Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
Similar to ENV616 Science-Policy Seminar 31696488 KAustin
Similar to ENV616 Science-Policy Seminar 31696488 KAustin (20)
ENV616 Science-Policy Seminar 31696488 KAustin
- 1. IS ENOUGH SCIENTIFIC ENERGY GOING INTO CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION POLICY? Kate Austin - Student # 31696488 ENV616 – Environmental Policy for the 21st Century A review of scientific contribution towards Australia’s energy and climate change mitigation policy development
- 2. AUSTRALIAN ENERGY POLICY • Australia benefits from plentiful and diverse energy resources • One of only 3 net energy exporters in the OECD • World class wind, solar and geothermal resources largely untapped • Energy sector is a major contributor to the Australian economy • Australian Government’s Energy White Paper is focused on supplying domestic and foreign markets with Australian sourced fossil fuel resources • Combusted fossil fuels are major contributors to GHG emissions and, as a result, anthropogenic climate change.
- 3. CLIMATE CHANGE – THE SCIENCE • It is real – our earth is warming • Significant contribution to warming effect from anthropogenic influences • Australia is vulnerable to physical changes as a result • Australia’s contribution to CO2 emissions considered low in comparison to other global actors – but is it? • Consider Australia’s energy mix as an electricity source and our CO2 emissions profile…
- 4. THE ROLE OF SCIENCE IN SHAPING ENERGY AND CLIMATE POLICY The role of science in informing and shaping policy involves: • Providing clarity of understanding around the fundamental dimensions of issues facing policy-makers; • Specifying parameters around known and verifiable facts and what remains unclear; • Identification and analysis of options for responding to issues; • Analysis of consequences of recommended courses of action across multiple dimensions to assess impact and viability as a policy response; and • Raised public and political consciousness about the threat of climate change to the world’s ecosystems.
- 5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CO2 REDUCTION FOR CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION • How do we reduce CO2 emissions to mitigate against the risk of climate change? A range of approaches recommended by scientists and policy advisors. • Early approaches included command and control instruments with a more recent trend towards favouring market-based mechanisms. • Consensus we need to cease, or significantly reduce our reliance upon fossil fuels • Increase renewable energy generation sources into energy mix • Climate change mitigation is not a single policy solution – need to adopt a range of policy instruments
- 6. SCIENTIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CO2 REDUCTION & MITIGATION – POLICY OPTIONS Energy related policy options for the reduction of CO2 emissions: • Carbon Prices – including carbon tax and emissions trading schemes; • Subsidies and other taxes – Subsidies/rebates on capital outlays; Feed in Tariffs; Fuel/resource tax; Low interest or Guaranteed loans; • Direct Government Expenditure – installation of government funded infrastructure including public electric vehicle recharging stations • Regulatory Instruments - RET; Renewable energy certificate schemes; Electricity supply or pricing regulation; Building and technology standards; Fuel content mandates; Energy efficiency regulation; Mandatory assessment, audit or investment. • Support for Research & Development (R&D) – general and demonstration; deployment and diffusion • Information and Education – Mandatory energy efficiency labelling Twomey, 2012.
- 7. SCIENCES’ SUCCESS IN INFLUENCING ENERGY AND CLIMATE POLICY Scientists have had varying levels of success in influencing energy and climate change policy in Australia. Some successes include: • Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) 1998 – Australia first country to establish a dedicated agency to reduce GHG emissions • Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) scheme 2001 • Australia ratifies the Kyoto Protocol to reduce GHG emissions - 2007 • ‘Garnaut Review’ Climate Change Report released – 2008 • Wilkins Review – ‘Strategic Review of Australian Government Climate Change Programs’ released - 2008 • Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES) and Feed in Tariffs - 2011 • The Clean Energy Act 2011 carbon pricing mechanism ‘carbon tax’ • Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) 2012 – competitiveness and supply of renewable energy. • Clean Energy Finance Corporation 2013 – finance renewable energy, energy efficiency and low-emissions technology projects.
- 8. SCIENCES’ CHALLENGE IN INFLUENCING ENERGY AND CLIMATE POLICY A number of key energy and climate policy instruments and institutions previously introduced have, or are, being eroded including: • In 2005 the IEA urges Australia to consider an ETS; Garnaut recommends similar in 2008. Australia was slow to respond with the Clean Energy Act 2011 carbon (tax) pricing mechanism which has since been repealed. • RET facing cuts to its current target of 41,000GWh down to 32,000GWh. • Significant funding cuts were outlined in the 2014 Budget to key climate change policies and agencies including CSIRO and ARENA whilst increasing support for the fossil fuels industry. • A review of the future of ARENA and Clean Energy Finance Corporation is underway. • Policy backflips are resulting in market uncertainty – Renewable energy and energy efficiency investment continues to decline stymying the large scale projects scientists and experts say will help mitigate climate change. • Warning: Political Leaders on both sides of politics lost positions over climate policy!
- 9. CHALLENGES INCORPORATING SCIENCE INTO POLICY A number of factors impede successfully incorporating science into the political realm. • Difficult to present accurate, relevant, policy-neutral data. • Difficulties for scientists to translate technical terms and complex concepts into the actionable strategies of policy-makers. • Energy and Climate Change policy issues are inherently intricate sharing common qualities: • Complexity • Polarisation • Winners and Losers • Delayed Consequences • Decision Distortion • National vs Regional Conflict • Misuse of Scientific Information • Funding sources of scientific research seen to distort the credibility of findings. • Difficult for scientists to appreciate that the science is one element of policy deliberations. • Some scientists are reluctant to involve themselves in the political process.
- 10. CHALLENGES FACING AUSTRALIAN ENERGY POLICY MAKERS Challenges integrating science and policy are broadly recognised • Australia faces additional challenges • Economic drivers – increased growth with resource-based economy • Energy sector dominated by influential lobby groups • Policy-makers agenda dictated by short-term view • Belief in the science? • Is this leading to a Government failure on energy and climate change policy?
- 11. IMPROVING THE SCIENCE-POLICY RELATIONSHIP - RECOMMENDATIONS • Consider adopting an adaptive management approach to policy development - allowing flexibility to cater for learning and changing developments • Clearly define and communicate the various roles and responsibilities of scientists and policy advocacy. • Help policy makers understand the benefits of science in helping to shape policy and inform the constituency for the need for courses of action. • Bridge the gap between scientists and policy makers - strengthen ties; help policy makers ask the right questions, translate the science into actionable information. • Scientists can undertake analysis and deliver policy options to support decision- making including identifying risks and consequences of action and inaction across multiple sectors and portfolios. • Must develop an Energy/Climate Change policy portfolio following an integrated and coherent design process – one instrument will not transform our energy segment and solve CO2 mitigation.
- 12. STABILITY FOR THE POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT • Australia is under increasing pressure domestically and internationally to modernise our energy and climate policy. • Our political environment remains unstable with scientists struggling to influence the political agenda for energy and climate. • Climate change will create an ever unstable environment for which we seek stability through mitigation and adaptation measures. • We should seek the same stability in our political environment. • For without it – we will fail to set an agenda to meet our nations growing energy demands and we will expose the planet to growing CO2 emissions from the continued burning of fossil fuels…. In that fail in our broader obligation to humanity and future generations to mitigate the risks of climate change.
- 14. REFERENCES Arvai, J., Bridge, G., Dolsak, N., Franzese, R., Koontz, T., Luginbuhl, A., Robbins, P., Richards, K., Smith-Korfmacher, K., Sohngen, B., Tansey. J. and Thompson, A. 2006. Adaptive management of the global climate research and climate policy. Climate Change, vol. 78, p.p. 217-225. Beeson, M. and McDonald, M. 2013. The politics of climate change in Australia. Australian Journal of Politics and History, vol. 59, p.p. 331-348. Australian Government. 2015a. Energy White Paper. April 2015. Department of Industry and Science. Viewed online on 13th April 2015 at: http://ewp.industry.gov.au/sites/test.ewp.industry.gov.au/files/EnergyWhitePaper.pdf Australian Government. 2015b. Setting Australia’s post-2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions – Issues paper. March 2015. Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Viewed online on 13th April 2015 at: http://www.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Issues_Paper_greenhouse_gas_1.pdf Cortner, H. J. 2000. Making science relevant to environmental policy. Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 3, p.p. 21-30. Curran, G. 2009. Ecological modernisation and climate change in Australia. Environmental Politics, vol. 18, p.p. 201-217. Garnaut, R. 2011. Australia in the global response to climate change: Garnaut climate change review – update 2011. Viewed online on 13th April 2015 at: http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/garnaut-review-2011/summary-20June.pdf Holmes, J. and Clark, R. 2008. Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation. Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 11, p.p. 702-711. International Energy Agency (IEA). 2015. IEA Energy Atlas Australia Electricity. Viewed online on 13th April 2015 at: http://energyatlas.iea.org/?subject=-1118783123 International Energy Agency (IEA). 2012. Energy policies of IEA countries – Australia: 2012 Review. Viewed online on 13th April 2015 at: https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2 Fwww.iea.org%2Fpublications%2Ffreepublications%2Fpublication%2FAustralia2012_free.pdf&ei=O7o- VcXsDs_hoASOxYGoCg&usg=AFQjCNEzT3UQQHjQkjjf19J_JPfctiSDrA&bvm=bv.91665533,d.cGU IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
- 15. REFERENCES Jotzo, F. and Kemp, L. 2015. Australia can cut emissions deeply and the cost is low. Centre for Climate Economics and Policy for WWF – Australia. Viewed online on 20th April 2015 at: http://awsassets.wwf.org.au/downloads/fs077_australia_can_cut_emissions_deeply_and_the_cost_is_low_21apr15_v2.pdf Keohane, R. O. 2015. The global politics of climate change: Challenge for political science. Political Science, vol. 48, p.p. 19-26. Lackey, R. T. 2007. Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conservation Biology, vol. 21, p.p. 12-17. Parkinson, G. and Vorrath, S. 2015. 10 things we learned about….Abbott’s contempt for climate. Renew Economy. Viewed online on 24th April 2015 at: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/10-things-we-learned-about-abbotts-contempt-for-climate-81165 Oikonomou, V. and Jepma, C. J. 2008. A framework on interactions of climate and energy policy instruments. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, vol. 13, p.p. 131-156. Scott, J. M., Rachlow, J. L., Lackey, R. T., Pidgorna, A. B., Aycrigg, J. L., Feldman, G. R., Svancara, L. K., Rupp, D. A., Stanish, D. I. and Steinhorst, R. K. 2007. Policy advocacy in science: Prevalence, perspectives, and implications for conservation biologists. Conservation Biology, vol. 21, p.p. 29-35. Singh, G. G., Tam. J., Sisk, T. D., Klain, S. C., Mach, M. E., Martone, R. G. and Chan, K. M. A. 2014. A more social science: Barriers and incentives for scientists engaging in policy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 12, no. 3, p.p. 161-166. Steel, B., List. P., Lach, D. and Shindler, B. 2004. The role of scientists in the environmental policy process: a case study from the American west. Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 7, p.p. 1-13. Talberg, A., Hui, S. and Loynes, K. 2013. Australian climate change policy: a chronology. Parliamentary Library Research Paper Series 2013-14, 2 December 2013. Twomey, P. 2012. Rationales for additional climate policy instruments under a carbon price. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, vol. 23, p.p. 7-32. Wagner, G. and Zeckhauser, R. J. 2012. Climate Policy: hard problem, soft thinking. Climate Change, vol. 110, p.p. 507-521. World Bank. 2015. 3.8 World Development Indicators: Energy dependency, efficiency and carbon dioxide emissions. Viewed online on 24th April 2015 at: http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/3.8
Editor's Notes
- Australia benefits from plentiful and diverse energy resources. It is the world’s 9th-largest energy producer and one of only 3 net energy exporters in the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) – all derived from fossil fuel sources. Yet ‘Australia also has extensive untapped wind, solar and geothermal resources, and large potential sources of wave, tidal and biomass energy’ (IEA, 2012, p. 7). The energy sector is a key contributor to the Australian economy employing around 100,000 people and contributing some 16% of GDP (IEA, 2012). The Australian Government (2015a) recently published its Energy White Paper which outlines the country’s energy policy framework which the Government describes as the blueprint for ‘delivering competitively priced and reliable energy supply to households, business and international markets’. At the epicentre of this policy framework is the supply of domestic and foreign markets with Australian sourced fossil fuel resources such as black and brown coal, and natural gas. These products when combusted are major contributors to GHG emissions, and as a result, anthropogenic climate change. Climate change has become one of the most contentious and divisive issues in Australian politics (Beeson & McDonald 2013; Talberg, Hui & Loynes, 2013; Keohane, 2015). It’s uncertain, global, and long-term nature presents a challenging trifecta for policy makers to address (Wagner & Zeckhauser, 2012) – even more so when our policy makers are themselves skeptical about the science. Or perhaps they choose to ignore the science in favor of broader economical concerns as indicated by the IEA who warned in 2012 that energy production had begun to dominate the Australian economy.
- So what of the science? Most would agree: Climate change is real – the earth is warming. This warming is a result of considerable anthropogenic influence - human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels are a major contributing factor. And, we are likely to see physical changes in our world because of these activities with Australia quite vulnerable to these changes (Garnaut, 2011; IPCC, 2014). Australia’s contribution to global CO2 levels is often passed off as negligible because we are considered a low emitter in comparison to many countries. Certainly the Australian Government in their recent Issue Paper ‘Setting Australia’s post-2020 Target for Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ (2015b) is positioning the nation as having taken action to meet our global commitment, and more recently in the media, as providing a blueprint that other nations globally can follow (Parkinson & Vorrath, 2015). However when you look at Australia’s per capita rate of emissions, we are still one of the highest emitters of CO2 world wide. In fact we are the highest emitter per capita in the OECD (World Bank, 2015). When you consider the amount of electricity generated by those high emitting countries, it is evident that our generation levels are in fact quite low, yet our emissions in contrast, quite high. A major contributing factor is Australia’s significant reliance upon fossil fuels in our energy mix (IEA, 2015). If we are to change this profile and reduce our CO2 emissions policy makers will need to understand the science behind the issues. What then is the role of scientists in this process?
- The role of science in informing and shaping policy involves (Steel et al., 2004): Providing clarity of understanding around the fundamental dimensions of issues facing policy-makers – providing expertise around the scope or magnitude of the issue and interrelated issues (i.e. the interrelated nature of many issues relating to energy and climate policy). This may even involve estimating or predicting severity, frequency and associated impacts of the effects of climate change to inform policy makers in determining mitigation or adaption policy. Specifying parameters around known and verifiable facts and what remains unclear – often it is just as important to understand what is uncertain about a particular issue as it is what is able to be verified and proved factual. As often it is within the areas of uncertainty where the risk lies for policy-makers. Identification and analysis of options for responding to issues; Analysis of consequences of recommended courses of action across multiple dimensions to assess impact and viability as a policy response And possibly most importantly, science should raise both the public and political consciousness (Cortner, 2000) about CO2 emissions, the threat of climate change on our world’s ecosystems and locally Australia’s energy profile and the contribution that our energy sector is having towards this issue.
- So in raising our consciousness, what do the experts suggest should be done to mitigate these risks? A range of recommendations have been posited from early command and control measures such as technological solutions and emissions performance standards, to a shift more recently towards market-based instruments such as environmental taxes or permit trading schemes (Twomey, 2012). Notably, and not surprisingly, the first step is to cease or significantly reduce our dependency upon fossil fuels, increasing renewable energy sources for electricity generation in our energy portfolio. Australia is well positioned to transition to a renewable energy mix with world-class solar, wind and geothermal energy sources (Garnaut, 2011; Jotzo & Kemp, 2015). In fact it is estimated Australia’s renewable energy potential is in excess of 500 times greater than it’s current power generation capacity (Jotzo & Kemp, 2015). However, scientists agree the best approach to climate change mitigation is not through a single policy instrument, but rather by adopting a range of instruments in the portfolio (Garnaut, 2011; Oikonomou & Jepma, 2008). This has resulted in a broad range of instruments being developed to mitigate the effects of increasing CO2, particularly as it relates to the energy sector.
- Twomey (2012) suggests there is a range of energy related policy options available to reduce CO2 and mitigate climate change including: Explicit carbon pricing mechanisms such as - carbon taxing and emissions trading schemes. Financial instruments such as subsidies and other taxes – which might include subsidies or rebates associated with capital outlays (i.e. retrofitting a coal-fired generator with carbon capture and storage systems); Feed in Tariffs which were popular to ignite the solar industry a couple of years ago – although as a policy they were found to have some unintended consequences such as rising electricity prices; Fuel/resource taxes for instance to cost the externality of pollution associated with using diesel fuel for electricity generation, particularly in remote areas and transport sector; Low interest or guaranteed loans for transitioning to renewable energy technology, for research and development or for abatement investment such as CCS. Direct government expenditure – which might include funding the installation of infrastructure such as charging stations for EV’s, which support a transition for the transportation sector to cleaner solutions or investment in ‘green’ generation sources by local or State Governments. Regulatory options include a broad range of instruments including the RET, renewable energy certificates such as those used for Large and Small-scale solar scheme; electricity pricing regulation and setting of tariffs, building and technology standards ensuring minimum energy efficiency or emissions standards; Fuel content mandated – increasing biofuel content, Energy efficiency regulation (minimum efficiency standards), Mandated assessment, audit or investment such as GHG emissions and energy use reporting. Support for R & D including supporting initiatives and institutes such as National Low Emissions Coal Initiative, Australian Solar Institute and CCS Flagships Program. Motivational instruments such as information and education – including labelling schemes such as mandatory energy efficiency labelling for appliances. Whilst this is certainly a comprehensive list of generic policy options designed to mitigate climate change, many of which are founded on significant scientific research and empirical evidence, one must ask, has science been successful in shaping Australian policy for energy and climate policy?
- Historically, scientists and climate experts have had varying levels of success in influencing Australian energy and climate policy for mitigation of CO2 emissions. This fluctuating success perhaps mirrors the turbulent state of Australian politics over the last decade or so. At times the government of the day and their advisors have been pioneers, only to erratically alter course and backflip on climate change policy (Talberg, Hui & Loynes, 2013). In line with the energy and climate policy instruments previously discussed some of these successes include: 1998 establishment of the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) – Australia first country to establish a dedicated government agency to reduce GHG emissions (Talberg, Hui & Loynes, 2013). The establishment of the MRET (Mandatory Renewable Energy Target) by the Howard Government in 2001 Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd ratifies the Kyoto Protocol to reduce GHG emissions – 2007 The Garnaut Review climate change report – Key review commissioned by the government analysing the impacts of climate change on Australia including costs of mitigation and adaptation (Talberg, Hui & Loynes, 2013). The Wilkins Review ‘Strategic Review of Australian Government Climate Change Programs’ commissioned by the government in 2008 (Talberg, Hui & Loynes, 2013). The successful combination of the Federal SRES Small-Scale Renewable Energy Scheme and State-based Feed-in-Tariffs ignited the PV industry in 2011. The Clean Energy Act 2011 carbon pricing mechanism introduced by the Gillard Govt in 2012 (Australian Govt, 2015). Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) established in 2012 under Labour with a mandate to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, and to increase the supply of renewable energy in Australia. Clean Energy Finance Corporation introduced by the Gillard government in 2013 to provide finance for renewable energy, energy efficiency and low-emissions technology projects. All of these institutions or policy instruments were lynchpins for energy and climate agenda and shaped through advice and expertise of the scientific and professional community.
- Sadly, a number of key energy and climate policy instruments introduced are being eroded with our mitigation efforts and international reputation along with them. In 2005 the IEA urged Australia to consider implementing an ETS in the Energy policies of IEA countries – Australia 2005 review. Garnaut (2008 and 2011) supported this recommendation. Heeding advice, the Australian government took initial steps towards an ETS with the Clean Energy Act 2011 carbon pricing mechanism introduced by the Gillard Govt in 2012. This legislation has subsequently been repealed by the Abbott government (Australian Govt, 2015). RET facing cuts to the current target of 41,000GWh down to 32,000GWh – this is seen by many commentators as a backwards step for the renewable energy industry as well as our ability to meet our commitments for cutting CO2 emissions. Significant funding cuts for climate change programs in the 2014 Budget with funding estimated to drop $4.5 billion in the first fiscal year whilst increasing support for the fossil fuel industry. It has been extensively covered in the media that the Government is looking to dismantle both the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA. This coupled with significant funding cuts in the 2014 is sending negative signals to the market resulting in market uncertainty and a downturn in renewable energy and energy efficiency investment. Which is stymying the type of large scale projects that the scientists and experts say will be effective in mitigating climate change. Whilst our politicians do not heed the advice of our scientists and experts they should be mindful that political leaders on both sides of politics have lost their positions over climate policy in recent years!
- This begs the question of why has it been so challenging to obtain stability in our energy and climate policy environment? A number of factors impede successfully incorporating science into the political realm. It is a common assumption that including science in the political decision-making process will improve the quality of decisions (Steel et al., 2004), yet it is often challenging for technical experts and scientists to provide accurate, relevant and policy-neutral data to decision-makers (Lackey, 2007; Scott et al., 2007). It is difficult to explain technical theories and complex concepts in simple terms and translate those into actionable strategies. Energy and climate change policy issues are inherently intricate sharing several common qualities (Lackey, 2007) including: * Complexity – multiple options and trade-offs * Polarisation – clashes between competing values are common-place * Winners and Losers – for each policy choice or instrument there are interest groups who will benefit, those who will be negatively impacted and groups for which the result will be uncertain. This is relevant for energy policy relating to transitioning to renewables, reducing mining and phasing out assets. * Delayed consequences – there are no quick fixes, or the benefits may not be realised for decades. Again, this is especially relevant for the generational issue of climate change mitigation. * Decision distortion – where scientists or policy-makers do not present a full range of options, distorting the options, benefits or consequences based on their beliefs or values i.e. providing policy advocacy masquerading as science. * National vs Regional conflicts – priorities may conflict significantly between local, national and international requirements. Again this is particularly relevant in Australia’s energy/climate policy agenda where reaping the benefits through energy policy at a national level is often pitted against international obligations to climate policy. * Misuse of Scientific Information – science can become an ‘battleground’ as we have seen in recent times with vested interest groups who may selectively use or misuse scientific information to support arguments for energy or climate action or inaction. Often misuse of scientific information is advocacy driven. The science is often funded by government agencies, corporations and other public and private interest groups calling into question the credibility of scientific findings as distorted by vested interests (Lackey, 2007; Scott et al., 2007). It is sometimes difficult for scientists to appreciate that the science is only one element of policy deliberations i.e. not the only answer or consideration (Steel et al., 2004). In contrast, some scientists are reluctant to involve themselves in the political process – either due to lack of confidence in expertise (Scott et al., 2004) or for fear of being criticised by colleges or commentators.
- The challenges of integrating science and policy is broadly recognised (Steel et al., 2004; Curran, 2009; Singh et al., 2014;). However Australia faces some additional challenges (Australian Govt 2015): A number of economic drivers Projected economic growth of 17% over 5 years 2014-2019 compared to global average of 12% for other advanced countries Population growth 1.6% compared to .4 Coal 60% of primary energy source in comparison to 20% of other developed nations. 95% of energy consumption from fossil fuel compared to 81% of other OECD countries. Our energy sector is dominated by influential lobby groups – primarily from the fossil fuel industry who seem to be exercising their influence on the current political agenda. Policy-makers often take a short-term view (what is of poignant to voters now) rather than a long-term ‘generational’ view needed for climate policy. Finally there is the issue of belief in the science (as undeniable as it may seem to be). It is possible that a section of our politicians choose not support the science for convenience. Curran suggests that both sides of Australian politics ‘have considerable interest, economic and political, in defending the energy status quo’ (2009, p. 202) and that this could be a conscious decision because governments of countries that export fossil fuels tend to generate weak climate policies. It is because of the challenges policy makers face and the focus of policy makers on short-term gains and vested interests that Wagner and Zeckhauser (2012, p. 507) believe that it ‘may well take dramatic loss to jolt the collective conscience towards serious action’. So short of a dramatic loss, how to we improve the situation?
- How could we improve the science/policy relationship? Consider adopting an adaptive management approach to policy development - this allows policies to be flexible to respond as scientists learn what mechanisms are effective and as technologies evolve. We must understand, clearly define and communicate the various roles and responsibilities relating to science, scientists and policy advocacy to ensure clarity of policy making based on technical and scientific data and remove distortion associated with values and preferences. Some still feel strongly about scientists and policy advocacy (Lackey, 2007) so where scientists chose to advocate a policy, to ensure transparency and trust, the advocacy should be declared. Help policy makers to understand the benefits of the science in helping to shape policy and inform the constituency for the need for courses of action. Must aim to bridge the gap between scientists and policy makers. This may require ‘interpreters’ to provide the interface between the scientists and policy makers to effectively translate the science into workable strategies and to translate issues into appropriate questions for scientists to answer. These may be individuals or boundary organisations (Holmes & Clarke, 2008). An adaptive management approach is appealing given the complexity and uncertainty associated with energy, environmental and climate issues. Adaptive management allows policymakers to learn over time and/or adapt policies as mitigation measures take affect and environment or markets begin to respond (Arvai et al., 2006). Scientists can undertake analysis and deliver policy options to support the decision-making of policy makers, including identifying risks and consequences of actions and inactions associated with various policy options including across multiple sectors and/or portfolios – i.e. unintended consequences of FIT’s on increased electricity prices even though it ignited the solar PV industry. Scientists and policy makers must work towards the development of an Energy/Climate Change policy portfolio following an integrated and coherent design process (Twomey, 2012) or risk creating a portfolio of policy instrument combinations that are at least incompatible and at worst contradictory, costly and fail to achieve their goals. Climate change is a quintessential public policy issue but perhaps more than ever science has a role to play in policy development because the issue of climate change is the policy perfect storm in that it is complex, global and multi-generational (Wagner & Zeckhauser, 2012) and science can inform and shape policy decision-making across this trifecta of intricacy.
- The Australian Government is under increasing pressure both domestically and from abroad to modernise their energy and climate policy and shift away from their political convictions that continue to set environment against economic interests (Curran, 2009). The political environment remains turbulent and as a result we should not view the scientific community’s ability to influence energy and climate policy in terms of success and ‘failure’ because of the nature of politics. As we have seen, even where scientists make successful inroads into influencing policy and governments develop instruments to tax carbon, or foster a transition to renewable energy or establish institutions to finance climate change mitigation, they just as quickly can repeal a law, dismantle an agency or are replaced by their opposition. It is undeniable that climate change will create an unstable environment for which we seek stability through mitigation and adaptation measures. So too should we be seeking stability within our political environment so that our expert scientific advisors and policy makers can get down to the business of developing policy to transition our nation to a low-carbon energy model and significantly reduce our CO2 emissions. For if we do not, we will fail to set an agenda to meet our nations growing energy demands and we will expose the planet to growing CO2 emissions from the continued burning of fossil fuels…and In that fail in our broader obligation to humanity and future generations to mitigate the risks of climate change.