1. 1

2.  California study  Review of course  Themes  Mobilizing action on climate 2

3. Sustainable Energy Policy3

4. March 19, 2013Sustainable Energy Policy4

5. 5

6. 6

7.  Week 1 Course overview  Week 2: Sustainable Energy as a Social and Political Challenge  Week 3: Formal Government Processes –  Week 4: Policy process, Actor Dynamics  Week 5: Policy Analysis in a Political Context  Week 6: Policy Instruments  Week 7: Midterm Exam + nuclear power 7

8.  Week 8: Energy Planning and Approval Strategies  Week 9: Rest of Canada  Week 10: Clean energy, international trade, climate diplomacy  Week 11: The Two Giants: Energy Policy in China and the US  March 12: Simulated Multi-stakeholder Consultation  April 4: Synthesis, Reflection 8

9.  What should be covered that we didn’t address?  Is there a need for more policy-relevant analytical methods? 9

10.  What should be reduced or eliminated to make room for new stuff? 10

11.  Assignments  Midterm  Simulation and paper – is acting like an advocate an important learning experience? 11

12.  pedagogy 12

13.  Climate (clean energy) challenge compounded by temporal and spatial inconsistency  Motivated reasoning: people filter facts through the values/worldview – convincing people with factual reason when implications conflict with their values is a major challenge 13

14.  Authority: ability to make rules backed up by coercive power of the state  Found in formal rules and procedures – understanding them in a necessary step in influence  Who decides? At what level?  Power/influence: ability to influence outcomes  More diverse sources 14

15.  Fundamentals to analysis  Problem definition  Criteria  Alternatives  Consequences  Trade-offs 15

16.  There are a variety of instruments available in clean energy policy, and they come with a different package of attributes and consequences 16

17.  Nuclear power is low GHG but costly and comes with distinctive real and perceived risks  Project planning and approval is complex and there are frequently tradeoffs between quality and coherence on the one hand and political realities on the other 17

18.  Different countries face different challenges because of different  resource endowments  policy legacies  Political cultures  Institutions 18

19.  International trade rules constrain the use of certain policy instruments  Collective action dilemma in global diplomacy formidable 19

20. 20

21.  Sustainable energy requires that prices reflect their true environmental and social cost  Government action is required to internalize costs  Policy is made by politicians whose core interest is reelection, which discourages them from imposing costs Sustainable Energy Policy21

22. Transition to clean energy is feasible and affordable But…we are stuck Requires politicians to raise energy prices Which is improbable without intense social pressure 22

23.  Confidence in one or both instruments to price carbon:  Economy wide carbon tax  Economy wide cap and trade  Supplementary policies  Energy R&D  Regulations to foster sector specific change 23

24. Mitigation measures would induce 0.6% gain to 3% decrease of GDP in 2030 Stabilisation levels (ppm CO2-eq) Range of GDP reduction (%) 445 - 535< 3 535 - 5900.2 – 2.5 590 - 710-0.6 – 1.2 Costs of mitigation in 2030 24

25. There is a profound tension between the incentives of politicians to avoid imposing costs and the need to use government action to increase prices Sustainable Energy Policy25

26.  Politicians “lead” – move beyond electorate  Electorate creates incentives for politicians to act  Organize  Mobilize 26

27.  Acting according to short term material interest won’t solve the problem  Act because it is the right thing to do

29. Tahrir Square, February 11, 2011

31. 31

32. Sustainable Energy Policy32