Because Barack says so: the case for state incentives

(Source)

My social media algorithms are likely to blame, but I have to look very long and hard to find comments denouncing Obama's time as US President. Whilst his military legacy is questionable, his climate record appears infallible at the surface.

It's a darn shame that this article in Science was published on the day of the deadline for my blog. "The irreversible momentum of clean energy" is the first time Science has published a sitting president, and I can't imagine this will happen for another four years at least. Obama argues for the role of state incentives providing the nudge that the private sector needs towards the direction a zero-emissions future. What was I saying?

"Beyond market forces, state-level policy will continue to drive clean-energy momentum." 

- Barack Obama, Science, 2017.

He recounts the examples of Google and Walmart, and their pledge to be 100% renewably powered as case studies of the profitability of renewable investment, and credited US public policy with initiating this change. He also boasts of the new standards put in place to improve fuel economy standards in new vehicles, appliances and new building codes which will reduce emissions as well as save money for consumers. Beyond this, he also banned drilling of Arctic resources.

So his efforts within US borders clearly deserve recognition, but his label as the first 'climate president' is problematic.

To begin with, his claim that energy sector carbon emissions fell by 9.5% from 2008 to 2015, while the U.S. economy grew by 10% in the same timeframe is complicated. Part of this was due to the development of fracking under his administration, meaning the relatively cleaner burning of natural gas dominated emissions as opposed to coal. Furthermore, an investigation into the official export credit agency of the US government found that whilst Obama stabilised US emissions, he invested $34 billion in coal, oil and gas projects elsewhere in the world, including Mexico, Ukraine and Australia. Overall, 70 fossil fuel projects have been given loans or guarantees under Obama. This means that his administration has given overseas funding for fossil fuel development more than any other presidency. Comparatively, George W. Bush gave three times less.

It's fair to say that Obama attempting to pass a bill through Congress was akin to banging his head against a brick wall, and you wonder whether this caused him to remain silent on the issue of climate change for the remainder of his first term, after the resounding defeat of his cap-and-trade bill in 2010. As much as I appreciate his efforts in being a vocal role model for efforts towards climate change, I can't say that his decision-making, domestic or global, has always had climate at its core.

So why publish this article? Is this a lament to the likely unravelling of progress that he made? And why in Science? Interesting how this was the means for his final published word as president. It's a real statement on the legacy he wants to be remembered for. There is passing reference to the Trump administration, with contemplation of what would happen if the US was to walk away from the Paris Agreement. His argument attempts to play to Trump's interests by emphasising the economic and global political benefits as opposed to the scientific basis, drawing upon being in the position of wielding significant power to hold other powerful nations to account (e.g. China and Mexico). Futile, likely, and one can only hope that Donald ever picks up a Science magazine. As for convincing the general public, I have searched the depths of Twitter... and can find no criticisms of his publication, only praise. By publishing in Science, is he only preaching to the choir?

And who else is chuckling at the thought of Trump reading Science magazine?

Redefining risk and uncertainty: a call for changing public and political perceptions of technology

"Uncertainty - real or manufactured - is a well-rehearsed reason for inaction."

(The Guardian, 2014)

And this, as I have discovered, is the story of the discourse of technology and climate change. A state of inertia gripping a capitalist society built on impatience, inaction and reaction.

Through my research over the last few months I have found that many renewable technologies and some geoengineering techniques (e.g. solar and CCS) are entirely practical but have struggled beyond conception because they are in the grips of the hand of uncertainty. Uncertainty dictates whether they are lawful. Uncertainty dictates politics, economics and social perception. Worst of all, uncertainty is uncertain. And it is widely defined. New forms of hazard, risk and uncertainty are developing along with modernisation (Beck, 1992), so no wonder society can be resistant. Under such an outlook, why would governments want to invest precious money towards uncertain causes such as aerosol or space mirror development?

Regarding private development of these technologies, public perception is important. Renewables may be rapidly gaining public support worldwide (Devine-Wright, 2014) but this is not necessarily the case for geoengineering (Scheer and Renn, 2014). In the past, public perception has had the power to limit the potential of a number of technological developments, for example, wind energy expansion, and this may well be the case (or worse) for numerous geoengineering techniques if the private sector are left responsible for their development.

So I am calling for a change of public perception by redefining uncertainty. Scientists need to be cautious with their communication of uncertainty to ensure that the public are correctly informed. A positive spin is required, alongside an emphasis on personal responsibility and widespread participation. The public need convincing that this isn't just a matter to be managed by a higher power (Stilgoe, 2015). We need to embrace the precautionary principle, which states that not having all information to hand is no reason for inaction (Steele, 2006). Otherwise, it is unlikely that anything productive would occur. Apparently, it is applied in its rudimentary form in many international agreements, except when there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage (Principle 15 of Rio Declaration). Many geoengineering techniques therefore apply to this exception. Perhaps international law's definition of the precautionary principle needs redefining too.

Then again, can the public be trusted to lead change? Unfortunately, a paper by Patt and Weber (2013) shows that the public are still more likely to form their opinions on climate change from their political views, rather than from evidence and error bars presented by the scientific community. This goes some way to explaining resistance amongst some members of the public. Maybe public opinion needs to be bypassed, by offering them what they should want, as opposed to what they think they want. I refer to the innovative private companies, and a quote from Steve Jobs, who once said: "People don't know what they want until you show it to them". He was a big believer in bypassing market research altogether; a waste of time and money.

I live in a position of privilege, with reasonable wealth, with a vote, in a region of the world where the effects of climate change are less impactful. Therefore, it is easy for me to sit here and dictate that we all need to lighten up in order for radical technological developments to progress. For this reason, I am thankful for the position of the law to ensure that the likes of me and my radical train of thought are kept in check, and that privilege and rights are shared with those who live in less fortunate circumstances.

I have learned the following from researching this blog so far:

• I remain pro-technology, even more so than when I began. But so long as it is sustainable for environmental health. 
• At present renewable technologies are overall in a good place - economically and politically. Long may this continue. Newly elected governments taking their seats in 2017 would be stupid not to see their environmental and ultimately, economic potential. 
• I have a mixed outlook towards geoengineering techniques. Whilst I'm interested in the innovative ideas that have emerged (for example, solar mirrors), they fail to solve the root of a problem, instead they risk introducing new ones. This is not the case for all of them however: I am convinced that CCS is a viable option and must be made widespread. 
• Economics dictate how the world works. And I can't see that changing, however much I would like it to.