CEEN 590 Sustainable Energy as a

Social and Political Challenge

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

How to read an academic paper

• What’s the main argument (or puzzle)?• What subsidiary arguments support it?• Are there underlying or explicit value

assumptions?• What evidence is used to support the

argument?• Does the evidence support the argument?• Do other (better?) arguments support the

observed outcomes? 3

Sample examPart V: Short answer (guideline: 50-75 words). Answer three of the six questions that follow. 10 points each, total 30%. Write legibly. Explicitly incorporate course concepts and readings.

1. According to David Victor, why is global warming such a hard problem to solve?

2. According to Hoberg and Taylor in “Between Consent and Accommodation,” what are the rules for how governments need to consider First Nations concerns in decision-making?

3. Describe Unruh’s concept of “carbon lock-in” and explain the challenges it poses for developing sustainable energy policy.

4. Using the Norman Ruff reading “Executive Dominance” and the lectures, explain why premiers and prime ministers have so much power within the Canadian system of government.

5. Describe the stages of the policy cycle model, with examples from Northern Gateway Pipeline case or another energy policy with which you are familiar.

6. According to Burnstein, What is the impact of public opinion on public policy?

4

Feasibility of Decarbonization: California Case Study

Sustainable Energy Policy 5

Feasibility of Decarbonization

March 19, 2013 Sustainable Energy Policy 6

Feasible of Decarbonization

Sustainable Energy Policy 7

8

9

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

10

11

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

Cost of Mitigation Benefits 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

12

Path Dependence

13

Sustainable Energy Policy 14

Sustainable Energy Policy 15

Evolution of technical systems

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

Sustainable Energy Policy 16

Techno-institutional complex

• Not discrete technological artifacts• Complex 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– governmental

Sustainable Energy Policy 17

February 2, 2011 Sustainable Energy Policy 18

Sustainable Energy Policy 19

Science and Politics

20

Core message:

Deficit Model: “You just don’t understand”

• more information will resolve conflicts and produce appropriate policy response

Members of the public filter their responses to science controversies through their value systems

Social science helps explain how this works

21

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

22

23

24

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.

25

26

The politics of science: Classic view: separation

Science

(facts)

Politics

(values)

Truth

27

Politics of Science:Recognition of “Trans-science”

Jasanoff and Wynne 1998

28

Politics of ScienceConstructivist View

Politics

Science

29

Politics of ScienceConstructivist View (when pressed)

Politics

Science

30

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

31

Politics and Science (cont)

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

32

A continuum

Science Politics

Regulatory Science

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

33

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

• Discussion questions on Friday

34