By Mark Caine, Research Officer at the London School of Economics, Co-ordinator for the Hartwell Group, and 2010 Breakthrough Generation Fellow

Ideas Whose Times Have Come

Something profound is happening in the world of energy and climate policy.

In the wake of another tepid COP conference that, once again, failed to put the world even "on a path to solve the climate problem", previously heterodox ideas are entering mainstream thinking.

From the inadequacy of the Kyoto protocol and the immediate imperative for adaptation to an innovation-centric climate policy, no-regrets action on non-CO2 forcers, and energy access for all: a set of pragmatic ideas that the Breakthrough Institute, Breakthrough Senior Fellow Roger Pielke Jr., the authors of The Hartwell Paper, and others have advocated for years -- often to an onslaught of cynical opposition -- are now being promoted as front-line strategies to manage our complex set of energy and climate challenges.

Take the Kyoto protocol, which despite its well-documented structural flaws has been treated for years as the only game in town--the plan A for which "there really is no plan B". Now, realizing that the modest agreement reached at Durban is little more than a face-saving maneuver that means, at best, an eight year punt on universally binding emissions reductions, commentators are beginning to sing a different tune.

"Kyoto was built to fail," reports left-of-center UK paper The Guardian. The process has faltered, writes John Broder in the New York Times, because it taken on "too great a task." Political analyst Andrew Charlton reports from down under that there is, in fact, a plan B, consisting primarily of policy prescriptions that will sound remarkably familiar to anyone who has read Fast, Clean, and Cheap, The Hartwell Paper, The Climate Fix, or a growing body of books and academic articles advocating innovation-centric energy policies combined with robust adaptation measures and a commitment to universal energy access.

Perhaps more than any, this last issue has sailed from the margins to the mainstream. A key tenet of the 2010 Hartwell Paper, the imperative to empower the world's poor through the provision of universal energy access -- and bring energy poverty to the center of energy and climate debates -- has become a cause celebre at the UN Foundation. Did you know that 2012 is the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All? Finally, something everyone from Ban-Ki Moon to nu metal band Linkin Park can agree on!

In all seriousness though, the global community's newfound support for universal energy access is a heartening development--not least for the 1.3 billion people lacking electricity and the 2.7 billion people burning dung and sticks to cook and heat their homes. To be sure, the emissions implications of empowering these people using available technology remain inconclusive: the IEA's rosy estimate of a .7% increase in global CO2 emissions defines 'access' for rural denizens at a paltry 250 kWh/year, 1/55th of the US average and 1/32nd that of ultra-efficient Japan (World Bank data). Yet any steps to bring modern energy to the energy-poor are justifiable in their own right on basic principles of equity, not to mention their contingent benefits for public health, education, economic opportunity, and enhanced resilience to future climate impacts.

Post-"Post-pollution"

In his New York Times review of the shifting dynamics in the energy and climate debate, Andrew Revkin cites both Roger Pielke Jr. and the authors of The Hartwell Paper, crediting them for helping spread this "post-pollution" emphasis on climate resilience, energy modernization, and strategic public and private investment in clean energy innovation. Revkin is nearly alone amongst journalists in tracing back the roots of these approaches, but a frequent lack of attribution is predictable. Indeed, the broad, uncoordinated adoption of these "post-pollution" framings and policy approaches may have been inevitable, a reflection less of their progenitors than their sensibility.

As these framings and policy ideas become more widely accepted, the challenge for those of us who have long advocated these positions, including the Hartwell Group network which I work to coordinate, will begin to shift. As once-heterodox problem definitions and policy approaches from the Breakthrough Institute, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the Hartwell Group, and others enter mainstream discussion, what can we offer going forward?

Arguably, the most important thing we must do now is deliver top-quality research and analysis on the hard questions of innovation that are not yet being addressed in most climate policy discussions. Though many have accepted rapid innovation as a necessity, few have actually opened up the "black box" of innovation to understand what specific kinds of innovation we need, how to fund and scale them, and how to overcome persistent challenges such as rent-seeking behavior, energy efficiency rebound and backfire, and the "valleys of death" that plague the innovation and commercialization process. Understanding the need for innovation is not the same as knowing how best to do it.

The Breakthrough Institute has already taken up this effort, backing up its long-standing support for innovation as an energy and climate solution with detailed analysis of the mechanics of how innovation works and, by extension, how to spark, accelerate, direct, fund, and scale it. And the Hartwell Group is working to coordinate a network of international scholars and analysts to further develop key recommendations for actionable and pragmatic climate solutions.

This work alone won't solve the myriad complex, interconnected energy and climate challenges that face us. But it will help lay the foundation for a safer, more prosperous, and more equitable future--a future in which the essential functioning of the earth system is preserved and all people have access to safe, reliable energy and protection from the vagaries of extreme weather, whatever its cause.

Climate Pragmatism, a new policy report released July 26th by the Hartwell group, details an innovative strategy to restart global climate efforts after the collapse of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process. This pragmatic strategy centers on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures -- three efforts that each have their own diverse justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. As such, Climate Pragmatism offers a framework for renewed American leadership on climate change that's effectiveness, paradoxically, does not depend on any agreement about climate science or the risks posed by uncontrolled greenhouse gases.

The new report brings the Hartwell framework into an American perspective, and it is authored by a broad group of 14 international scholars and analysts representing a diverse range of political and ideological positions -- from the conservative American Enterprise Institute to moderate Democratic think tank Third Way and the liberal Breakthrough Institute.

Click here to read a statement on the report from Breakthrough Founders Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus

Climate Pragmatism is the third paper released by the Hartwell group, an informal international network of scholars and analysts dedicated to innovative strategies that uplift human dignity through mitigation of climate risk, enhancement of disaster resilience, improvement of public health, and the provision of universal energy access. Previous publications include The Hartwell Paper (May 2010) and How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course (July 2009).

Climate Pragmatism also builds on the limited and direct energy technology innovation strategy outlined by the Breakthrough Institute along with scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and Brookings Institution in the October 2010 policy report, Post-Partisan Power.

As the report's authors explain:

The old climate framework failed because it would have imposed substantial costs associated with climate mitigation policies on developed nations today in exchange for climate benefits far off in the future -- benefits whose attributes, magnitude, timing, and distribution are not knowable with certainty. Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies, efforts to extend the Kyoto-style UNFCCC framework to developing nations predictably deadlocked as well.

The new framework now emerging will succeed to the degree to which it prioritizes agreements that promise near-term economic, geopolitical, and environmental benefits to political economies around the world, while simultaneously reducing climate forcings, developing clean and affordable energy technologies, and improving societal resilience to climate impacts. This new approach recognizes that continually deadlocked international negotiations and failed domestic policy proposals bring no climate benefit at all. It accepts that only sustained effort to build momentum through politically feasible forms of action will lead to accelerated decarbonization.

Continue reading "Climate Pragmatism: Innovation, Resilience and No Regrets" »

Cross-posted from Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog

I have been following closely, but not writing much on, the debate in Australia over Julia Gillard's proposed carbon tax.  How it plays out will be fascinating to watch and will provide as much a lesson in Australian politics as anything to do with climate policy.

This report from The Australian provides a great example of how politicians can make life extremely difficult for those experts who share their goals:

The Prime Minister took her carbon tax pitch to the heart of Australia's $40 billion coal sector today, telling NSW miners her plan wouldn't place their jobs at risk.

 Ms Gillard told workers at Mandalong's Centennial Coal, in the Hunter Valley, that the mine would stay open for as long as there was coal in the ground.

"This mine will continue to work for those 20, 25 years," she said. "It will continue to be here until the end of its productive life."

She goes further even,

The federal government has committed $1.3 billion to protect coal jobs, while Treasury modelling says the industry's output will more than double between 2010 and 2050 under the carbon tax.

But it also says the proportion of Australia's energy supply derived from coal will fall from 80 per cent now to 20 per cent within 40 years. . .

Earlier, Ms Gillard was tackled on ABC radio over the impact of her carbon tax on Australia's biggest coal port.

"How can (the tax) not have a negative impact on economic growth in this region?" an ABC Newcastle presenter asked.

The Prime Minister said Australia would continue to export coal under her carbon tax, dismissing suggestions Chinese demand would tail off as a result.

"There's a strong future for coal mining in this country, it will continue to grow. Employment will continue to grow," she said.

Tony Abbott, the opposition leader, is plenty happy to hear this line of argument from Gillard:

But the Opposition Leader, speaking in Victoria, said the government plan clearly stated that coal would produce just 20 per cent of the nation's power by 2050.

"The Prime Minister should stop trying to pull the wool over the eyes of people in coal mining regions," Mr Abbott said.

"The whole point of a carbon tax is to get us using less coal. That means less production, less investment and less employment in the coal industry." . . .

Mr Abbott said: "How can it be that it is wrong to burn Australian coal in Australia but it is somehow right to burn Australian coal in China?"

Gillard may or may not believe what she is saying about the future of coal production in Australia -- politicians say all sorts of things in the heat of political battle.  What would be interesting would be to see how policy experts who know better who support the proposed tax respond to a question such as the following:

Is Julia Gillard's commitment to increasing coal production in Australia in the coming decades consistent with efforts to accelerate the decarbonization of the global economy?

From a policy or mathematical perspective there is an obviously correct answer to this question -- No.  It may be the case in the context of Australia's current debate that from a political perspective (as a matter of crass expediency) there is a different answer.  How experts deal with this conflict between policy and politics makes for an interesting case study in the politics of expertise.

One the one hand, if an expert answers the question posed above accurately, then s/he will be seen as giving support to the criticisms levied by Tony Abbott against the proposed tax.  On the other hand, if the expert supports the claims made by Julia Gillard, then s/he will be saying something that is incorrect, giving further ammunition to the opposition.  What would you do? 

I'll be looking for how experts address this issue, and I'd welcome your pointers as well.