WHY CLIMATE CHANGE IS LIKE A CHRISTMAS TREE

1. HOW TO EAT AN ELEPHANT:A Bottom-Up Approach to Climate PolicySteve RaynerJames Martin Professor of Science & CivilizationUniversity of Oxford,Honorary Professor of Climate Change & SocietyUniversity of Copenhagen

2. WHY CLIMATE CHANGE IS LIKE A CHRISTMAS TREE

3. THE KYOTO BANDWAGON COLLAPSED AT COPENHAGEN

4. THE KYOTO ARCHITECTURE - A CASE OF THEWRONGTROUSERS

5. THREE MISLEADING ANALOGIES

6. THERIGHTTROUSERS HAVE THREE TECHNOLOGY LEGS! • Energy technology modernization • Technology to cope with climate variability • Remediation technology (geoengineering)

7. ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES

8. THE CHALLENGE IS STAGGERING (IPCC)

9. IPCC PROJECTIONS OVER-OPTIMISTIC (Pielke Jr)

10. AMBITIOUS EMISSIONS TARGETS ARE UNREALISTIC

11. WHY IS EMISSIONS MITIGATION AN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PROBLEM? • The Kaya identity is expressed in the form: F = P * (G / P) * (E / G) * (F / E) = P * g * e * f where F is global CO2 emissions from human sources, P is global population, G is world GDP and g = (G/P) is global per-capita GDP, E is global primary energy consumption and e=(E/G) is the energy intensity of world GDP, and f=(F/E) is the carbon intensity of energy • Emissions = Population x Wealth x Technology • Population and wealth restriction are not politically attractive • Technology as “social systems mediated by materials & devices

12. ENERGY MODERNIZATION: A CREATIVE IMPERATIVE

13. OBSTACLES TO ENERGY MODERNIZATION

14. TECHNOLOGIES ARE SOCIALLY EMBEDDED QWERTYUIOP

15. INFRASTRUCTURE CREATES PATH DEPENDENCY

16. ELIMINATING THE OLD World Energy Mix

17. CAP & TRADE CANNOT WORK IN TIME: $80-100 BILLION NEEDED FOR RDD&D cost carbon non-C time

18. NEED FOR PUBLICLY FUNDED RDD&D • New technology faces “the valley of death” 3-12 years • Public funding required to reduce business risk • Small carbon tax ($5/tonne) could raise $80-150 billion/year • Opportunities for India and China – absent from Kyoto • Climate sceptics respond positively to energy security concerns

19. HOW TO DISTRIBUTE A CLIMATE FUND • Avoid errors of 70s-80s • Prizes • Allow competition between diverse portfolios • Lessons from military procurement

20. TECHNOLOGY FOR COPING WITH CLIMATE VARIABILITY

21. ARE EXTREME EVENTS INCREASING?

22. CLIMATE CHANGE OR ASSET LOCATION?

23. 1925

24. CLIMATE PORNOGRAPHY!

25. ALREADY HAPPENING

26. NEED FOR FLEXIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE

27. POOR ARE HIGHLY VULNERABLE

28. LEARNING FROM CREATIVITY OF MARGINAL SOCIETIES

29. FLOATING COMMUNITIES REAL & IMAGINED

30. MALADAPTATION CREATES UNWANTED FEED BACKS

31. THE CULPRIT

32. WHICH INCREASES DEMAND FOR THESE

33. TIME FOR A NEW LOOK AT OLD TECHNOLOGY

34. REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY “Deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change” • Technological imaginaries • Heterogeneous practices • Imagined absence of incumbents

35. HOW MIGHT WE DO IT?

36. WHAT ARE THE OBSTACLES? • Moral hazard • Ecosystems disruption • Technical & economic lock-in • Governance arrangements • Potential to disrupt existing policy architecture

37. THE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL DILEMMA • Solution is flexibility & corrigibility by avoiding premature lock-in • Technological monoculture • Capital intensiveness • Long lead times • Hubristic claims • etc

38. OXFORD PRINCIPLES • Geoengineering to be regulated as a public good • Public participation in decision making • Disclosure of geoengineering research & open publication of results • Independent assessment of impacts • Governance arrangements to be clear before deployment

39. CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT SIMPLY A TECHNOLOGY OR POLICY DESIGN PROBLEM IT IS A CHALLENGE TO THE IMAGINATION