1 / 39

WHY CLIMATE CHANGE IS LIKE A CHRISTMAS TREE

HOW TO EAT AN ELEPHANT: A Bottom-Up Approach to Climate Policy Steve Rayner James Martin Professor of Science & Civilization University of Oxford, Honorary Professor of Climate Change & Society University of Copenhagen. WHY CLIMATE CHANGE IS LIKE A CHRISTMAS TREE.

cheung
Télécharger la présentation

WHY CLIMATE CHANGE IS LIKE A CHRISTMAS TREE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HOW TO EAT AN ELEPHANT:A Bottom-Up Approach to Climate PolicySteve RaynerJames Martin Professor of Science & CivilizationUniversity of Oxford,Honorary Professor of Climate Change & SocietyUniversity of Copenhagen

  2. WHY CLIMATE CHANGE IS LIKE A CHRISTMAS TREE

  3. THE KYOTO BANDWAGON COLLAPSED AT COPENHAGEN

  4. THE KYOTO ARCHITECTURE - A CASE OF THEWRONGTROUSERS

  5. THREE MISLEADING ANALOGIES

  6. THERIGHTTROUSERS HAVE THREE TECHNOLOGY LEGS! • Energy technology modernization • Technology to cope with climate variability • Remediation technology (geoengineering)

  7. ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES

  8. THE CHALLENGE IS STAGGERING (IPCC)

  9. IPCC PROJECTIONS OVER-OPTIMISTIC (Pielke Jr)

  10. AMBITIOUS EMISSIONS TARGETS ARE UNREALISTIC

  11. WHY IS EMISSIONS MITIGATION AN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PROBLEM? • The Kaya identity is expressed in the form: F = P * (G / P) * (E / G) * (F / E) = P * g * e * f where F is global CO2 emissions from human sources, P is global population, G is world GDP and g = (G/P) is global per-capita GDP, E is global primary energy consumption and e=(E/G) is the energy intensity of world GDP, and f=(F/E) is the carbon intensity of energy • Emissions = Population x Wealth x Technology • Population and wealth restriction are not politically attractive • Technology as “social systems mediated by materials & devices

  12. ENERGY MODERNIZATION: A CREATIVE IMPERATIVE

  13. OBSTACLES TO ENERGY MODERNIZATION

  14. TECHNOLOGIES ARE SOCIALLY EMBEDDED QWERTYUIOP

  15. INFRASTRUCTURE CREATES PATH DEPENDENCY

  16. ELIMINATING THE OLD World Energy Mix

  17. CAP & TRADE CANNOT WORK IN TIME: $80-100 BILLION NEEDED FOR RDD&D cost carbon non-C time

  18. NEED FOR PUBLICLY FUNDED RDD&D • New technology faces “the valley of death” 3-12 years • Public funding required to reduce business risk • Small carbon tax ($5/tonne) could raise $80-150 billion/year • Opportunities for India and China – absent from Kyoto • Climate sceptics respond positively to energy security concerns

  19. HOW TO DISTRIBUTE A CLIMATE FUND • Avoid errors of 70s-80s • Prizes • Allow competition between diverse portfolios • Lessons from military procurement

  20. TECHNOLOGY FOR COPING WITH CLIMATE VARIABILITY

  21. ARE EXTREME EVENTS INCREASING?

  22. CLIMATE CHANGE OR ASSET LOCATION?

  23. 1925

  24. CLIMATE PORNOGRAPHY!

  25. ALREADY HAPPENING

  26. NEED FOR FLEXIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE

  27. POOR ARE HIGHLY VULNERABLE

  28. LEARNING FROM CREATIVITY OF MARGINAL SOCIETIES

  29. FLOATING COMMUNITIES REAL & IMAGINED

  30. MALADAPTATION CREATES UNWANTED FEED BACKS

  31. THE CULPRIT

  32. WHICH INCREASES DEMAND FOR THESE

  33. TIME FOR A NEW LOOK AT OLD TECHNOLOGY

  34. REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY “Deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change” • Technological imaginaries • Heterogeneous practices • Imagined absence of incumbents

  35. HOW MIGHT WE DO IT?

  36. WHAT ARE THE OBSTACLES? • Moral hazard • Ecosystems disruption • Technical & economic lock-in • Governance arrangements • Potential to disrupt existing policy architecture

  37. THE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL DILEMMA • Solution is flexibility & corrigibility by avoiding premature lock-in • Technological monoculture • Capital intensiveness • Long lead times • Hubristic claims • etc

  38. OXFORD PRINCIPLES • Geoengineering to be regulated as a public good • Public participation in decision making • Disclosure of geoengineering research & open publication of results • Independent assessment of impacts • Governance arrangements to be clear before deployment

  39. CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT SIMPLY A TECHNOLOGY OR POLICY DESIGN PROBLEM IT IS A CHALLENGE TO THE IMAGINATION

More Related