How contested sources of energy such as shale gas are perceived in frontier countries considering their development is incredibly important to national and international climate policies. The UK shale development case is of particular interest currently as the Government attempts to position the UK as a pioneer of European, safe, sustainable shale gas development. We conduct a mixed-methods analysis of the UK policy debate on shale gas development involving 30 stakeholder interviews and 1557 political documents. This empirical focus extends the existing literature by identifying the use of frames in and through the institutions and practices of formal UK politics. We identify nine key frames and their associated storylines, analyse their use over time, and compare these findings with other national case studies. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given most UK Governments within our timeframe have supported shale development, pro-shale development frames dominate in the policy debate; however, we also find a high level of anti-shale development frame use, suggesting a deep and ongoing framing contest in national formal political sites. We find in particular a more prominent focus on land-use issues and impacts on the landscape than other UK studies or other national contexts. Conceptually, the study puts forward an integrative approach to the related concepts of frames and storylines, as well as arguments concerning the impotence of storylines in anticipatory political debate and the polyvalence of framing strategies. Questions about governance are raised by the general lack of consensus over the framing of shale development within formal political sites, let alone amongst the broader public; and by the lack of a coherent response from the Government to criticisms of its approach. Finally, we reflect on the apparent lack of evidence for Hajer’s ‘communicative miracle’ in our case, and speculate as to whether the lack of broad-based resonance of the ‘bridge’ storyline signals trouble for the positive-sum thinking of ecological modernisation.

考虑到边境地区的发展，如何看待页岩气等有争议的能源对国家和国际气候政策极为重要。目前，随着英国政府试图将英国定位为欧洲，安全，可持续的页岩气开发的先驱，英国页岩开发案引起了人们的特别关注。我们对英国关于页岩气开发的政策辩论进行了多种方法的分析，涉及30个利益相关方访谈和1557个政治文件。通过确定正式英国政治体制和实践中框架的使用，这种经验重点扩展了现有文献。我们确定了9个关键框架及其相关的故事情节，分析了它们随着时间的使用，并将这些发现与其他国家案例研究进行了比较。也许不足为奇 鉴于在我们的时间框架内，大多数英国政府都支持页岩开发，因此，在政策辩论中，赞成页岩开发框架占主导地位；但是，我们也发现反页岩开发框架的使用水平很高，这表明在国家正式政治场所进行的持续深入的构架竞赛。我们发现，与其他英国研究或其他国家背景相比，我们尤其关注土地使用问题及其对景观的影响。从概念上讲，该研究针对框架和故事情节的相关概念提出了一种综合方法，并针对预期政治辩论中故事情节的无能为力和框架策略的多样性提出了论点。关于治理的问题是由于人们对正式政治场所内的页岩开发框架普遍缺乏共识，更不用说在广大公众中了；政府缺乏对批评其做法的一致回应。最后，我们反思在我们的案例中显然缺乏哈耶尔“交流奇迹”的证据，并推测缺乏“桥梁”故事情节的广泛共鸣是否预示着对生态现代化的正和思维的麻烦。