Transcript Low-carbon technology - Glasgow Caledonian University

Dr Mandy Meikle
Researcher, GCU
Low-carbon Technology
Social Justice
Legal Perspectives
Low-carbon technology
76 peer-reviewed papers on low-carbon technology,
published between 2002 and 2012
The main findings are:
1. Strategies pursuing sustainable development and climate change
mitigation can be mutually reinforcing.
2. A significant barrier to achieving energy change stems from modelling
inaccuracies and a lack of standard definitions.
3. In addition to funding, issues such as compromise, trust, reliable data,
appropriate sustainable technologies and 'suitable policies‘ are key to
success in reducing emissions.
4. Contemporary discourse must be shifted away from efficiency and back
towards ethics and, in this case, climate justice.
5. The most common call was to review policy, from reforming ministries
and implementing tax incentives to decoupling GHG emissions from
economic growth.
Low-carbon technology
Strategies pursuing sustainable development and climate
change mitigation can be mutually reinforcing
1. None of the Millennium Development Goals can be achieved without
much greater access to energy services1.
2. Rural electrification through decentralised renewable energy (DRE) is
an example2. That said, an increase in per capita consumption does not
imply equitable distribution3.
3. Ideas from emerging economies must be built upon to escape the
unidirectional flow of innovation from advanced to emerging
economies4, 5, including agricultural research6.
Low-carbon technology
A significant barrier to achieving energy change stems from
modelling inaccuracies and a lack of standard definitions
1. Definitions of renewable energy vary between authors and institutions1;
concepts such as 'energy security' can acquire different meanings over
time2, 3, and require standard metrics to evaluate4; and language itself
can create limiting 'framing devices' such that only certain solutions are
seen as possible - even those which are neither sustainable nor just5.
2. As for modelling, most energy forecasts fail to recognise the influence of
hard-to-predict outcomes, such as resource scarcity3 , and assume that
economic growth and environmental protection are compatible5.
3. The technologies and scenarios being modelled must be appropriate to
basic, sustainable livelihood needs in developing countries, such as DRE
projects which are simultaneously mitigative and adaptive responses to
climate change6.
Low-carbon technology
In addition to funding, issues such as compromise, trust,
reliable data, appropriate sustainable technologies and
‘suitable policies’ are key to success in reducing emissions
1. Sponsored programmes of demonstration of low carbon technologies
can create demand and minimise investor risk1.
2. Early entry also helps: front-runners like Costa Rica2 and Andhra
Pradesh3 were among the first to become involved in the CDM market.
3. With respect to funding, not all financial measures are equally
important. Commercial banking seems to deliver the best support for
the realisation of non-hydro RE projects (119 non-OECD countries)4.
Low-carbon technology
Contemporary discourse must be shifted away from efficiency
and back towards ethics and, in this case, climate justice
1. Those who are going to be the worst hit by climate change includes
poor people in prosperous societies.
2. Burkett argues for supplementing the emerging cap-and-trade system
with a domestic clean development mechanism (dCDM).
3. An adaptive response that does not reinforce inequality, but instead
takes the first, crucial step to charting a path in which all solutions,
however flawed, may be just. Is a flawed but just policy OK?
Social Justice
22 peer-reviewed papers on social justice,
published between 2002 and 2012
The main findings are:
1. Climate change impacts are socially and unevenly distributed, both
across nations and within them; "richer still means safer".
2. A shift of emphasis from emissions reduction to sustainable
development can reduce political resistance from developing countries.
3. Dealing with climate change means to mitigate and to adapt. Assess
carbon mitigation strategies in terms of their co-benefits and enable
individual countries to decide a development pathway that suits them.
4. To transition to a low-carbon society requires a ‘sustainability’ route
which decouples economic growth not only from carbon but also from
several key resources, including energy.
5. Clearly define social contracts to recognise the rights of distant people
and future generations, and challenge modelling inaccuracies.
Social Justice
Climate change impacts are socially and unevenly distributed,
both across nations and within them; “richer still means safer”
1.
Alario uses the phrase “Titanic risk” to acknowledge when actual risks
are related to victims’ socioeconomic situation as well as their location.
2. Further consideration of the welfare implications of mitigation is
needed, particularly since emissions and affluence are correlated.
Welfare gain from additional emissions must equal the welfare losses of
emission reductions1.
3. The potentially regressive2 or damaging3 effects of GHG emissions
reduction strategies must be recognised.
Social Justice
A resilient social-ecological system fosters equity and fairness,
which requires a fundamental shift from the usual
top-down approach to governance1, 2
1.
A shift of emphasis from emissions reduction to sustainable
development needs can reduce political resistance from developing
countries3.
2.
Local community-based organisations are well-placed to address
energy efficiency in low-income communities within high-income
countries4.
3.
Stop higher income countries partially externalising environmental
impacts to lower income locations5 and ensure that less developed
regions are not vulnerable to protectionist policies from more
developed nations6.
Social Justice
Dealing with climate change means to mitigate and to adapt
1.
Assess carbon mitigation strategies in terms of their co-benefits,
which address poverty at the local scale, rather than whether they are
economically ‘efficient ’1.
2.
Enable individual countries to decide a development pathway that
suits them, even if it is significantly different from the global trend2.
3.
Social protection can reduce the impact of climate change and
strengthen people’s resilience and adaptive capacity - integrating
social protection with disaster risk management, climate change
adaptation and food security3.
Social Justice
To transition to a low-carbon society requires a ‘sustainability’
route which decouples economic growth not only from carbon
but also from several key resources, including energy
1.
A development model needs to follow a distinct ‘sustainability’
rationale, have a long-term perspective, and aim to deliver
intergenerational justice by decoupling economic growth from the
highly resource-intensive and environmentally unsound
conventional path1.
2.
Decoupling growth from carbon emissions and energy is raised in
several sections: e.g. low-carbon technology2, 3, agriculture4 and
food security5.
3.
There is a positive role, requiring further investigation, for third
sector campaigning groups and norm entrepreneurs in progressing
justice approaches which might break the North-South stalemate6.
Legal Perspectives
15 peer-reviewed papers on social justice,
published between 2003 and 2011
The main findings are:
1. Pollution through human causes is a relatively new phenomenon.
2. There is a 'disconnect' between the law and the politics of climate
change, which reflects the ‘disconnect’ between the pragmatic
perspective and climate change viewed through an ethical lens.
3. The detrimental consequences of climate change on vulnerable
groups are not considered as violations of their human rights in the
legal sense.
4. Climate justice could provide a middle ground in a shift from
potentially-disastrous ‘business as usual’ and the global justice
movement’s radicalised ‘politics of the impossible’.
5. All environmental refugees should be included in a new law, which
should not be specific to 'climate refugees'.
Legal Perspectives
Severe destruction of the environment through human causes
is a relatively new phenomenon
1. Current systems of law and governance are poorly equipped to address
climate justice1 and there are concerns over the speed with which law
can react2.
2. The global community has not prepared itself for the inundation of
island and coastal countries3.
3. Anthropogenic climate change is a threat to life4, and world leaders
have a responsibility to minimise threat5. There is a need to further the
role of law, which could include a law relating to planetary malpractice4.
4. Existing laws may be used but will most likely redistribute wealth to the
middle classes affected by climate impacts rather than the poor6.
Legal Perspectives
Climate change and global justice must be addressed together
rather than considered as separate domains1, 2
1.
There is a 'disconnect' between the law and the politics of climate
change, which reflects the ‘disconnect’ between those who take a
pragmatic perspective and those who view climate change through
an ethical lens1.
2.
There are adequate grounds to establish that future generations
have legal protection from climate change harms, and ecological
rights that can define the duties of present generations3.
3.
All environmental refugees should be included in a new law, which
should not be specific to 'climate refugees' as determining whether
unexpected events are the result of climatic changes or not is
difficult4.
Legal Perspectives
The detrimental consequences of climate change
on vulnerable groups are not considered as violations
of their human rights in the legal sense
1.
It is almost impossible to link a specific country’s emissions to a
specific effect.
2.
Global warming is not the only contributing factor to climate-related
effects.
3.
Adverse effects of climate change are often projections of future
impacts, while human rights violations are normally after the fact.
Legal Perspectives
Climate justice could provide a middle ground
in a shift from potentially-disastrous ‘business as usual’ and the
global justice movement’s radicalised ‘politics of the impossible’
1.
Cooperation is currently an integral principle within climate change
law but it lacks nuance regarding variations in capacity and focus on
redistribution in relation to justice-based outcomes1.
2.
Boosting international agreement between governments on the
acceptance of environmental refugees will to a great extent decrease
mutual hostility regarding mass immigration2.
3.
Any just agreement must not increase material inequality between
nations and people, nor trigger global conflict and international
instability (in which weaker states are likely to lose)3.
Conclusions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alleviation of poverty in all countries requires greater access to
energy. If that energy comes from fossil fuels, GHG emissions will rise.
Mitigation and adaptation can and must be co-beneficial.
We need to standardise models and definitions.
Is there a balance to be struck between efficiency and ethics? Are
‘flawed but just’ policies what we want?
Welfare gain from additional emissions must equal the welfare losses
of emission reductions - ‘politics of the impossible’?
Intergovernmental agreement on environmental refugees and a shift
of emphasis from emissions reduction to sustainable development
needs will decrease resistance from, and conflict in, developing
countries.
Rural electrification through appropriate, decentralised renewable
energy systems seems an obvious first step and we have to ask why
this is not happening, given what we know.