CEEN 590 Sustainable Energy as a Social and Political Challenge

http://ceen590a-forestry.sites.olt.ubc.ca/

1

Today’s agenda

Simulation A path to a clean

energy system Why challenge is

so formidable (Victor)

Carbon lock-in science-policy

dilemma 2

Simulation

Scenario: Amidst escalating tensions among Premiers over energy issues, the Prime Minister has convened a multistakeholder forum of government, industry, and societal representatives in an effort to force consensus on a National Energy Strategy.

Assessment:group policy brief (40% of grade)

due Tuesday April 8 (4000-5000 words) marking guidelines here CEEN 590 paper Marking Guidelines March 10 1013

participation in a mock multi-stakeholder consultation on BC Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan (15% of grade) March 26

Agenda (to be updated)9:00-10:00 Initial Presentation from

Caucuses (5 minutes each)10:00-10:45 Facilitator Identification

of areas of agreement and disagreement

10:45-11:15 Break:  Group meetings, refreshment (bring you own)

11:15-12:30 Narrow range of disagreements

12:30-1:00 Establish consensus position or range of options

3

Simulation – Objective

Objective: The objectives of this exercise are to develop practical skills — teamwork, research, and communication — necessary for constructive participation in policy development, while simultaneously developing a deep understanding of one crucial component of energy policy.

4

Simulation - Organization

Organization:  Participating students will be divided into ten groups reflecting different stakeholders involved in the process:

Government of British Columbia Government of Alberta Government of Ontario Government of Quebec Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Clean Energy Canada Assembly of First Nations Canadian Council of Chief Executives Unifor David Suzuki Foundation 5

Simulation - process

Students will be assigned to groups based on random selection. Students are expected to consult “real world” versions of their groups.

There will be a mock multi-stakeholder consultation during extended class time on March 26.

Groups will give a 5 minute presentation on their position two weeks before that, March 12.

Groups are also responsible for selecting their representative (and an alternate) to speak and negotiate for them during the consultation.

Each group only has one delegate during the consultation (although the initial presentation can be given by another group member).

Students are responsible for identifying appropriate resource materials to support their briefs and arguments.

6

Simulation assessment

group policy brief (40% of grade) due Tuesday April 8 (4000-5000 words) marking guidelines here CEEN 590 paper Marking Guidelines March 10 1013

participation in a mock multi-stakeholder consultation (15% of grade) March 26

7

Feasibility of Decarbonization: California Case Study

Sustainable Energy Policy 8

Feasibility of Decarbonization

March 19, 2013 Sustainable Energy Policy 9

Feasible of Decarbonization

Sustainable Energy Policy 10

11

12

Another vision of clean energy system

“We suggest producing all new energy with [water, wind, and solar] by 2030 and replacing the pre-existing energy by 2050. Barriers to the plan are primarily social and political, not technological or economic. The energy cost in a WWS world should be similar to that today”

Jacobson, M.Z., Delucchi, M.A., Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials. Energy Policy (2010),

Victor’s 3 central political challenges

1. Very deep cuts to GHG emissions are required

Long residence time of CO2 in atmosphere – given rate of emissions stock is hard to reverse

2. Costs immediate, benefits uncertain and distant in time

“time inconsistency problem”3. Global nature of problem creates

spatial inconsistency: local costs, global benefits

13

14

Hoberg’s version: Why climate action is so hard politically

Cost of MitigationBenefits of Mitigation

Relatively certain Highly uncertain

Now Distant in Time

Here Global

Victor’s 3 myths about policy process

Scientist’s myth: scientific research can determine the safe level of global warming

Environmentalist’s myth: global warming is a typical environmental problem

Engineer’s myth: once cheaper new technologies are available, they will be adopted

15

Path Dependence

16

Sustainable Energy Policy 17

Sustainable Energy Policy 18

Evolution of technical systems

Increasing returns result from Scale economies Learning economies Adaptive expectations Network economies

Sustainable Energy Policy 19

Techno-institutional complex

Not discrete technological artifactsComplex system of technologies

embedded in a powerful conditioning social context of public and private institutions

Technological systems – technological lock-in

Institutional lock-in Private organizations governmentalSustainable Energy Policy 20

February 2, 2011 Sustainable Energy Policy 21

Sustainable Energy Policy 22

Science and Politics

23

Core message:

Deficit Model: “You just don’t understand” more information will resolve conflicts

and produce appropriate policy responseMembers of the public strain their

responses to science controversies through their value systems

Social science helps explain how this works

24

Kahan et al

Science comprehension thesis: members of the public do not take climate change as seriously as scientists because they don’t understand the science

Cultural cognition thesis: individuals form perceptions of societal risks that cohere with the values characteristics of groups with which they identify

25

26

27

Motivated reasoning

motivated cognition: unconscious tendency to fit processing of information to conclusions that suit some end or goal biased information search: seeking out (or

disproportionally attending to) evidence that is congruent rather than incongruent with the motivating goal

biased assimilation: crediting and discrediting evidence selectively in patterns that promote rather than frustrate the goal

identity-protective cognition: reacting dismissively to information the acceptance of which would experience dissonance or anxiety. 

Daniel Kahan, “What Is Motivated Reasoning and How Does It Work?, Science and Religion Today May 4, 2011.

28

29

The politics of science: Classic view: separation

Science

(facts)

Politics

(values)

Truth

30

Politics of Science:Recognition of “Trans-science”

Jasanoff and Wynne 1998

31

Politics of ScienceConstructivist View

Politics

Science

32

Politics of ScienceConstructivist View (when pressed)

Politics

Science

33

Politics and Science

Policy reflects value judgments, but embodies causal assumptions

Causal knowledge frequently very uncertain, undermining power of science

actors adopt the scientific arguments most consistent with their interests

“science” becomes a contested resource for actors in the policy process, by lending credibility to arguments

the body of credible science bounds the range of legitimate arguments, but only loosely

34

Politics and Science (cont)

Scientific controversies are frequently more about underlying value conflicts e.g., conservation vs. development

35

A continuum

Science Politics

Regulatory Science

Regulatory Science: Scientific assumptions adopted for the purpose of policy-making

36

Regulatory Science Approach Some causal assumptions are better than others

– science helps Some policies are better reflections of society’s

distribution of preferences than others -- democratic institutions help

Avoid: political decisions made by scientists and scientific judgments being made by politicians

Prefer: transparent justification for decisions Reveals boundary where scientific advice ends and

value judgments begins Promotes accountability

Next week

Formal governance – choice of case?

37