It’s Getting Hot In Here

Okay, so maybe elementary school lessons about assumptions making asses out of you and me can’t hold true in the global climate debate, but a recent article in Nature does in fact call the IPCC to reflect on whether its assumptions are grossly underestimating the amount of policy innovation and technological change needed to stabilize our emissions. The authors, Roger Pielke, Jr, Tom Wigley and Christopher Green, argue that all of the IPCC scenarios incorporate far too much “spontaneous” improvements in energy technology and thus reductions in energy intensity. They conclude the article saying:

There is no question about whether technological innovation is necessary — it is. The question is, to what degree should policy focus directly on motivating such innovation? The IPCC plays a risky game in assuming that spontaneous advances in technological innovation will carry most of the burden of achieving future emissions reductions, rather than focusing on creating the conditions for such innovations to occur.

While I remain optimistic about the potential for technological innovation to be driven by market demand and international creativity, the authors do point out that the IPCC is being “dangerously optimistic” by assuming that massive economic growth can occur in China and India while maintaining energy intensity. The article has received both major criticism and significant support from scientists around the world. While I’d agree with some critics that it’s still more important to find the ways to reduce energy intensity - whether spontaneously OR through policy - than to argue about where they’re coming from, the article reminds us that the policy and technological challenges are enormous and global leaders need to consider how to enable and encourage this change.

The IPCC assumptions that are the basis of international and national policies around the world are incorporating not only technological advancement, but changes in policy. The question in my mind is not whether or not they are accurate, but how we can actually get there. How can we make these assumptions of “spontaneous” change actually happen!? Much of this “spontaneous” change will not actually be spontaneous. It will take the conscious decisions of scientists, engineers, policy-makers, and all individuals.

Going back to the root of the article’s questions, most of the IPCC scenarios do incorporate a global 1 % of reductions in energy and emissions intensity, while historical averages of even 0.6 % reduction in energy intensity (the average for the 20th century) has reversed in the past ten years. All of the IPCC scenarios, the article contends, had predicted reductions in global energy intensity from 2000-2010, though a global increase in energy intensity has been occuring, as countries like India and China have dramatically increased energy demand through high emissions-producing energy sources.

Andrew Revkin has been able to interview capture many really interesting viewpoints on the “Technology Gap in the Climate Debate“. One point that Adil Najam, on of the IPCC lead authors, raises in Revkin’s article is that if the debate continues to revolve around technology, it may forget that changing carbon intensity of energy or changing energy intensity of GDP will also involve changing lifestyles. I liked his quote:

My view is that we are saying that you CAN do a tremendous lot with what available technology… Enough to make a real difference. It is true that this will not be enough to lick the problem, but it will be a very significant and probably necessary difference. Let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good here. The need to make a real technology shift is very real. But let that not be an excuse not to do what we already can with existing technologies… Especially because doing the latter WILL make a difference.

My worry about the some of these arguments is that they are still looking only for technology fixes … These will be necessary, but not sufficient. Ultimately it WILL require lifestyle changes too. Not just WHAT we drive but how far we drive. Not just what appliances are in our house but WHERE our house is. That, I think, is an even bigger challenge than technology.”

The IPCC assumptions that are the basis of international and national policies around the world are incorporating not only technological advancement, but changes in policy. The question in my mind is not whether or not they are accurate, but how we can actually get there. How can we make these assumptions of “spontaneous” change actually happen!? This “spontaneous” change can’t actually be spontaneous. It will take the conscious decisions of scientists, engineers, policy-makers, and all individuals.

Jeffrey Sachs writes his response in the newest Scientific American, saying:

For that, we will need much more than a price on carbon. Consider three potentially transformative low-emissions technologies: carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), plug-in hybrid automobiles and concentrated solar-thermal electricity generation. Each will require a combination of factors to succeed: more applied scientific research, important regulatory changes, appropriate infrastructure, public acceptance and early high-cost investments to “ride the learning curve” to lower costs in the long term. A failure on one or more of these points could kill the technologies.

These factors are built into the baseline assumption of spontaneous adoption of cleaner technology, but without supporting research and active engagement for public acceptance, they won’t get off the ground. So maybe it’s not only about assuming the technology is ready and available, but about assuming the other factors are spontaneous.