Marit Heppe

Abstract: In the context of accelerating increases in global temperature and uncertainties around energy security, new oil and gas projects have grown increasingly salient within public discourse. Those already in operation are estimated to emit 140% more carbon than allowed for 1.5℃. Approving all new projects would heighten this number to 190%, moving well above the already critical 2℃. As a consequence, narratives around projects are fervently presented through media platforms as well as organized activist responses, at times resulting in disruptions in projected oil and gas projects (OGPs). The literature on the disruption of new OGPs shows that resistance movements have been successful in restricting fossil fuel (FF) projects. However, this body of literature largely does not cover the role of media representations of these projects, the actions that prove effective in curbing these, and the potential effect of international relations on their development. Therefore, this thesis aims to provide an answer to the central research question “Under what conditions are counter-hegemonic movements successful in halting new European oil and gas projects and what is the role of mainstream media in moderating this association, with special reference to the UK Cambo oil field and Rosebank oil and gas field?” To approach this research question, this thesis builds upon Neo-Gramscian Theory placing concepts of hegemony and agency at the center of the analysis. Six interviews with climate activists are conducted and 97 newspaper articles from the two most popular UK mainstream media platforms are analyzed. These are examined through the method of thematic and frame analysis respectively. The results show that the mainstream media outlets increasingly mention concepts such as energy security and job security after the Russian invasion of Ukraine (RIU), framing new OGPs as necessary and beneficial for future affairs to the general public. Therefore, although the long-term goal is claimed to lie with Net Zero pledges and climate leadership, narratives of energy security take precedence over those of climate justice and mitigation. Hence, hegemonic discourses are connected to the promise of socio-economic benefits. Contrastingly, counter-hegemonic discourses are connected to the warning of socio-economic costs. Counter-hegemonic narratives are shown to gain support and momentum under several conditions, each moderated by platforms of mainstream media. These require (1) the general climate to be favorable to counter-hegemonic agents of change (CHAOCs); (2) opposing narratives from institutions and media platforms to be weak; (3) the counter-hegemonic movements to reach multi-level support within institutional, legislative, and network spheres; and (4) international scrutiny, in which CHAOCs stress narratives of costs and morality on the international stage, thereby building upon newly emerging norms against FF.