Today’s agenda

1. CEEN 590 Sustainable Energy as a Social and Political Challengehttp://ceen590a-forestry.sites.olt.ubc.ca/

2. Today’s agenda • Simulation • A path to a clean energy system • Why challenge is so formidable (Victor) • Carbon lock-in • science-policy dilemma

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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

8. Feasibility of Decarbonization: California Case Study Sustainable Energy Policy

9. Feasibility of Decarbonization Sustainable Energy Policy

10. Feasible of Decarbonization Sustainable Energy Policy

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),

13. Victor’s 3 central political challenges • Very deep cuts to GHG emissions are required • Long residence time of CO2 in atmosphere – given rate of emissions stock is hard to reverse • Costs immediate, benefits uncertain and distant in time • “time inconsistency problem” • Global nature of problem creates spatial inconsistency: local costs, global benefits

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

15. 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

16. Path Dependence

17. Sustainable Energy Policy

18. Sustainable Energy Policy

19. Evolution of technical systems • Increasing returns result from • Scale economies • Learning economies • Adaptive expectations • Network economies Sustainable Energy Policy

20. 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

21. Sustainable Energy Policy

22. Sustainable Energy Policy

23. Science and Politics

24. Core message: • Deficit Model: “You just don’t understand” • more information will resolve conflicts and produce appropriate policy response • Members of the public strain their responses to science controversies through their value systems • Social science helps explain how this works

25. 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

28. 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.

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

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

37. Next week • Formal governance – choice of case?