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...

Book Review on Powerdown by Richard Heinberg

I am doing a book review on Powerdown by Richard Heinberg. Now, before I chose this book, I didn't know that it was one of the bibles of the Transition Town Movement. Essentially, Powerdown makes the case for peak oil and suggests we have four alternatives for the energy descent that looms.  These are: energy resource wars, technological fixes, powerdown - we cut energy use - and lifeboats where we create refuges where we can. Peak oil is a given. There may be debates on whether you include tar sands and the like, but economic if not physical peak oil is accepted even by the oil industry.

Resource wars are not a great idea, obviously, but there is a new "carve up" of resources (by this I include food and water as well as oil and minerals) already going on. What's interesting is the rejection of the technological fix and the focus on powerdown or creating refuges. Essentially, Heinberg argues that it's too late for technological fixes. So we have to powerdown, or at least some of us will do this with others following after the oil has run out. Powerdown is reducing dependency on oil by producing and consuming local food and energy sources, for example, to create resilient communities. It is the ultimate no growth strategy.

Transition Towns looks to be a genuine social movement that is rapidly growing. It's democratic, open and consenual with groups in the country and in the city. Although not mentioned in any of their literature it's very much following Gramsci's 'praxis'  - doing stuff rather than just a campaign group.

I have a few questions: first - how large and diverse is this movement in terms of numbers? Is it predominantly a liberal white middle class movement? At what point does this become a national powerdown (where you have convinced the majority of the population) rather than lifeboats? And, will this more likely and happen more quickly than the technological approach?

Second, where does business fit in this. If energy descent IS the only option, then Tescos and, perhaps, many more need to change their business model fast - very fast. Perhaps there is no room for Tesco! Is there room for Waitrose and the Co-op perhaps?

Third, what happens to tax revenues - presumably they decline in line with the descent and therefore education, health and so on decline too. I am assuming that defence cuts are one-off savings. Where does government fit into this?

Fourth, why is it energy descent as there is an abundance of energy out there: solar, wind, biochar, waste and, dare I say it, nuclear?

Anyone have any answers or comments?

Selling Hot Air part two

The Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) is something we're going to hear more about in the next few months. Unlike the EU trading system, which for most people is off their radar, the CRC is carbon trading coming closer to home.

From next year, any large organisation in the UK will now have to measure their carbon emissions for energy use and from 2011 they will have to buy carbon allowances (permits) at £12 a tonne of CO2. By large organisation, we're looking at companies that have a turnover of over £50million a year. Under the EU trading scheme, it was very energy intensive companies involved, but the CRC includes supermarkets, car dealerships, commercial property owners, colleges, schools, hospitals and government buildings.

Whereas I was suggesting that the EU trading system has a price floor, the CRC has one and prices cannot fall below £12/tonne. In addition, there is a league table of all companies involved - the less CO2 you emit the higher your league position. This last bit of legislation is very clever: companies might be tempted to pay the cost of pollution by buying carbon allowances, but now they have to consider the impact on their brand if they have a low league table ranking.

Gradually, the UK is carbonising its decision making. If you're a school and you want IT equipment, the person in charge of the budget will need to know what is the carbon impact. Less impact means less cash needed to buy carbon, or more income from selling surplus allowances to carbon hungry businesses. Building a new supermarket will need require calculations on how much future energy it will use to appraise the extra costs of buying carbon allowances. If a school is switching to low carbon IT equipment, then providers will need to go greener themselves; if Tesco are building a green supermarket (and, before you laugh, they are actually doing this!) they will need green architects, builders and so forth. Low carbon decision making will be forced on smaller firms whether they like it or not. The smart ones will be ahead of the game and gain extra business.

The CRC, if it has a successful launch, is likely to be replicated across the EU and the US. The green revolution is starting...Just one question, when is the government going to tackle the elephant in the room? Who will dare to touch transport?