Abstract
Climate change has emerged as arguably the biggest threat facing human development in the twenty-first century. The current stock of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) is large enough to cause climate change and climate variability. International efforts have been undertaken to stabilize atmospheric GHGs and to limit average global temperature rise to 2 °C (Randall, WIREs Clim. Chang. 1:598–605, 2010). If current emissions continue unabated, it is expected that the temperature rise will be between 4 °C and 6 °C; that can be reached towards the end of this century. Under this “do nothing” scenario, all nations would be losers. It is, therefore, in humanity’s interest to do something about the current state of affairs. Although adapting to climate change and climate variability is important, the safest adaptation would be large-scale reduction in atmospheric GHG emissions. It has been shown recently that limiting global temperature increase to 2 °C above pre-industrial levels could be achieved through the “wedging the gap” approach consisting of 21 coherent major initiatives that together would trigger greenhouse gas emission reductions of around 10 Gt CO2e by 2020, plus the benefits of enhanced reductions in air-pollutant emissions (Blok, Höhne, van der Leun, Harrison, Nat. Clim. Chang. 2:471–474, 2012). Emissions reductions can be achieved broadly through a combination of: (1) policy measures that provide for financial and economic incentives (e.g., feed-in tariffs for renewable energies) or disincentives (e.g., carbon tax), and (2) market-based mechanisms such as carbon trading, both of which would be required to implement the “wedging the gap” approach. Further, this novel approach would require unprecedented global scale coordination and cooperation.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
These include 32,421 railroad miles that the Department of Defense has classified as being “strategic” (Military Traffic Management Command 1998), 14,000 miles of grade separated three or four track services (comparable to CSX plans from Washington DC to Miami), with one or two tracks devoted to 100–110 mph passenger and express freight service, and electrification of upgrade of additional 60,000 miles.
- 2.
It is assumed that, out of the 500 miles built or upgraded each year, 350 will be light rail (costing on average US$ 35 million per mile) and 150 will be metro—or subway—systems (costing on average US$ 100 million per mile). See John Schumann, “Status of North American Light Rail Transit Systems”, “8th Joint Conference on Light Rail Transit, Dallas, Nov. 2000; Portland Tribune, 18 June 2002.”
- 3.
Worth noting, on top of requiring more water (NETL 2009), thermal power plants with CCS capabilities suffer a 12 % efficiency loss (IEA 2008), which increases capital investment, fuel input, and emissions, but also employment.
- 4.
It is assumed that the grid would be able to support a 20 % RES by 2020 and that thermal or nuclear plants would still be preferred for base load supply.
- 5.
Total carbon dioxide emissions by developing countries are expected to surpass that of developed countries by 2015. Please see http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html—accessed 30 July 2011.
- 6.
One carbon credit is equal to the reduction in the emission of 1 t of carbon dioxide equivalent.
References
Adger, W.N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M.M., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., et al.: Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., Linden, P.J.v.d., Hanson, C.E. (eds.) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 717–743. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)
Barlas, Y.: Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 12(3), 183–210 (1996)
Bassi, A.M., Deenapanray, P.N.: A green investment analysis using system dynamics modelling—the case study of Mauritius. Small States: Econ. Rev. Stat. 16, 256 (2012)
Bassi, A., Yudken, J.: Climate policy and energy-intensive manufacturing: a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of cost mitigation provisions in the American Energy and Security Act of 2009. Energy Policy. 39, 4920–4931 (2011)
Bassi, A., Yudken, J., Ruth, M.: Climate policy impacts on the competitiveness of energy-intensive manufacturing sectors. Energy Policy. 37, 3052–3060 (2009)
Bassi, A.M., Wang’ombe, C., Kirui, G., Njaramba, L.N., Barasa, D.O., Muema, J.N., et al.: Strengthening Institutional Capacity for Integrated Climate Change Adaptation & Comprehensive National Development Planning in Kenya. Government of Kenya, Nairobi (2011)
Beaurain, F., Schmidt-Traub, G.: Developing CDM programmes of activities: a guidebook. South Pole Carbon Asset Management (2010)
Blok, K., Höhne, N., van der Leun, K., Harrison, N.: Bridging the greenhouse-gas emission gap. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2, 471–474 (2012)
Center for Clean Air Policy: The Road to NAMAs—Global Stories of Successful Climate Actions. Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington (2011)
Central Intelligence Agency: The World Factbook 2011. Retrieved from The World Factbook 2011. www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html (2011). Accessed October 2012
Central Statistics Office: Environment Statistics—2011. Central Statistics Office, Port Louis (2012)
Flavin, C.: Building a low-carbon economy. In: Flavin, C. (ed.) State of the World. WorldWatch Institute, Washington (2008)
GIZ: Nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs): steps for moving a NAMA from idea towards implementation, draft 8.2. GIZ (2011)
Global Commons Institute: Contraction and convergence—an international conceptual framework for preventing dangerous climate change (2010)
Government of Kenya: Kenya Vision 2030. Government of Kenya, Nairobi (2007)
Government of Mauritius: Second National Communication Under the UNFCCC. Government of Mauritius, Port Louis (2010)
Hemmati, M.: Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock and Conflict. Earthscan, London (2002)
Hinostroza, M., Lütken, S., Aalders, E., Pretlove, B., Peters, N., Holm Olsen, K.: Measuring Reporting Verifying—A Primer on MRV for Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions. UNEP Risø Centre, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen (2012)
Höhne, N., den Elzen, M., Weiss, M.: Common but differentiated convergence (CDC): a new conceptual approach to long-term climate policy. Clim. Policy. 6, 181–199 (2006)
International Energy Agency: World Energy Outlook 2010. Power generation cost assumptions, Paris (2010)
Klein, D.E., Ma, H., Helme, N., Wang, C.: Technology-based sectoral NAMAs: a preliminary case study of China’s cement and iron and steel sectors. Center for Clean Air Policy (2009)
Kollmus, A., Zink, H., Polycarp, C.: Making Sense of the Voluntary Carbon Market: A Comparison of Carbon Offset Standards. WWF, Germany (2008)
Kuik, O.J., Lima, M.B., Gupta, J.: Energy security in a developing world. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2, 627–634 (2011)
Meadows, D.: The Unavoidable A Priori, excerpt from Randers, Elements of the System Dynamics Method (1980)
Ministry of Renewable Energy and Public Utilities: Long-Term Energy Strategy 2009–2025. Government of Mauritius, Port Louis (2009)
Moellendorf, D.: Climate change and global justice. WIREs Clim. Chang. 3, 131–143 (2012)
Randall, S.: History of the 2 °C climate target. WIREs Clim. Chang. 1, 598–605 (2010)
Stockholm Environment Institute: The economics of climate change in Kenya (2009)
United Nations Environment Management Group: Working towards a balanced and inclusive green economy, a United Nations system-wide perspective (2011)
United Nations Population Division: World population prospects: the 2006 revision, New York (2007)
US Congress: H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, Washington (2009)
US Congressional Budget Office: The estimated costs to households from the cap-and-trade provisions of H.R. 2454, Washington (2009)
US Department of Commerce: Bureau of Economic Analysis. National economic accounts, national income and product accounts table, Washington (2008)
US Department of Energy: Energy market and economic impacts of the American Power Act of 2010. Energy Information Administration, Washington (2010a)
US Department of Energy: International Energy Annual 2010. Energy Information Administration, Washington (2010b)
van Asselt, H., Berseus, J., Gupta, J., Haug, C.: Nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) in developing countries: challenges and opportunities, Free University Amsterdam, Amsterdam (2010)
Yudken, J., Bassi, A.M.: Climate policy impacts on the competitiveness of energy-intensive manufacturing sectors. National Commission on Energy Policy, Bipartisan Policy Center, Washington (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Multistakeholder Process for Model Development
Appendix: Multistakeholder Process for Model Development
It is widely acknowledged now that the knowledge required to articulate what would constitute sustainable development in any given context (i.e., country or subregions therein) is often dispersed within the system boundary (i.e., country and its subregions), which is why a multistakeholder approach is necessary for successful outcomes. In other words, the complex system of socio-economic conditions existing within the natural ecosystems characterising any given territory can only be seen collectively for the adequate response to the increasing demands for policy-relevant interventions. MSPs can also help ensure better coordination between different institutions and agencies, in addition to ensuring that knowledge is combined and properly utilized by sharing common mental models. MSP is also an appropriate means to achieve consensus and ownership of the modeling tool for planning and decision-making purposes.
The five sequential steps of a generic MSP are illustrated in Fig. 11 (Hemmati 2002). Each step involves specific actions to ensure maximum ownership of the process by the beneficiary stakeholders and ensuring them that climate change related actions are discussed through dialogue and consequently integrated in the national and local agenda. Briefly, the steps of the MSP are defined in generic terms while noting that the central issues are related to climate change:
-
1.
Context—Setting the context is probably the most critical step in the process, and the “one-size-fits-all” cannot be applied. After the key stakeholders have been identified based on principles of inclusiveness, diversity, and size, they should be involved in every aspect of the design process to generate legitimacy, credibility, and trust. This does not mean that conflicts will not arise, but that any conflicts may be better dealt with later on. In designing the process, it should be made very clear how the output of the dialogues will permeate the policy decision-making process. Productive dialogue can only take place when all participants share a common understanding of the agenda of the MSP. This requires a clear definition of what issues the MSP will address. Successful MSPs require facilitation and organizational back up, also implying the need for adequate financial resources.
-
2.
Framing—MSPs need precisely defined issues before them. The questions to be addressed and the goals of the process need to be very clear to all the participants and agreed by them. Possible changes over the course of an on-going process also need to be agreed on by the group, allowing for consultations within constituencies if necessary.
-
3.
Inputs—In order to facilitate dialogues, several inputs must be in place or be made available to participants. First, all participants must have equitable access to all information, and they should be given sufficient preparation time. The ground rules for the purpose of dialogue must be agreed on within the group, while noting that no one has all the answers but that the output required will be the collective wisdom and knowledge of the participants. Fundamental differences exist between stakeholders in such things as knowledge and information, communication skills, size, nature, and the amount of resources that define significant power gaps and unfair distribution of bargaining and negotiating power. Care must therefore be taken to identify and address power gaps, and this is also a reason why facilitation of dialogues is critical. Bilateral meetings can be used where necessary to prepare participants for plenary sessions.
-
4.
Dialogue—MSPs are about creating a space where dialogue can take place. An atmosphere that cultivates equity, respect, dignity, humility, and hope will create a space where people can interact in such a way that their differences and their commonalities become clear so that they can begin to explore possible ways forward.
-
5.
Outputs—MSPs should be transparent all the way. So, they should not only publish and communicate their deliberations and outcomes but also keep record of their design. A critical aspect is to be able to demonstrate to stakeholders how the outcomes of their dialogues impacted policy decision-making. One of the key initial outputs of the dialogues is the development of CLDs that are then translated mathematically into system dynamics models.
MSP was adopted for the conceptualisation, customization, and validation of system dynamics models developed in the three case studies presented in this chapter.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bassi, A., Deenapanray, P., Davidsen, P. (2013). Energy Policy Planning for Climate-Resilient Low-Carbon Development. In: Qudrat-Ullah, H. (eds) Energy Policy Modeling in the 21st Century. Understanding Complex Systems. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8606-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8606-0_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8605-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-8606-0
eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)