Evidence based climate change policy: Six tricky challenges
31
Evidence based climate change policy Roger Levett Levett Therivel Sustainability Consultants A presentation given at State of the Region: Implications of Climate Change event, 20 April 2009. This presentation forms part of the Observatory’s ongoing State of the Region dialogue between policy makers and researchers on the theme of climate change.
Evidence based climate change policy: Six tricky challenges
Roger Levett, sustainability consultant at Levett-Therivel, speaking at a workshop on climate change hosted by the West Midlands Regional Observatory in Birmingham on 20 April 2009.
Citation preview
1. Evidence based climate change policy Roger Levett Levett
Therivel Sustainability Consultants A presentation given at State
of the Region: Implications of Climate Change event, 20 April 2009.
This presentation forms part of the Observatorys ongoing State of
the Region dialogue between policy makers and researchers on the
theme of climate change.
2. Presentation for West Midlands Regional Observatory Evidence
based climate change policy: Six tricky challenges Roger Levett
Partner, Levett-Therivel sustainability consultants
[email_address]
3. Six tricky challenges
Urgent need to act on what we already know
Important points are often hard to prove
Environmental limits are not just scientific
Monetisation appears necessary but is illicit
Efficiency of what outcomes and what inputs
Coping with interconnectedness and complexity
Levett-Therivel
4. 1: Weve got the evidence: now wheres the policy? Evidence
already overwhelming that unless we cut greenhouse emissions
deeply, fast, soon, irreversible catastrophic climate change will
almost certainly become unpreventable. Establishing more precisely
how deeply, fast, soon, catastrophic, unpreventable etc must not be
a pretext for delaying action. Top priority: get decisions less
inconsistent with what we already know. Levett-Therivel
5. Climate-sane policies and decisions
Minimum requirement: do not make decisions that will add to net
greenhouse gas emissions.
Most current policy and strategy fails this test. We dont
notice because we dont ask.
WMRO should
apply this test, and make sure decision takers understand the
results implications;
Present the evidence that refutes common excuses and
evasions.
Levett-Therivel
6. Block the excuses and evasions Amounts, not efficiency
Improving energy efficiency is only a means. It saves little if
people use more energy services (because they are cheaper) or spend
money they save on other energy-intensive activities (eg flights).
Data and evidence should concentrate on what actually matters:
total emissions. Responsibility, not location . One estimate is
that 1/3 of Chinas carbon is producing goods for export ie for us.
Report footprint on a responsibility basis: inc imports, exc
exports. Levett-Therivel
7. Block the excuses and evasions Take responsibility, dont buy
indulgences Carbon offsetting potentially powerful, but most
current trading is a sham or scam, giving profits to polluters and
traders and excusing inaction. Define and police valid (ie certain,
genuine, timely, additional) offsets. Reality check . Politicians
appeal to possible future technical fixes and trading to avoid
taking climate-responsible decisions now. Report reality: eg that
planned aviation expansion would take up between half of all other
UK 2050 emissions and twice them. Levett-Therivel
8. 2: Evidence is asymmetric Easier to get robust convincing
evidence about short term, private interest consequences: eg new
jobs from out of town retail park. Harder to prove longer term,
public interest consequences: eg jobs lost from town centre shops,
more car trips, disadvantage to carless: indirect, longer term,
multi-causal, contingent on other factors. Dont downplay public
interest consequences because they are harder to measure.
Levett-Therivel
9. Misleading case: Barker on IKEA
With average 750 staff per store, would have increased
employment and driven competition in the sector. But IKEA is
competitive because
standardisation/automation allows low staffing
sourcing from low cost countries
So more IKEAs likely to mean:
net loss of UK retail and manufacturing jobs
existing retailers forced to copy or go bust
less in-town retailing, more out of town.
Job losses might be offset by sector growth. But:
no attempt to compare + with -
does more Weetabix furniture make us happier?
Levett-Therivel
10. Misleading case: Barker on IKEA [IKEA expansion] also had
potential to lower long-distance drive times: over 30% customers
drove > 2 hours due to lack of local stores. Yes, some of them
will probably drive less far. But more people will drive to the new
IKEAs And more still will have to when new IKEAs have killed their
town centre competitors. (No attempt to compare + and - effects.)
Levett-Therivel
11. Misleading case: Barker on IKEA despite some local
authorities wanting to attract to their area. Doesnt mean more
IKEAs makes UK better - merely that if youre going to get the
disbenefits anyway, you may as well try to get benefits too. IKEA
has now changed its business model, making a major retailer cause
less traffic and inequity is a success ! but this may lead to
higher construction and operating costs and lower capital returns
ie lower multinational profits, better communities, buildings,
lower externalities. This too is success ! Levett-Therivel
12. 3: Environmental limits value laden Cant just read off
environmental capacities from nature because of (a) Empirical
uncertainty: eg how much difference will water abstraction make to
river? (some years flows will be low anyway); (b) Values: eg how
much stress is acceptable? (c) Decisions: eg how much should
Birmingham rely on importing more Welsh water? Apply environmental
limits through explicit debate and decision about the judgments.
(Rule of thumb: dont make worse things that are already bad. (Eg
greenhouse emissions) Levett-Therivel
13. 4: The snare of monetary valuation Often claimed: to decide
which carbon reducing actions are worth taking, must compare their
benefits and costs with alternative uses of the resources. Money is
the common currency. BUT: (a) Implies climate security is tradable
for any other (monetisable) benefits: OK to trash environment
provided we get enough growth; (b) Valuation depends on willingness
to pay for an environmental good / accept compensation for its
loss. This depends on ability to pay / forego money: ie the rich
have more clout. Levett-Therivel
14. Valuation isnt needed We dont need signs to make decisions.
Should make a (value and science based) political decision how much
carbon to save. Cost effectiveness ( / tC saved) can help choose
ways to do it. (Though non monetary side effects may be more
important.) Can also use price incentives to influence behaviour
but again no need for valuation. Research cost effectiveness of
carbon reduction methods, and effectiveness of prices, levies,
tariffs etc in changing behaviour. No need for monetary valuation:
dont let it distract. Levett-Therivel
15. 5: The right efficiency measures Easy factor 2s in
transport Take a friend - halve fuel per passenger km Go half as
far - halve fuel per destination reached half as often (eg combine
errands) - halve fuel per errand Cycle or walk - factor 100? Dont
go at all - cut fuel per benefit gained Measure eco-efficiency of
quality of life services, not of activity Levett-Therivel
16. Transport: what could UK save? Levett-Therivel Cycling,
walking for half healthy minimum exercise: replace 10% of current
driving: 90% Home work/e-shopping obviate 10% of trips: 80% Local
decentralised services cut distances: 60% Local centres help
multi-purpose trips: 40% Shift 40% of remaining trips from car to
bus: 30% Increase occupancy (all vehicles) by 50%: 20% Improve
average vehicle efficiency by 50%: 13% Renewable fuels for 13% (of
current use): 0% Test and substantiate these guesstimates. And
equivalents for (eg) energy in buildings.
17. Life satisfaction & GDP growth Source: Strategy Unit,
2003
18. What really gives life satisfaction?
Health
Work: control, respect, security, apply abilities
Relationships, especially marriage
Leisure, especially active, sociable
Income especially relative position / status
Equality
Governance: stability, not too rapid change
Democracy
Promoting these instead of growth would make decarbonising easy
.
Measure these as indicators of economic progress. (ISEW
problematic, but much better than GDP/GVA as a measure of
welfare.)
Levett-Therivel
19. Slow is the new fast
Slow Food Movement: cooking and eating can provide rich
creative, social, cultural and convivial fulfilments - if not madly
rushed.
Slow Cities Movement: in a city moving at walking / cycling
pace, inhabitants achieve and enjoy more in a day, not less.
and the changes that improve quality of life also reduce
environmental consumption / damage.
Transition towns: carbon descent strategy.
Levett-Therivel
20. Rethinking efficiency
Efficiency is a ratio of outcomes to inputs . You have to
specify both.
Eco-efficiency discourse assumes its per GDP:
Assumes traded activity = wellbeing
Forecloses decoupling wellbeing from traded activity
Misrepresents any extra low-footprint economic activity (eg
internet porn, change management consultancy) as environmental
improvement.
Formulate and measure indicators of the environmental intensity
of quality of life.
Levett-Therivel
21. Inefficient efficiency Deregulated buses: useless
competition on busy routes dissipates monopoly profits that could
cross-subsidise feeder routes. Rationalised (= centralised) public
services transfer costs to users driving, special buses / taxis,
road building, obesity treatment Externalising (= evading, dumping)
costs is success for private businesses. But the public sector
should promote whole system efficiency : eg more quality of life
benefits per cost (including environmental cost).
Levett-Therivel
22. Efficient inefficiency Vienna City Council requires good
tram service running before people move in to new satellite
settlement. Inefficient for tram management - but efficient for
broader aim of avoiding car dependence. Levett-Therivel Contrast
Milton Keynes: room left for trams as soon as enough demand - but
there never was. Promote whole system performance measures.
23. More car journeys More congestion Worse bus service Fewer
bus passengers Less ticket income Bus safety worries More people
buy cars Hostile road environment Once you have a car, driving is
cheapest Car more attractive People avoid walking & cycling
Drivers less bike-aware Unfitness, obesity School run Shops etc
move to car-accessible locations More diffuse journey patterns Town
centres degenerate People move to suburbs Longer journeys 6: Coping
with interconnectedness When someone chooses car instead of bus
Levett-Therivel
24. Levett-Therivel Fewer car journeys Less congestion Better
bus service More bus passengers More ticket income Buses feel safe
Fewer people own cars Safer road environment More car hire / clubs
hire/club removes perverse incentive Walking & cycling more
attractive Drivers more bike-aware People fitter, healthier School
walk Shops etc prefer sites accessible without car Less diffuse
travel patterns Town centres lively, liveable People live in town
Shorter journeys It could be like this instead
25. But piecemeal action cant get there Levett-Therivel
Normal lives now depend on multiple, time critical trips
between fragmented destinations, so:
No quality of public transport could match car;
Only people with no choice will choose it;
Shops, employers etc demand good parking;
Car restrictions politically impossible.
Currently:
Money wasted subsidising near-empty buses;
Planning soft-pedalled to retain development;
Road pricing endlessly studied and procrastinated
26. Need coordinated multiple actions Levett-Therivel Spatial
patterns shorten & concentrate trips Local services good enough
to obviate choice Good public transport Walking, cycling easy and
safe Different attitudes and assumptions Car use restricted,
expensive Each enables & is enabled by others
27. Not just transport. Biomass needs: Levett-Therivel Replace
boiler with biomass fired Biomass boiler installers / maintainers
Fuel stock, delivery Heat distribution system Customers for heat
Biomass growers collectors Each only viable if the rest are in
place
28. Pathways to low carbon
We urgently need better understanding of:
The trigger points for [un]sustainable behaviour change
The interventions / packages that could trigger genuine
change
Policy and management processes that could choreograph
these
Prerequisites (eg ability to manage a bus service together with
spatial planning and infrastructure investment
Levett-Therivel
29. Complexity and simplicity
We need to acknowledge complexity: everything is connected,
so:
Dont mistake micro efficiency for macro
Dont expect to measure anything important precisely
Money can only measure a bit of what matters.
But we also need to rediscover simplicity:
Stop making things worse: especially
Dont provide for increases in traffic, emissions
Simple actions to enable good, discourage bad.
Levett-Therivel
30. Conclusion: suggested priorities
Dont let anyone fool themselves (or their voters) that there is
any sane alternative to cutting emissions drastically and
immediately;
Dont downplay important points because they are hard to
measure;
Support a value based application of environmental limits;
Use cost-effectiveness calculations and economic instruments,
dont monetise impacts;
Show how the environmental efficiency of quality of life could
easily be improved if we just stop worrying about growth.
Help integrated policy and action.
Levett-Therivel
31. Contact details Roger Levett Levett-Therivel sustainability
consultants E [email_address] T 0117 973 2418 Web
http://www.levett-therivel.co.uk/ John Walker Senior Research
Analyst West Midlands Regional Observatory E [email_address] T +44
(0)121 202 3246 Web www.wmro.org Blog
http://wmro.wordpress.com