This presentation discusses six challenges for developing evidence-based climate change policy: 1) Urgent need to act based on existing evidence without delay; 2) Environmental limits are value-laden and require political decisions; 3) Monetization of impacts is problematic and unnecessary for decision-making; 4) Efficiency measures should focus on outcomes like quality of life, not just economic activity; 5) Coordinated, multifaceted solutions are needed due to interconnected systems; 6) Simplicity is still needed alongside acknowledging complexity.

1. Evidence based climate change policy Roger Levett Levett Therivel Sustainability Consultants A presentation given at State of the Region: Implications of Climate Change event, 20 April 2009. This presentation forms part of the Observatory’s ongoing State of the Region dialogue between policy makers and researchers on the theme of climate change.

2. Presentation for West Midlands Regional Observatory Evidence based climate change policy: Six tricky challenges Roger Levett Partner, Levett-Therivel sustainability consultants [email_address]

4. 1: We’ve got the evidence: now where’s the policy? Evidence already overwhelming that unless we cut greenhouse emissions deeply, fast, soon, irreversible catastrophic climate change will almost certainly become unpreventable. Establishing more precisely how deeply, fast, soon, catastrophic, unpreventable etc must not be a pretext for delaying action. Top priority: get decisions less inconsistent with what we already know. Levett-Therivel

6. Block the excuses and evasions Amounts, not efficiency Improving energy efficiency is only a means. It saves little if people use more energy services (because they are cheaper) or spend money they save on other energy-intensive activities (eg flights). Data and evidence should concentrate on what actually matters: total emissions. Responsibility, not location . One estimate is that 1/3 of China’s carbon is producing goods for export – ie for us. Report footprint on a responsibility basis: inc imports, exc exports. Levett-Therivel

7. Block the excuses and evasions Take responsibility, don’t buy indulgences Carbon offsetting potentially powerful, but most current trading is a sham or scam, giving profits to polluters and traders and excusing inaction. Define and police valid (ie certain, genuine, timely, additional) offsets. Reality check . Politicians appeal to possible future technical fixes and trading to avoid taking climate-responsible decisions now. Report reality: eg that planned aviation expansion would take up between half of all other UK 2050 emissions and twice them. Levett-Therivel

8. 2: Evidence is asymmetric Easier to get robust convincing evidence about short term, private interest consequences: eg new jobs from out of town retail park. Harder to ‘prove’ longer term, public interest consequences: eg jobs lost from town centre shops, more car trips, disadvantage to carless: indirect, longer term, multi-causal, contingent on other factors. Don’t downplay public interest consequences because they are harder to measure. Levett-Therivel

10. Misleading case: Barker on IKEA ‘ [IKEA expansion] also had potential to lower long-distance drive times: over 30% customers drove > 2 hours due to lack of local stores.’ Yes, some of them will probably drive less far. But more people will drive to the new IKEAs … And more still will have to when new IKEAs have killed their town centre competitors. (No attempt to compare + and - effects.) Levett-Therivel

11. Misleading case: Barker on IKEA ‘… despite some local authorities wanting to attract to their area.’ Doesn’t mean more IKEAs makes UK better - merely that if you’re going to get the disbenefits anyway, you may as well try to get benefits too. ‘ IKEA has now changed its business model, making a major retailer cause less traffic and inequity is a success ! but this may lead to higher construction and operating costs and lower capital returns …’ ie lower multinational profits, better communities, buildings, lower externalities. This too is success ! Levett-Therivel

12. 3: Environmental limits value laden Can’t just ‘read off’ environmental capacities from nature because of (a) Empirical uncertainty: eg how much difference will water abstraction make to river? (some years flows will be low anyway); (b) Values: eg how much stress is acceptable? (c) Decisions: eg how much should Birmingham rely on importing more Welsh water? Apply environmental limits through explicit debate and decision about the judgments. (Rule of thumb: don’t make worse things that are already bad. (Eg greenhouse emissions) Levett-Therivel

13. 4: The snare of monetary valuation Often claimed: to decide which carbon reducing actions are worth taking, must compare their benefits and costs with alternative uses of the resources. Money is the common ‘currency’. BUT: (a) Implies climate security is tradable for any other (monetisable) benefits: OK to trash environment provided we get enough growth; (b) Valuation depends on willingness to pay for an environmental good / accept compensation for its loss. This depends on ability to pay / forego money: ie the rich have more clout. Levett-Therivel

14. Valuation isn’t needed We don’t need £ signs to make decisions. Should make a (value and science based) political decision how much carbon to save. Cost effectiveness (£ / tC saved) can help choose ways to do it. (Though non monetary side effects may be more important.) Can also use price incentives to influence behaviour – but again no need for valuation. Research cost effectiveness of carbon reduction methods, and effectiveness of prices, levies, tariffs etc in changing behaviour. No need for monetary valuation: don’t let it distract. Levett-Therivel

15. 5: The right efficiency measures Easy ‘factor 2s’ in transport Take a friend - halve fuel per passenger km Go half as far… - halve fuel per destination reached … half as often (eg combine errands) - halve fuel per errand Cycle or walk - ‘factor 100’? Don’t go at all - cut fuel per benefit gained Measure eco-efficiency of quality of life services, not of activity Levett-Therivel

16. Transport: what could UK save? Levett-Therivel Cycling, walking for half healthy minimum exercise: replace 10% of current driving: 90% Home work/e-shopping obviate 10% of trips: 80% Local decentralised services cut distances: 60% Local centres help multi-purpose trips: 40% Shift 40% of remaining trips from car to bus: 30% Increase occupancy (all vehicles) by 50%: 20% Improve average vehicle efficiency by 50%: 13% Renewable fuels for 13% (of current use): 0% Test and substantiate these guesstimates. And equivalents for (eg) energy in buildings.

17. Life satisfaction & GDP growth Source: Strategy Unit, 2003

21. Inefficient ‘efficiency’ Deregulated buses: useless competition on busy routes dissipates monopoly profits that could cross-subsidise feeder routes. ‘ Rationalised’ (= centralised) public services transfer costs to users driving, special buses / taxis, road building, obesity treatment … ‘ Externalising’ (= evading, dumping) costs is success for private businesses. But the public sector should promote whole system efficiency : eg more quality of life benefits per cost (including environmental cost). Levett-Therivel

22. Efficient ‘inefficiency’ Vienna City Council requires good tram service running before people move in to new satellite settlement. ‘ Inefficient’ for tram management - but efficient for broader aim of avoiding car dependence. Levett-Therivel Contrast Milton Keynes: room left for trams as soon as enough demand - but there never was. Promote whole system performance measures.

23. More car journeys More congestion Worse bus service Fewer bus passengers Less ticket income Bus safety worries More people buy cars Hostile road environment Once you have a car, driving is cheapest Car more attractive People avoid walking & cycling Drivers less bike-aware Unfitness, obesity School run Shops etc move to car-accessible locations More diffuse journey patterns Town centres degenerate People move to suburbs Longer journeys 6: Coping with interconnectedness When someone chooses car instead of bus … Levett-Therivel

24. Levett-Therivel Fewer car journeys Less congestion Better bus service More bus passengers More ticket income Buses feel safe Fewer people own cars Safer road environment More car hire / clubs hire/club removes perverse incentive Walking & cycling more attractive Drivers more bike-aware People fitter, healthier School walk Shops etc prefer sites accessible without car Less diffuse travel patterns Town centres lively, liveable People live in town Shorter journeys It could be like this instead …

26. Need coordinated multiple actions Levett-Therivel Spatial patterns shorten & concentrate trips Local services good enough to obviate choice Good public transport Walking, cycling easy and safe Different attitudes and assumptions Car use restricted, expensive Each enables & is enabled by others

27. Not just transport. Biomass needs: Levett-Therivel Replace boiler with biomass fired Biomass boiler installers / maintainers Fuel stock, delivery Heat distribution system Customers for heat Biomass growers collectors Each only viable if the rest are in place

31. Contact details Roger Levett Levett-Therivel sustainability consultants E [email_address] T 0117 973 2418 Web http://www.levett-therivel.co.uk/ John Walker Senior Research Analyst West Midlands Regional Observatory E [email_address] T +44 (0)121 202 3246 Web www.wmro.org Blog http://wmro.wordpress.com