Source: eschipul (Flickr)

The disappointment of Copenhagen, hardly eased by Cancun, has prompted the question: ‘Now what?’ One possible answer lies in The Hartwell Paper: A new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009, jointly written by a group of academics in February 2010.

The recommendations of The Hartwell Paper emerge from the revision of some basic climate concepts.

Firstly, the authors resist the conception of climate change as One Big Problem. The conception that they prefer is of climate change as ‘a persistent condition that … can only be partially managed more—or less—well.’

Secondly, the authors resist the notion that climate change demands One Big Solution—namely, the reduction of carbon emissions through a globally binding agreement. Not only does this conception overlook the peculiarities of other greenhouse gases, they argue, it also treats issues such as clean energy, environmental protection and developmental justice as only incidental benefits, goods that hitch a ride on a ratified treaty.

The authors invert this conception, putting these ‘subsidiary’ issues at the forefront of climate policy. Here, the reduction of carbon emissions is regarded, rather, as a happy upshot of winning more manageable battles—specifically, adequate energy provision, sustainable development, and the mitigation of risks associated with climate change. Importantly, this strategy reflects a sensitivity to the political—to the short-sighted nature of democratic will and the practical importance of real-world progress.

The Hartwell Paper intends to provide a comprehensive alternative to the top-down models of Kyoto model and the cap-and-trade schemes (although for some doubts, read here). One attraction of the Hartwell approach, however, is that it can be implemented in parallel to large-scale negotiations. While diplomats strive for the king hit of a globally binding agreement, governments, councils, businesses and citizens could work simultaneously on a patchwork of more modest, more tangible issues, all of which contribute indirectly to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

So, how might this approach apply to the New Zealand context?

As it stands, New Zealand already has a top-down strategy in place, its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Given political inertia, this won’t be upturned any time soon, in spite of the ETS’s questionable effectiveness, so any new strategy will have to occur alongside existing policy. To some extent, however, the sorts of initiatives The Hartwell Paper approves of are already on the national agenda—either as current initiatives or ongoing ambitions.

Take, for instance, the country’s air quality strategy. This has encouraged a shift from open fires to log burners in domestic homes, and limited particulate emissions from industry and transport. While principally driven by local health concerns, the net effect is to reduce emissions of soot or black carbon, an emission thought to have about 600 times the warming effects per equivalent ton of carbon.

Similarly, insulation schemes have been in place since 1996. The current Heat Smart scheme plans to retrofit 188,500 poorly insulated homes throughout the four years since 2009. The policy is justified by appeals to health and reduced electricity costs, yet the consequent increase in energy efficiency could reduce the demand for electricity—Jevon’s paradox notwithstanding—about one-third of which is produced by non-renewable resources.

A salient topic yet to be resolved is water quality. New Zealand’s dairying boom has accelerated the degradation of waterways, particularly due to the run-off of nitrates, an issue that jars with the nation’s recreational and environmental values. Any success in addressing this problem—through nitrate inhibitors, new breeds of grass, revegetated waterway edges, or land use limitations—could reduce agricultural emissions of nitrous oxide which account for one-sixth of New Zealand’s total emissions.

Finally, The Hartwell Paper recommends public investment into research and development of clean energy technologies. New Zealand politicians have long paid lip service to technology and innovation, although to little consequence, the nation’s R&D investment being about half the OECD average. The much-touted ‘knowledge wave’ is a ride New Zealand is still to catch, despite its natural advantage as a top performer in education. The centre-right National Government has recently reiterated its desire for innovation and technology to drive the economic recovery; investment into clean energy R&D could satisfy this goal as well as fulfilling environmental obligations.

Which leads to one final strength of the Hartwell approach: its hospitality to a range of political ideologies. In New Zealand, where major parties agree on the existence of the problem, less so the appropriate response, it is important that climate politics are not ideologically exclusive. A singular top-down response, heavily reliant on state intervention, grates upon certain political mentalities, irrespective of their stance on climate science. In a worst case scenario, discontent with policy style can explode into outright denial of the problem—as appears to have occurred in the United States. A decentralized approach enables political parties to advance environmental goals in a way that is ideologically appropriate, pursuing policies and objectives that are near and dear to the hearts of their electorate.

So, for those disappointed with the grand plans of Kyoto and cap-and-trade, it might just be fruitful to divert one’s energies into more oblique strategies—both those mentioned and those yet to be put forward. The major question left begging is this: Can such small steps ever add up to a great leap forward?

The UK Government has claimed to become the ‘Greenest Ever Government’ since the previous Labour and Conservative leadership.

Following the announcement of the Energy Security and Green Economy Bill during the Queen’s Speech on 25 May 2010, David Cameron (Prime Minister) promised the country that he would lead the UK to become a low carbon economy through enhanced energy efficiency and low-carbon energy production, both of which remains to be seen.

The previous labour government had committed a total of £405 million towards promoting a green economy, of which the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) was a large arm of this delivery.  The SDC has made £70m savings every year through implementing a number of Green Initiatives.  The SDC also claims that additional savings of £350m per year through improvements in energy, water, waste, recycling and transport will also be met, regardless of funding, over the next five years.

However, recent announcements of funding cuts have led to the SDC to be axed.  The Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Caroline Spelman has led the cuts, whilst at the same time calling for the Government to ‘step up’ its green ambitions and drive further energy savings.  This contradictory view was not shared by the Chair of the SDC, who is simply disappointed at the announcement.

Many more cuts are on the way.  The budget led by George Osborne on 22 June had created a sense of hope and expectation that concrete energy policies were on the way, but these hopes were simply not met.  Instead, Osborne made slight references to climate change policies, but the lack of detail on policies, financial plans and commitments were heavily noted.

The government’s commitment to renewables has also come under question, with the Micropower Council saying that it is stalling on the introduction of the Renewable Heat incentive (RHI), which would pay householders for generating low carbon heat.

Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) issued a report yesterday suggesting that a commitment of £10 billion is needed, for investments in pre-construction off-shore wind farm technology if the UK is to meet its renewables electricity target of 30% by 2020. Capital funding for projects is critical to ensure that the UK invests in renewable projects.  The budget announcement was Osborne’s golden opportunity to make the Energy savings the government has promised to deliver.

To add to the frustration, the delay of implementing existing energy policies are being felt in most areas of the UK, particularly in terms of cost and uncertainty for business.

The six month delays to the October introduction date for the Part L changes, which are designed to make homes 25% more energy efficient, are causing losses in both carbon and heating bill savings.  It has emerged that the programme is still subject to approval by the government.

Perhaps more pressing are the delays to the most radical policy which involves defining a replacement for the electricity component of the Climate Change Levy (CCL) by adding a ‘top up carbon tax’ on power generators. This would be a way to establish a carbon ‘floor price’ which is needed to support carbon trading in the EU ETS scheme, which is a major part of the Energy Security and Green Economy Bill commitment.

MP Caroline Lucas has published a statement today arguing that ‘now is the time to invest’, but lack of government financial commitment and delays to current programmes is painting a gloomy outlook at the moment.  Is the UK really committed to becoming the ‘greenest ever government’ as promised at the start of the Coalition?

As former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown and his family stepped down from service, the new Conservative leader, David Cameron has finally stepped in to Number 10 Downing Street. In the most exciting, yet controversial general election for decades, the UK has seen a Cameron and his next in command, Nick Clegg from the Liberal Democrats arrive yesterday to his new London office to discuss plans for the UK economy.

Despite signs of a stock market crisis as a result of the UK’s first hung parliament in 70 years, the value of the Sterling has risen slowly, and the FTSE 100 index has also risen modestly in yesterdays closing results. This is a positive sign that the financial markets are not too phased by the new coalition, and that we are not headed for a stock market crash.

However, not everyone shares this view. In an attempt to understand what does the coalition mean for future policy development, many UK voters and businesses believe that a coalition will slow down the decision making process. As stock markets opened for trade in the early hours of the election results morning (01:00), the general consensus of the traders was that a hung parliament would have a negative effect on trade and consequently devalue the pound. Slow decisions would also mean a loss of revenue for business, unable to make investment decisions due to lack of direction from the government. As a result, this may lead to the withdrawal of business from the UK market.

A major dispute already facing our new parliament in the first day of office is that of nuclear energy. Whilst the Tories are supportive of building nuclear power stations, the Liberal Democrats are against this. Simon Hughes, energy spokesperson for Liberal Democrats states that “A new generation of nuclear power stations will be a colossal mistake, regardless of where they are built. They are hugely expensive, dangerous and will take too long to build.”

Commitments to policy specific investments may prove hard to back, if agreement at the leadership level is not joined up. In the case of nuclear, the coalition has managed the conflicting views and issued the following statement on nuclear:

“We have agreed a process that will allow Liberal Democrats to maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the government to bring forward the national planning statement for ratification by parliament so that new nuclear construction becomes possible.”

Furthermore, although both parties agree to reduce CO2 by a minimum of 34%, to meet the targets set by the Labour party in the Climate Change Act (2008), it is not clear on how both parties can deliver this target. For instance, the Tories have stated that they will not support specific ‘low-carbon’ technologies with the aim to let the market decide which technologies to adopt, yet the liberal democrats are more explicit about backing wind-power.

Like Labour, the new coalition agrees to back the 10:10 targets, to reduce co2 by 10% by 2010) and also agree to support the Green investment back which is designed to fund new, low carbon developments. This financing also extends to supporting the ‘greener’ homes agenda, to meet the zero carbon homes target (for new builds) by 2016, as well as the continuation of the feed-in tariff for microgenerators for future clean energy.

What remains unclear is the finance allocated to achieve these aspirations, which is the job of the today’s appointed Environment and Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne to agree with his new peers, treasury and members of the public. As new environmental discussions approach in day two of the new coalition, the agenda for environmental policy will become clearer.