Comments for Political Climate

Comment on Talks about talks by Matthew Lockwood

Matthew Lockwood — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:30:31 +0000

Hi Nick – thanks for visiting the blog and for the comment. I agree the Durban Platform gives a renewed chance for a multilateral process, which is good news, although I don’t agree that the counterfactual would necessarily have meant a lock in to 4C.
Also appreciate that negotiation is an art and the politics of the moment count, but as we know from previous examples, the moment has to be sold back home, long after it has ended. Incentive structures don’t disappear. And that’s where I think Barrett is still relevant, regardless of the number or size of actors. As I see it, the most fundamental point he makes is that a successful treaty needs first to create a net gain. On climate, the gains are weak, which is why it has been so difficult so far. I don’t see that has changed much since 1997, and don’t see it changing much by 2015, except, as I argued, maybe for China.

Comment on Talks about talks by Nick Mabey

Nick Mabey — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:19:34 +0000

Matthew, the reason why US and China agreed to the strengthened Durban package with only legally binding options – when they had in plenary both supported the package with a non- legally binding option – was because of the pressure supplied by the EU, AOSIS, LDCs and progressive Latin American countries in the room. It was a good example of immediate politics of the moment outweighing “structural factors” to push people further than they wanted to go. It could not have happened in a G20 type setting where the most vulnerable countries are excluded and thus is one of the reasons we need to keep climate deals in a UN setting. Of course, what the conclusion of the talks will be in 2015 nobody knows – not least because the Chinese leadership which will take that decision are not in place. However, the outcome will have little to do with Barrett’s game theory analysis which is based on lots of similar small countries negotiating not a core agreement consisting of a few big countries with a long tail of small ones.

What many commentators have failed to point out was that if Durban had failed then we would be locked into over 4C and the EU would have been finished as a climate leader. We came very close to that outcome on Sunday night. I do not think we would have recovered from that set back – there was no political energy left in the EUs tank. Now we have an opportunity to build the politics of a 2C agreement in 2015. Who knows if we will succeed but at least we now have a chance! The priorities for the next four years are action on the ground to build examples of a low carbon economy and mobilization of political will and cooperation.

Nick Mabey E3G

Comment on The renewable energy backlash – Part 2 by Eliot Whittington

Eliot Whittington — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:44:26 +0000

Very interesting. I’m sort of wondering how to square a sensible proposal based on these ideas with the car crash that is the EU ETS. At the moment I’m hearing a lot of unhappiness with how renewables, efficiency, nation state policies obscure a straightforward policy based on carbon price regime. Now you can construct an argument for some policies for clear market failures (e.g. around innovation or cost-effective efficiency measures), which is where we are today in the EU, but the political economy you guys talk about leads you into problems I think. The mindset I describe implies the carbon price will do the heavy lifting & other policies will pick up missing pieces of the puzzle. I suspect the reality is that the carbon price will never be politically palatable at levels that will drive the real changes required, so other policies need to do much more – which then exposes them to further backlash.

The further complicating factor is the overlapping governance of the EU & its member states. Political accountability for keeping the lights on really sits at the national level, so EU-wide policies will always struggle to deliver the coherence, clarity & stability business actors want.

Comment on A town in South Africa beginning with D by Tom Athanasiou

Tom Athanasiou — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:19:54 +0000

This would have been a much nicer posting — and a more useful one — without the last paragraph. Which does nothing so much as make you look like you have a chip on your shoulder.

***

As to your argument. We cannot have strong enforcement (international trade crap) so all we can have is weak incentives. So maybe we can get a deal that adds another weak incentive (a low carbon) price, and this would help because weak+weak = less_weak. But really, we need to negotiate serious support for low-carbon R&D. That’s the best hope.

Is this a fair summary?

Comment on Denial Tango by Dean Rizzetti (@Deanrizzetti)

Dean Rizzetti (@Deanrizzetti) — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:03:34 +0000

First a carbon tax, now this! What can’t Australia do on climate change these days!!

Comment on The renewable energy backlash – Part 2 by Matthew Lockwood

Matthew Lockwood — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:49:41 +0000

Tim – not sure what you mean by your last comment. Taxing fossil fuel use is not a polticially easy route – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15730087

Comment on The renewable energy backlash – Part 2 by Tim Coote

Tim Coote — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:19:34 +0000

I do find this debat rather too abstract: unless you work from the numbers, it’s much too easy to conjure up unrealistic assumptions in the targets of lobbying. Surely, of all debates, you’ve got to work from what’s possible and what’s meant by all of the terms.

For example, how can you get baseload generation of PV?

Much of the reason for gas is as the backup baseload for non-stored renewables or as a substitute for coal, rather than a target end state technology.

Have you tried playing with the decc calculator (referenced here with lots of other numerical info: http://bit.ly/vfJZlx)

From a policy perspective, the more interesting question to me (and what I perceive as the source of the backlash) is the route for channelling the funding (eg tax carbon + reduce taxes elsewhere, as per the Economist’s discussions), or get the energy companies to collect and channel the funds (the energy companies didn’t seem to do a very good job with the rubbish cfl lightbulbs that they handed out.)

Comment on The renewable energy backlash – part 1 by Tim Coote

Tim Coote — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:44:58 +0000

I thought that one of the major messages of the Panorama programme was the mistake of setting the renewables target for all energy, rather than just electricity.

fwiw, I recommend David MacKay’s “Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air” (web site: http://bit.ly/p2ITil), which goes a long way to analysing the fundamental physical / chemical / engineering constraints on energy production/storage/distribution, etc. and enables a sensible discussion of the options. (eg it clearly demonstrates the relative costs/merits of solar pv vs solar heating).

Comment on Desertec and energy security by chris

chris — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 22:32:59 +0000

Terrific website. My spouse and I actually like the idea. Interest articles and other content plus practical details. Thank you.

Comment on Is the UK decoupling? by Tim

Tim — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:40:49 +0000

Isn’t CG’s finding what Bjorn Lomborg predicted in “the Skeptical Environmentalist”. iirc, he had a plot of technology innovation against time, which showed that market pricing would make renewable energy cheaper than fossil fuels by 2050.

In contradiction to TJ, BJ claimed that markets would encourage more efficient technologies if input prices rose.

Two cheers for GM, although I do think that his point 1 is spurious: once up and running a new technology would continue to be used to produce goods, rather than going back to the less efficient technology.