Rethinking the BAU energy paradigm Six principles for change Liam Salter Head, Climate Programme WWF Hong Kong ICCC May 2007.
Post on 19-Jan-2016
216 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Rethinking the BAU energy paradigm
Six principles for change
Liam Salter
Head, Climate Programme
WWF Hong Kong
ICCC May 2007
Outline
• The concept of business as usual energy paradigm• Technology mixes for climate protection• Six principles for reform• Hong Kong and the six principles• Conclusions
Thinking ‘Paradigms’
“At any time in history there is a ruling paradigm within the constraints of which most thinking takes place.”
“When its effectiveness diminishes and it begins to break down, a paradigm shift takes place and a new paradigm comes into being.”
(Reddy, 2002)
Thinking ‘Paradigms’
• GROSSCON – GRowth Oriented, Supply Sided, CONsumption directed
• DEFENDUS – DEvelopment Focused, END Use oriented, Service directed
The late Amulya Reddy
Thinking Paradigms
• Hard energy path – the more energy we use the better off we are
• Soft energy path – energy is a means to social ends. Energy services are tailored to needs.
Amory Lovins
“… any plausible BAU scenario entails continuing increases in global temperatures, well beyond levels previously experienced by humankind …” (Stern Report)
US DOE EIA 2007
IEA WEO 2004
WWF 400 ppm CO2e
WWF Climate Solutions Report (2007) www.panda.org/climate
Ambitious climate scenario technology mixes vary ….
2050
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Tota
l prim
ary
ener
gy u
se (E
J/y)
wind/solar/hydroBiomassSolar H2 + solar electricityRenewables excluding Solarsolar H2 onlyrenewablesCoalOilGasfossilNuclear
Hohne and Hoogwijk, (2005)
Common features of low carbon scenarios
• No technology silver bullet
• In the short to medium term the bulk of emissions reductions come from massive improvements energy efficiency.
• The structural shift towards a low carbon energy supply tends to dominate the reduction potential over the longer term. Preparing low carbon supply technologies for substantial increases in market share post - 2050 was a key priority in the short-medium term.
• Key common supply technologies across many models were renewable energy and carbon capture and storage.
Back to paradigm thinking
• BAU / GROSSCON / Hard Energy Path will not protect us from climate change
• What will it take to bring these technologies to market?• Evidence suggests that there is no ‘policy bullet’ either• Require a comprehensive rethink of BAU / GROSSCON /
Hard Energy Path that delivers on other energy policy objectives such as access to energy and energy security concerns
Rethinking energy system drivers
1. Valuation and pricing
2. Supply vs. demand
3. Consumer participation
4. Infrastructure
5. Planning
6. Technology development
Using principles and techniques already in use today
2 caveats:
Not intended as an exhaustive list
Limitations of power sector oriented analysis
Valuation and pricing:Internalising True Costs
True costing in practice
• Carbon emissions trading• USD 24 billion in 2006 and potentially the world’s largest commodity
market • Can deliver the true cost of carbon only if linked to ambitious
compliance targets
• Suite of measures is required to reflect even partial true cost to all consumers• Taxes• Emissions charges• Technology standards
• Uncertainty often cited as the reason for avoiding a holistic approach to true costing
Supply and demand:Efficiency first
Efficiency first
Packages and tools vary by country and sector
Policy targets critical to evaluate performance of packages e.g. China’s 11 Five Year Plan
Minimum standards – appliances, buildings, automobiles
Sector specific programmes e.g. China’s top - 1000 programme
Consumer engagement and labeling
Financing schemes
Public procurement
True costs
Rethinking the consumer:Promoting participation
“Economics drive customers. Customers drive markets. But first, they must be informed, educated and challenged” Rose McKinney-James, former President and CEO of the Corporation for Solar Technology and Renewable Resources, Nevada.
"We must understand clearly that public participation is the right and interest of the people endowed by law. The government has the obligation to respond to and to protect this right.“ Pan Yue, SEPA Vice-Minister
Participation in practice
• ‘Community Choice’ Laws passed in Massachusetts, Ohio, and New Jersey and Rhode Island in recent years, One programme involving over half a million customers has already achieved a 33% greenhouse gas reduction in its electricity without a rate increase. 12 Californian cities, 3 million residents finalising Ordinance to achieve 40% green electricity from green power
• Civil society watchdogs supporting power sector regulation in Maharashtra, India
1999-2000 - Civil society analysis of MSEB tariff proposals revealed accounting irregularities and allowed the regulator to insist on enhanced energy efficiency
Remaining 3 principles
• Decentralisation• Master planning• Bringing critical technologies to market
Principle Paradigm Checklist
Hong Kong power sector
Rating
0 = no action
1 = pilot activities, policy intention
2 = firm policies and case studies
3 = broad practice
True Costs Voluntary emissions trading
Power plant emissions targets1
Efficiency first Appliance labelling proposed
Out of date building codes
No targets
0
Participation Consultation without implementation 1
Decentralisation Monopoly power providers, no SPP rules, almost no installed capacity
0
Master planning No energy policy or power development plan
0
Bringing critical technologies to market
No significant programme supporting technology choice
1
Total GROSSCON alert!!! 3 (/ 18)
Conclusions
‘Its not that we need new ideas, but we need to stop having old ideas’. Edwin Land
A paradigm shift using DEFENDUS or Soft Energy Path style logic is required to protect the world from climate change. ‘Tinkering around the edges’ will not bring the major shifts in technology required to cut emissions.
Paradigm shift must go beyond technology analysis and understand the system-level issues that drive technology choice
Beyond technology paradigm shift can be defined concretely in terms of specific principles which can be used as the basis for energy policy analysis and development
Can a focus on principles move us out of our ‘technology boxes’? And actually improve our ability to build consensus?
Thank You!
lsalter@wwf.org.hk
top related