This blog article discusses how practice theory has been used in energy research, including debates over what constitutes a practice. It argues that we shouldn’t get hung up on definitions, but should focus on using the most useful analytical aspects of practice theory. This way, it can help to uncover insights into social activity that might not have been found using another conceptual framework.
My research on energy demand from small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) draws heavily on practice theory. Practice theory offers a distinctive way of understanding the social world, moving away from a focus on the individual, or discourse and language, as the principal unit for research.
Practice theory has become popular in social scientific research into energy demand, most notably as a way to move beyond the idea that individual behaviour change will bring about the scale of demand reduction required to meet climate change targets. Rather than consider energy consumption to be a result of individual choice, a practice perspective highlights how energy is bound up in the ‘doings and sayings’ of everyday life: travelling to work, socialising with friends, cooking or eating. This alternative framing emphasises the limits of individual choice. For instance, if you live in the countryside but work in a city more than 20 miles away, then usually the easiest travel option for you is to drive, given the existence of a high-quality road system, cheap fuel and the social norms associated with driving. Considering ‘commuting’ through the lens of practice theory, we can see how materials, policies, technology and social meanings influence this activity, and that the element of individual choice is actually minimal. The relationships between these practice ‘elements’ are always mutating, constructing a dynamic ‘constellation’ which together make up the practice.
On the one hand these observations are hardly radical. But seen from the perspective of a social scientist investigating the use of energy in commuting, practice theory expands the possibilities for empirical study. The individual traveller (who in practice terminology is the ‘carrier’ of the practice) is no longer the sole actor of interest, opening up the potential for a variety of lines of enquiry. These include the potential to trace how materials and technologies have increased the safety and comfort of driving, leading to changing mobility patterns and even reconfiguring the broader practice of work itself.
The example given above about the relationship between commuting by car and the practice of work indicates that practices can have different scales and boundaries. Can ‘putting your foot down’, or ‘listening to the radio’ also be practices, or are they sub-categories of commuting-practice? For many adopters of practice theory, defining the types and boundaries of practices is a critical process.
One of practice theory’s most noted scholars, Theodore Schatzki argues that if we are true to the epistemological foundations of practice theory, then all social activity is made up of practices. The ‘plenum of practices’ includes not only cooking, but all the constituent parts of that activity: growing and transporting food, burning natural gas, following a recipe. In acknowledging that not all practices are ontologically equivalent, Schatzki differentiates between dispersed and integrated practices. Dispersed practices are small scale activities such as following rules, tinkering, or consuming energy through appliances’ standby mode, and can be conducted without context and incorporated into more complex social practices, taking on diﬀerent meanings. Integrative practices are broader activities including business practices, shopping or cooking. In Schatzki’s account, these practices have their own ‘teleo-aﬀective structure’, which is to say they hold meaning and signiﬁcance both for the performers of practice and in the wider social world.
For Alan Warde, this distinction is not enough. In trying to define what eating is from a practice perspective, he creates the new concept of a ‘compound’ practice to account for its scale and ubiquity. Specifically, he suggests that four integrative practices each make up the practice of eating, which affords it a different ontological status. These are (1) supplying food, (2) cooking, (3) the organisation and rules associated with meals, and (4) aesthetic judgements of taste. But why stop here? What about the integrative practice of shopping for food, or disposing of it?
A world without boundaries
In my opinion, debates over definitions, boundaries and ontological status of different practices lead us down a normative path. Striving towards a taxonomy of practices cuts against the radicalism and fluidity of analysis that the theory offers.
Having encountered practice theory at the start of my PhD, I found the radical decentring of the individual to be intellectually liberating, offering possibilities for research into social activity and energy demand which challenge the conventional methods and approaches of social science. If the entire social world is made up of practices alone, then whichever way you turn, whichever question you seek to answer, you will find practices to investigate. Concepts such as the ‘constellation of elements’ evoke an image of the chaotic social world which begins to represent the complexity and dynamism of lived-experience.
On a practical level, imposing rules and definitions on practices allows commentators to cast aspersions on others’ chosen practice for analysis. Typing, one might say, is not a practice in itself, but a constituent element of other practices such as ‘working’, ‘writing’, or ‘catching up with emails’. My contention is that the definition of practice is solely dependent on your research question.
If for example, you are attempting to trace the history of the secretarial profession, it is entirely appropriate to trace the trajectory and development of typing. Indeed, given the importance of material configurations (the adoption of the QWERTY format), the social meanings associated with the highly gendered practice, and the competences of touch-typing, practice theory may offer a valuable analytical framework for such a study. Returning to the example of eating, if your research is concerned with how family mealtimes have changed in the recent past, then it seems reasonable to define ‘eating at the table’ as a practice, in order to contrast it with ‘eating on the go’, or ‘grazing’.
This is not to say that drawing boundaries around a practice is a trivial exercise. It is a critical part of research design, as much as defining the research question and sampling for empirical data gathering. The challenge for the researcher is to identify a practice that allows them to best utilise the epistemological approach offered by practice theory, and to uncover insights into social activity that might not have been found using another conceptual framework.
For my recent paper on working from home, practice theory assisted me in developing my empirical approach, as well as analysing results. Although one could argue that working from home is simply a performance of work, but in a particular spatial setting, I chose to define home working itself as a discrete practice. This encouraged me to seek to find distinctive characteristics and themes associated with this activity. I was able to explore ideas of comfort, control and flexibility, which appeared to take on particular meanings and relevance within the practice. In decentring the individual and thinking about the dynamic constellation of elements, practice theory encouraged me to account for the material and affective dimensions of practice. This helps to bring to attention the importance of elements such as clothing and blankets, and the distinct ‘homely’ atmosphere created through tinkering and adapting aspects of our environment.
Reading sociological research and attending social science conferences, it can sometimes feel as though there is a ‘correct’ way to use practice theory. Debates and criticisms over where to draw boundaries can detract from the value of practice theory as an analytical framework. Perhaps this is related to the traditions and motivations of the researcher. For some, the theoretical integrity of practice theory as an explanatory account of the social world may be a core objective. For others, social theory is used primarily in support of their empirical work.
In my own research, I am motivated by the challenging of understanding how energy is used in the course of everyday life, and how social science can uncover patterns of consumption and opportunities which may lead to carbon emissions reduction. Rather than try to develop a taxonomy of practices and potentially be hindered by its ’proper’ use, it makes sense to be led by the research subject, and deploy its analytical strengths more fluidly.
For my DPhil, I have opted for the ‘thesis by publication’ route. This means I’m required to write four papers for academic journals, which each make up a chapter of the thesis. I will write an introduction, a brief literature review and a conclusion in addition to the papers.
My topic is relatively broad, with each paper looking at a different aspect of SME energy policy. I produced this infographic to help to demonstrate how the papers fit together to make a coherent narrative, and to answer my research question:
Recently, I had the opportunity to deliver opening and closing remarks on day two of the “Tipping Points: Finding Energy-Climate Balance” Conference. The conference was hosted by the Atlantic Council, Ecologic Institute and the Emerging Leaders in Environmental and Energy Policy (ELEEP) network. Gathering the top leaders under forty years old from around the world, the conference explored “one of the most pressing challenges the Millennial generation is inheriting: how to balance mitigating and adapting to climate change with the need for secure and reliable energy to fuel our future.”
To keep the conversation going, I am sharing a written version of my opening remarks and welcome any comments or follow-up questions. Big thank you to Sam, my fellow ELEEP alumnus for hosting this on his blog and to ELEEP alumni Catrina Rorke and Devin Hampton for their input.
Julia can be found on twitter at @Julia_JCo
Any guesses what the significance of this number is?
It is the number of barrels of oil and liquid fuels the world consumes each day. That is enough to fill more than 6,000 Olympic-size swimming pools every 24 hours.
Oil, natural gas and coal account for about 80% of the world’s primary energy supply. Clean energy (nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, hydro) constitutes about 8% of the world’s energy supply. 80 to 8. Biofuels and waste make up the remainder. Regardless of your fuel preference for energy, would you call this balanced?
That is what we are here for. To find balance. I, myself, have been on a search for balance: I am a green-hearted Californian, raised with a love of nature and the desire to prevent harmful effects on the environment and our beautiful planet. I also worked for ExxonMobil for a few years and saw how integral hydrocarbons are to everyday life and for powering the world’s economy.
Think about energy in our world and in our lives specifically. How many times did you use electricity this morning? Did you take hot shower? How many lights did you turn on? Did you make coffee? Did you charge your phone? Did you drive or hop on a bus? Here in Washington, D.C., in the U.S. and developed economies, we use electricity all the time. But some don’t.
An estimated 1.2 billion people, 16 percent of the global population, do not have access to electricity according to the International Energy Agency. That is a staggering number. Many of us are motivated by the need to bring clean electricity to disconnected areas, especially in sub-Saharan African and certain Asian countries, which are home to more than 95 percent of the 1.2 billion people mentioned above.
People disconnected from electricity need it and they need it now. They need it to access basic health and sanitation services, to work and study at night and power their progress to prosperity. Is it right to limit their energy choices and their access because of a problem (climate change) that they didn’t create? The economics, though, are changing quickly. Now we can light up those communities in a way that’s consistent with our efforts to fight climate change.
Even if you are more focused on your local community in the U.S. or Europe, growing populations are going to continue to use additional energy. How do we balance a changing climate with the need for secure and reliable energy for everyone in the world and a growing population? How does the business community factor into finding this balance? Who is going to pay for this? Or flipping the question, is there a business opportunity here, to make money?
Before diving into the numbers, it’s important to note that highlighting the dangers of climate change and fossil fuel emissions is no longer sufficient for promoting and paying for clean energy, especially today in the U.S. In fact, this can often have the opposite effect. If mitigating climate change is the primary reason for building a solar photovoltaic array for example, some may take offense and oppose the project on ideological grounds. If the goal is to advance clean energy, we must focus on the business case. No matter your political or philosophical leanings, nobody’s wallet will argue with choosing the cheapest form of energy to keep your lights on and your smartphone charged.
A great example of this comes from Texas, the heart of oil country! A small town called Georgetown is one of first cities in America entirely powered by renewable energy. The Mayor is a staunch Republican who voted for Trump. When the power contract was up, city managers looked at the options and realized wind and solar prices were more predictable and didn’t fluctuate like oil and gas. The city now knows what their energy bill will be for the next 25 years. Georgetown’s Mayor joked that the decision came down to a love of green rectangles (money) and green energy. Here, the business case won out over ideology and politics.
We are in luck because the cost of land-based wind power, utility and distributed photovoltaic solar power has fallen an average of 53% since 2008, per a U.S. Department of Energy 2016 report. Not only has the cost fallen, but renewables represent a huge investment opportunity. The U.S. was the second biggest clean energy investor in 2016, with $56 million, an increase of 8% from 2015. The total invested in global clean energy rose from $62 billion in 2004 to an incredible $329 billion in 2015. Plus, the fuel for solar and wind-powered generation is free, it’s the sun and air.
I support the Department of the Navy’s Resilient Energy Program Office as a Booz Allen Hamilton Contractor. A few weeks ago, I ran a groundbreaking ceremony in Mississippi for a 6-megawatt solar facility on a naval base. One of the Public Service Commissioners said in his remarks that he couldn’t tell us what milk was going to cost tomorrow or next week, but he could tell us what the cost of fuel for the installed solar panels would be: $0. Once installed, renewables provide long term cost savings and more stable electricity prices.
How do you think we should balance our growing need for energy and tackling climate change? Please leave a comment to keep the conversation going. Thanks!
 https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2016.pdf (page 7) biofuels and waste account for remaining 10 percent
The 3rd paper I am writing for my PhD focuses on the role of ‘middle actors’ in energy policy. Research has shown that Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs), who represent 99% of all businesses worldwide, are responsible for 64% of all environmental impact in the EU.
However, they are often excluded from conventional policy ‘hard levers’ such as environmental regulation and taxation, on the basis that ‘red-tape’ should be minimised for smaller businesses. The preferred approach to encouraging SMEs to reduce their environmental impact are incentive-based policies including publicly funded grants and access to expert advice and support. Under this model, the role of the low carbon advisor becomes crucial.
Despite the scale of SMEs’ environmental impact and the preference for incentive-based policy, there is very little academic research which looks at the role of low carbon advisors. This paper provides an in-depth account of the practices and experiences of these critical middle actors, asking: ‘is low carbon business support for SMEs fit for purpose?’
For this paper I draw on two main sources of data. 1) I have spent 12 months as a low carbon advisor in Oxfordshire, supporting SMEs to become more resource efficient. 2) I interviewed 19 other UK based low carbon advisors. 15 were publicly funded, providing energy audits and grants for measures such as replacement lighting, insulation or renewable energy. 4 were from the private sector: a business park landlord, an energy broker, and two general sustainability advisors.
Perhaps the most important finding from this research is that the role of a low carbon advisor is far from easy!
The first problem is engaging businesses with environmental projects in the first place. 5 main reasons this is so difficult came out of interviews:
Because of these challenges, most advisors tend to promote their advice and grants using marketing and advertising which emphasises the cost-savings opportunities. One advisor said:
‘Every time I speak to businesses I tell them they can save money, that’s the main focus. I know the business is not going to be that interested in being green. Even though they should, it’s just one of those things.’
The second set of challenges for advisors come after the SME has been initially engaged:
Findings showed that the majority of projects are primarily technical. Advisors might visit an SME to conduct an energy audit and write a thorough written report with costed recommendations, but no action is then taken by the SME:
‘I’ve seen 10 billion projects start and fail because all they do is go in and do an audit, write a report, leave a report, walk away. Nothing happens and I get absolutely infuriated because it is not just information failure, it’s a wider, more complex market failure.’ (NS)
Advisors are aware that ideally they would develop a more in-depth relationship with SMEs, but as one interviewee said: ‘its the soft stuff that’s hard’. In order to have conversations which go beyond the cost and technical focus, advisors need to have range of soft skills:
‘Securing that agreement to start a journey, to go and have a look at a business and to identify things that are not going well, and things that could be improved, is a delicate process to go through. You need advisors who can influence and who can manage change.’
The third challenge comes from the context of business support policy in general. Funding for low carbon projects is awarded by Local Enterprise Partnerships, who have a primary objective of delivering economic growth and creating new jobs. In keeping with this, projects tend to be delivered by organisations such as Chambers of Commerce and County Councils which have a track record of providing general business support, but who might not have a long track record of engaging SMEs on the sustainability agenda. Finally, funding rules and targets are set and audited in central government by the Department for Communities and Local Government, whose staff are unfamiliar with low carbon accounting methodologies and the practicalities of sustainable business.
Advisors complained that this policy context presented them with a set of obstacles:
Despite being expensive, policy makers tasked with trying to support SMEs to reduce their environmental impact favour face-to-face meetings, workshops and on-site energy audits. The findings of this study showed that the majority of interactions between advisors and SMEs are technical. Visits are usually focused on buildings, calculating payback assessments, and identifying ‘quick wins’ and ‘low hanging fruit’.
However, face-to-face meetings are unique opportunities, which could be more effectively used to engage owner-managers in more meaningful and far-reaching conversations. With a shift in the culture of advice-giving, alternative conversations could cover topics such as corporate responsibility as a whole, the organisation’s founding principles and values, and its long term role in an environmentally sustainable society.
Findings from interviews and participant observation demonstrated that ‘softer’ engagements do occur in some cases, but require a range of skills on behalf of advisors, mutual trust and buy-in from SMEs. One advisor suggested that technically focused energy assessments offer an opportunity to initiate relationships with SMEs, who may then be recruited to join low-carbon networks. This could be then be the start of a journal from awareness, to action, to advocacy.
This study is the first of its kind to put the spotlight on publicly funded advisors, providing low carbon advice and expertise to SMEs. It is perhaps surprising that despite offering free advice and grant funding, their job is a difficult one.
Reaching SMEs through low carbon initiatives is difficult, when energy is relatively inexpensive for most SMEs, and owner-managers’ consider their environmental impact to be minimal. Choosing the best options for reducing carbon emissions is also far from easy, and it can be easier to focus on technical aspects of buildings and technologies than on the broader meanings of energy and corporate values.
Given the scale of SMEs’ environmental impact and the preference for incentive-based policy over regulation and taxation, low carbon advisors are shouldered with enormous responsibilities. Despite the best efforts of talented and widely-skilled individuals, the current provision of low carbon business support is not likely to deliver emissions savings in line with national decarbonisation targets.
These middle actors deserve to be supported by evidence-based, people-centred policy with a broader scope than the growth-oriented model of conventional business support. By providing an in-depth account of their practices, this study has provided the foundations for more research, debate and policy development.
Last week I attended a study tour of Iceland with the ELEEP group. Basing ourselves in Reykjavik – along with 60% of Iceland’s whole population – we met with several large organisations including a major fishing corperation HB Grandi, Iceland’s largest bank Landsbankinn and national power company Landsvirkjun. From each of these we heard how their corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies were developing since the financial crisis which had hit Iceland so hard, and which made the meaning of sustainable development very real for Icelandic business. We also visited a state of the art geothermal power plant owned by Reykjavik Energy and a hydropower plant which has been producing emissions free electricity since the 1950s.
Iceland has a small population of only 330,000 people – the equivalent of Coventry, UK – but is blessed with a wealth of natural resources and a unique culture. Being at the intersection of major tectonic plates, Iceland is well known for its natural geothermal pools, and explosive geysers.
It is only in recent decades however that Iceland has begun to harness its natural energy resources. Until the start of the 20th century, Icelanders used imported coal and oil for heating and electricity generation, until the first small scale hydro power station was constructed in 1904. It’s transition to renewable energy began early though, with 12% of its energy being provided by hydro electricity even in 1940.
Demand for electricity is growing rapidly in Iceland, and in response it has been building new hydropower and geothermal power stations.
— Sam Hampton (@samhampton) October 6, 2016
The result of all this hydro and geothermal power is that electricity in Iceland is amongst the cheapest in the world, at only 5.5 US cents per KWh. Encouraged by the national government, energy intensive industries have been attracted to the island, and we learned that 80% of the electricity supplied by Landsvirkjun is to industrial users such as ALCOA and Rio Tinto in the Aluminium industry. The result is that Iceland is now the highest consumer of electricity per capita in the world.
Iceland’s natural energy resources are helping it to recover from its devastating financial crisis in 2008. An argument could certainly be made that its volcanoes, geothermal pools and wild rivers underpin the rapid growth of the island’s tourism industry, which is now Iceland’s biggest export and growing by 20% per year. After all, the hot water in the famous Blue Lagoon is actually provided by a nearby geothermal power plant.
Looking to the future, there is significant potential for the energy industry to drive further growth, as only a fraction of the sources of renewable energy are currently being harnessed. A fellow alumni of ELEEP Ásbjörg Kristinsdóttir is currently leading a project to extend the Búrfell hydro power station by 100MW to a total of 396MW, and her company Landsvirkjun are also in the process of constructing a 90Mw geothermal power plant in Þeistareykir in the north of the country. Both will increase capacity and improve the reliability of supply to domestic and industrial users. Landsvirkjun also have plans to build Iceland’s first utility scale onshore wind farm to harness the country’s extraordinary wind resource. Something that we experienced first hand:
Landsvirkjun predict that wind power will complement its existing portfolio of hydro generation further increasing security of supply, as illustrated by this chart from it’s report on wind power:
— Sam Hampton (@samhampton) October 6, 2016
I recently wrote a briefing note on underwater interconnectors planned to connect the UK electricity grid to its European neighbours, including the 1000km long 1MW ‘Icelink’. It was fascinating to hear the Icelandic perspective on this project from Asbjorg, who had been the Icelink project manager before working on the new extension at Búrfell. Having completed a feasibility study and economic assessment, the decision whether to go ahead with the major project now sits with members of Iceland’s parliament (pictured right).
According to Ásbjörg, the decision is as much about the costs and benefits for the electricity market as it is about the symbolic connection of the isolated island to its neighbours.
Efficiency and emissions
With abundant supply of cheap, low carbon electricity, a number of participants on the study tour observed that many of the basics signs of energy efficiency were not being practiced in Reykjavik. Our apartment and the various industrial premises we visited were all lit by halogen or incandescent bulbs, and frequently overheated. For those of us working on efficiency as the first priority for tackling climate change, it was a strange cognitive adjustment to think that energy conservation was not as high a priority in Iceland where energy is cheap, clean and abundant.
However, we learned on the trip that while geothermal electricity is renewable, it is not free of greenhouse gas emissions. While 99.5% of the gas released from geothermal bore holes is water vapour, 0.4% is carbon dioxide, meaning that for every kWh of electricity produced, around 50 grams of CO2 is released into the atmosphere. This compares very favourably to coal fired power stations which produce over 1kg/kWh, but presents a challenge for Reykjavik’s ambition to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040. According to Reykjavik Energy however, there is some potential for capturing and re-injecting carbon dioxide into deep geothermal bore holes, and at the Hellisheidi geothermal power plant we visited on the trip the company has already started to sequester 10% of its annual CO2 emissions.
It is not surprising that Iceland is becoming an increasingly attractive place for tourists from all over the world, with its outstanding natural beauty, tectonic activity and unique brand of Scandinavian culture. Having already completed its transition to renewable electricity, it is now seeking to further exploit its natural resources to support its sustainable development. For a group of young energy professionals it was a fascinating and awe inspiring place to visit. As a UK citizen, I hope that the Icelandic parliament do decide to go ahead with Icelink, and that we become increasingly connected – by more than just electricity.
Thanks go to the ELEEP members who organised the tour, and to the Atlantic Council for subsidising the trip.
Last week I attended the 1.5C conference, put on by the ECI in Keble College.
I was a ‘rapporteur’ for the conference, taking notes on technology options for reaching the 1.5C target for global warming as set out in the Paris COP21 agreement.
I wrote up my notes in an article which was published on the Carbon Brief website, which can be found here:
I created this two paged ‘POSTnote’ as part of an application for an internship with the government.
POSTnotes are issued by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) and are fantastic summaries of current scientific and technological developments, for an audience of policy makers. They’re very readable, and an excellent way to get up to speed on various contemporary issues. Here is the link to the official notes.
Interconnectors were surprisingly absent from the list, so I thought I’d create one myself – and have fun making it look official!Sam Hampton - POSTnote - Electricity Interconnectors
We’ve only just reached April, and yet 2016 seems to be promising to be a truly historic year.
Politically and environmentally, there are some trends which are threatening to bring about significant and extensive change.
The first historic event is the meteoric rise of Donald Trump. As a non-politician, he has galvanised support from millions of apparently disenfranchised Americans with his peculiar – yet familiar – brand of arrogance and vilification of the ‘other’. Regarding climate change, Trump is no different from any of his fellow Republican candidates in being a sceptic, and vowing to overturn Obama’s Clean Power Plan, and to wheel back from the US’s Paris COP21 commitments. Whether or not Trump wins the election in November, his popularity is decidedly worrying, and will no doubt draw the Presidential debate to the right.
Closer to home, the EU referendum in Britain looms ever larger.
While the debate goes on about the political, economic and military implications that a ‘Brexit’ might entail, as far as environmental policy is concerned, independence would ensure the removal of some of our most significant protections. As a member of the EU, our largest emitting companies are obligated under the ‘Emissions Trading Scheme’ which requires them to reduce overall emissions overall and pay for polluting. The EU also requires products sold in the UK are also required to meet energy efficiency standards, and decisions such as the banning of incandescent lightbulbs have led to significant demand reductions and energy savings for consumers. Although in a poor state, our fisheries and air quality is also protected by EU regulation. Without these supra-national influences, environmental regulation would be subject to greater fluctuations in political will as a result of changing governments. Whilst the current administration has been widely criticised for creating instability with inconsistent and uncertain energy policy in the UK, at least the EU provides some continuity and a baseline for environmental responsibility for those of us seeking stronger action on climate change.
Ironically, many accounts have shown that the UK’s contribution towards environmental policy on the EU stage is remarkably progressive, with DECC (at least under the Liberal Democrat Ed Davey) pushing for higher emissions reduction targets, and playing a central role in the Paris COP21 negotiations in 2015.
Another major geopolitical phenomenon due to fill our news bulletins this coming summer is the so called ‘EU migrant crisis’. With the situation in Syria showing no signs of improvement, southern states of Europe are likely to see another mass movement of people, possibly even larger than in 2015. Some commentators linked the migration to climate change impacts, particularly caused by food shortages, which of course is never possible to prove, but would indicate that last summer’s ‘crisis’ could increasingly become the norm. Germany’s policy of accepting migrants seemed to ease the problem last year, and we must hope its ‘open-arms’ policy continues this summer. As an aside, this truly historic move from the Merkel government has received far less credit than it deserves in the British media – being discounted as driven by their ‘need for jobs’ for example.
It is a matter of debate as to which of these three geopolitical events deserves more of our concern and attention. Meanwhile, in 2016, the effects of climate change have now surely arrived, with February surprising even climate modellers by far exceeding all records as the warmest month since global surface temperature has been measured since 1850 – a record that was only just set by December 2015. On top of this, today a report was released indicating that the impact of ice melt from Antarctica has been underestimated by computer simulations of future climate impacts, leading to potentially far higher sea level rise. Impacts such as these will surely drive a positive feedback loop with some of the issues discussed above – migration, food shortages, and even greater nationalism. On the positive side however, there are some promising trends, with China’s use of coal dropping, and renewable energy reaching 24.7% of electricity generation in the UK in 2015, and overtaking coal for the first time. And on a personally exciting note, today also marks the release of the Tesla Model 3, which could prove to be a turning point for the mass adoption of electric vehicles (if only I had £20k to spend). If you don’t know much about Tesla, I highly recommend this very fun and readable article.
2016 is only 3 months old, but we’ve already seen some ground-breaking events and a lot of worrying, and some exciting trends. It will be fascinating to see how the rest of the year unfolds.
One of the stories which made headlines after the recent Paris climate talks was that the text included a commitment to “pursue efforts to” limit global temperature rise to 1.5 °C. This amendment to the agreed text was apparently led by a group of small island states, understandably fearing the consequences of a 2°C world for sea level rise and extreme weather events.
Nearly all reports from Paris were of an optimistic atmosphere, of agreement and hope for the future. There were many reasons for this, including the fact that climate science is becoming more irrefutable and the impacts of climate change are already being felt. One of the major differences between these set of talks (COP21) and previous international climate agreements which famously ended in strained efforts from world leaders, is that in Paris, the organisers were not aiming to produce a legally binding set of agreements, that would require unanimous support, and subsequent ratification. Recalling the arguments raging in the mid-2000s around the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by Russia, the USA and Canada, this seems like a wise move.
Instead, before the Paris talks, all UN states were invited to submit ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contributions‘ (INDCs), setting out their own nationally specific objectives regarding carbon emissions over the coming decades. In many ways, this meant that the hard work had already been done prior to the December 2015 talks. Of course, leaving these commitments to each nation (and in the case of Europe, the EU), meant that there were a wide variety of different metrics and measures used in these documents. China, for example, aimed to peak carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 making a commitment for emissions reductions of 60-65% per unit of GDP, whilst other countries made commitments based on gross emissions, such as the 40% reduction set out by the EU by 2030, and the 26-28% reduction targeted by the US, by 2025. Even where gross commitments were made, it is very difficult to compare countries due to differences in baseline and target years used.
Nonetheless, whilst the Paris talks were in mid-flow, the UNFCCC managed (somehow) to combine these commitments, and make an assessment of what kind of climate-future the world’s nations were committing to. Making this announcement, Christiana Figueres (Head of UNFCCC), declared that the combined INDCS amounted to around 2.7°C warming. A far cry from 1.5°C. And of course, this calculation assumes that all the countries do go on to implement their commitments and achieve the levels of emissions reductions set out. Thinking about the 40% reduction in the EU, this will be far from easy.
It seems to me that there is a determined optimism in much of the conversation about climate change. A faith that we will somehow manage to take all the measures required to keep warming down below dangerous levels. I was lucky enough to hear Christiana Figueres speak in Oxford before the Paris talks, and I was struck by her positive, optimistic outlook. Even when making her announcement about the 2.7°C commitments, she put a positive spin on this news, saying it was a real improvement on the 4-5°C predictions being made by many. Of course, you would want nothing short of this kind of optimism from someone in her uniquely difficult position, having to corral world leaders into agreement.
My concern however, is that followers of the agreement were left with an optimism that might border on complacency. Following developments via mainstream media for example, one might be forgiven for thinking that great progress had been made by our governments, and that climate change was going to be managed nicely by our elected superiors on our behalf. And yet it is not only those following climate change at arms length that seem to be in danger of this. At a recent meeting in the ECI, I was surprised to hear some of the Professors talking about a dearth of literature expanding on 1.5°C scenarios, and that the celebrations to mark the institute’s 25th birthday would be centred on a conference on the topic.
My personal view is that 1.5°C is entirely unrealistic. At best, the inclusion of this goal in the UN talks highlights the dangers of warmer scenarios, potentially instigating further action. But at worst, it detracts from the reality, that it is high likely we’ll see our climate warm by more than 2.5°C unless we take drastic, urgent action to curb emissions.