Structural issues for sustainability

The holy grail of climate change - behavourial change - is beginning to get interesting. First the government has launched a series of ads that go beyond the concept of consumers behaving rationally to choices they have. I've posted about the Act on C02 ad and I've just seen another one in today's Observer - I can't find a link for it unfortunately - and yet another TV ad on driving. These ads go beyond the rational behaviour approach and attempt to use more pyschological approaches.

In fact, DEFRA have produced a very useful overview of environmental behaviour and combined with Futerra's rules of the game in climate change communication surely we have enough to get change behaviour started?

Well, not quite. Agency versus structure - the old social science dilemma. The issue is that most people believe that climate change is an issue, but that they are not willing to change their behaviour unless there is a a percieved (there often is a benefit, but it's not always seen in the short-term) financial benefit, or if it is easy or if others do so. Do we have time to experiment whether we can convince people or should we just focus on getting businesses to change and top-down government regulation? At the moment, the government is timid in its approach prefering choice editing and nudge economics.

On the other hand, there are flourishing, if niche, alternative community collective approaches to reducing carbon. For example, transition towns, organic box schemes and car pooling to name but a few.  Not all work, but some go beyond niche and become mainstream. Is Social innovation the holy grail of climate change?

The thing is time. We have 10 years to reduce carbon emissions by 34% and we're unlikely to make it: nuclear won't be back on line until 2020; wind, although growing, is not enough; the Severn Tidal barrier may be complete in 2020; wave energy is still in its infancy; there may be an increase in solar but it's not cost effective; and, yes, we'll have lots of anaerobic digestion or biomass, but it's just not enough. We have to have significant reductions in emissions and energy. It's not, in my opinion, going to come from consumers. We might get some interesting innovations from a few community projects, but it's more cost effective to change business behaviour.

What I can see, however, is some smart businesses realising that there is a lot of innovation from community groups. Would it be so crazy to imagine a large business offering to support community groups with the view that they might benefit from a new way of production or consumption? I can see developers offering land and contributions to people who want to build eco homes and go off grid. I can see supermarkets offering funding for local food networks to understand how it may work. We need radical ideas and smart businesses will know they ain't going to come from their own ranks. They will need to fund mavericks or employ them...

Climate Talks Jargon buster

With many thanks to The Guardian's Damian Carrington

Copenhagen: The venue in December for the final UN negotiations to deliver a successor to the Kyoto treaty. There are preparatory meetings in Bangkok and Barcelona before then.

Carbon intensity: How much fossil fuel you have to burn to make something or deliver a service. Reducing carbon intensity does not mean cutting overall emissions, but it does mean that a country can expand its economy without driving up emissions at the same rate.

Implicit targets: A diplomatic phrase deployed by India to describe targets India has chosen for itself and for which it will not be held to account by anyone else. Appearing to cave in to foreign demands for specific cuts would be political poison in Dehli.

Mitigation: This simply means actions to reduce global warming, most importantly cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

Afforestation: The replanting of trees. About 20% of all global carbon dioxide emissions come from the destruction of forests. Preventing that is the main focus of the UN talks but China is also keen on creating new forests.

Cap and trade: One way of setting a limit on greenhouse gas emissions for a region or industry. Polluters are given carbon permits that add up to the cap. They can then sell permits if the have cut their emissions to those who have not. In theory, it allows a market to deliver cuts efficiently.

Carbon tax: A direct tax on activities that result in carbon emissions. Much less bureaucratic than cap-and-trade but cannot deliver an exact cut in overall emissions.

Offsetting: Paying for reductions in emissions elsewhere to compensate for polluting activities. Popular on a voluntary basis for flights, but criticised on a national level for allowing rich nations to butt their way out of making cuts at home.

Peak emissions: The time at which global greenhouse gas emissions stop growing and begin to fall. Scientists say that year must be 2015 if dangerous climate change is to be averted but current trends will not achieve this.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): The international scientific body, involving thousands of scientists, used by the UN since 1988 to provide a neutral source of information on climate change. Its reports are approved by national governments. It was awarded the Nobel peace prize along with Al Gore.

Is it possible to get an 80% cut in emissions?

One of the questions I wanted to answer was how renewables could meet our energy demand. Last week our class had to complete a report on energy demand for the UK.

One scenario envisaged restricted government expenditure on renewables combined with reductions in demand for energy whereas the other assumed a large increase in government expenditure in renewables, but with no restrictions in demand.

Combined Heat and Power (not strictly renewable, but an alternative energy source that captures the heat from power stations and uses it to warm our homes) Biomass (the burning of biofuels), Wind and Tidal were considered to have the greatest energy output for the least cost and the lowest emissions. Our report assumed the continued decommissioning of nuclear power, but, perhaps surprisingly, that fossil fuels will still contribute at least half of the UK’s energy requirements by 2030. Renewables and alternative energy would contribute about 40% of energy requirements by 2030. This is compared to 5% right now.

The bad news is that unless there is a significant change in policy we will miss the 2020 CO2 emissions target of a 26% reduction set by the Climate Change Act 2008. The good news is that the 2050 target of a decrease of 80% will be met. So what does this mean in real life? Well, it depends in part on your faith in people, governments and markets. If the private sector does not sharply increase investment in renewable energy, then the public will have to cut their demand for energy by a lot. That means reducing air travel, use cars less and improving energy efficiency at home. Alternatively, the government could spend billions on renewables - that means higher taxes, but you might be able to fly and drive a lot more if you have the money.

Either way: a reduction in energy demand or an increase in government expenditure on renewables we will have to pay. The alternative is faith in the unproven Carbon Capture and Storage or in the unpalatable Nuclear option. Give me wind any day...