultures and Postwar Studies and the frequent chats with colleagues in the coffee rooms of Villa Rana and Historica. I am particularly thankful to Laura-Mari Manninen, Teemu Häkkinen, Matti Roitto, and Satu Matikainen with whom I have shared some of the greatest (and the most desperate) moments of this project and whose expertise and friendship mean a lot to me. I also feel special gratitude to Miia Kuha and Emmi Lahti, who I am fortunate to call my friends and with whom I have had the greatest and most therapeutic conversations about our families, work, and life in general. I am most grateful for my wonderful friends outside the work community too. The feeling that you are supported and trusted by your family is crucially important. Even though it is sometimes difficult to explain just how all-consuming a doctoral dissertation project is and how demanding it can be, my family has always shown understanding and support. My mother, Ulla, has especially encouraged me to take education seriously ever since I was a child.