1. 1

2.  Review of course  Energy Transitions  Mobilizing action on climate  Themes 2

3.  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: Energy Planning and Approval 3

4.  Week 8: Midterm Exam  Week 9: The Two Giants: Energy Policy in China and the US  Week 10: Case Studies in Policy Innovation  Week 11: Simulated Multi-stakeholder Consultation  Week 12: Synthesis, Reflection 4

5.  What should be covered that we didn’t address?  Is there a need for more policy-relevant analytical methods? 5

6.  What should be reduced or eliminated to make room for new stuff? 6

7.  Assignments  Midterm  Simulation and paper – is acting like an advocate an important learning experience? 7

8.  pedagogy 8

9.  The inherently slow pace of energy transitions  Definition: energy transition encompasses the time that elapses between the introduction of a new primary energy source (coal, oil, nuclear electricity, wind captured by large turbines) and its rise to claiming a substantial (15%) share of the overall market  Energy sources vs prime movers 9

10.  Past transitions have take ~ half century  Explanation: essential a socio-technical system path-dependence argument (carbon lock-in)  Logistical challenges mean plans for transition are a “grand delusion”  Jacobson and Delucchi “fairy tale”  Note: their 2009 version was all energy by 2013; 2010 was all new by 2030, all by 2050 10

11.  Is there any reason to expect the next energy transition could be faster than the previous? because it better be…. 11

12.  Unruh, Escaping Carbon Lock-in 12

13.  Review of course  Energy Transitions  Mobilizing action on climate  Themes 13

14.  Puzzle:  Consensus in science community about serious of problem and urgent need to address it  Lack of awareness and motivation among public and lack of political action  Psychology helps explain – climate change fails to activate our moral intuitions April 4, 2013Sustainable Energy Policy14

15. April 4, 2013Sustainable Energy Policy15

16. April 4, 2013Sustainable Energy Policy16

17.  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 17

18.  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 18

19.  Fundamentals to analysis  Problem definition  Criteria  Alternatives  Consequences  Trade-offs 19

20.  There are a variety of instruments available in clean energy policy, and they come with a different package of attributes and consequences 20

21.  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 21

22.  Different countries face different challenges because of different  resource endowments  policy legacies  political cultures  Institutions  Where it has been introduced, policy has been effective at increasing RE penetration but not yet at a scale or rate consistent with what is needed to reach climate goals 22

23. 23

24.  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 Policy24

25. 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 25

26.  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 26

27. 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 27

28. 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 Policy28

29.  Politicians “lead” – move beyond electorate Or  Electorate creates incentives for politicians to act  Organize  Mobilize 29

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

32. Tahrir Square, February 11, 2011

34. 34

35. Sustainable Energy Policy35