Climate policy – from stormy waters to golden shores

A good strategy has nothing to do with grandiose ambitions or with obsessive, meticulous planning. Instead, it often requires a step back and a dose of down-to-earth pragmatism. Sometimes, it may even require appearing to be a bit crazy.

For example, Ulysses took the extraordinary step of plugging his crew´s ears with wax and binding himself to the ship´s mast prior to passing through the narrow Strait of Messina, guarded by the sea monsters Scylla and Charybdis.

At first glance, a maniacal strategy by a boat´s captain. 
 

Yet, it allowed a straight course for the ship through the dangerous waters. Ulysses was able to hear the Sirens´ luring music but was restrained from steering the helm towards them and avoided a shipwreck. His crew, unable to hear his pleas to be freed, ignored him.

The strategy worked - Ulysses was able to hear the music without facing the music.
 

Beyond Greek myth, Richard Rumelt¹, Professor at the University of California, Los Angeles,  identifies three elements in any good strategy:

• A diagnosis.
• A guiding policy.
• A coherent set of actions.

So, using the example of Ulysses:

• Diagnosis: A contextual understanding of his own situation (the desire to hear the Sirens’ song but its potentially fatal implications caused by his weakness of will).
• Guiding policy: To keep the ship on a straight course through the Strait.
• Coherent actions: Deafen his crew and bind himself to the mast.

With that backdrop, a recent podcast by well-respected energy thought-leaders Michael Liebreich and Bryony Worthington raises some interesting points.

Worthington questions Liebreich on his recent papers calling for a pragmatic climate reset².

Liebreich’s diagnosis is that the world is at or close to peak carbon emissions.

However, a prior international climate consensus is cracking and potentially disintegrating, given other important political priorities such as energy costs. Even in the UK - a 'climate leader' - policy is now sailing in stormy waters towards the rocks.

His guiding policy is that we should adhere to the hard upper limit of 2⁰C climate warming set in the Paris Agreement, aiming for a landing zone in the 1.8⁰ – 2⁰C range. But the 1.5⁰ ambitious target that has subsequently become fashionable and set the policy agenda should be taken off the table.

Why?

Because the 2⁰C guiding policy is credible - 1.5⁰C is not – and, as Ulysses understood, credibility is the foundation of good strategy. With patience, the maths of compounding plays to its advantage, given efficiency gains from electrification and realistic growth rates in renewables, batteries, electric vehicles (EVs) etc., relative to energy demand growth.

The coherent policy actions are in the podcast and can also be read in the associated BloombergNEF papers.

Simplifying drastically, they amount to pragmatism - electrification as much as possible while keeping a role for flexible gas over the transition and allowing more slack for developing countries to reach net zero later than 2050 (China 2060, India 2070.) If we can even get 90-95% of the way there, that is a result. With some optionality in course setting, the policy framework remains credible.

Onward ho!

My own perspective is that we might add one other guiding principle.

Climate is often seen as separate from nature. But nature includes the whole biosphere. The way climate regulates global temperature is just one of her workings.

A broader diagnosis shows other problems in the earth system. It suggests a complementary guiding policy for nature - restoration and conservation to ensure an Impact Equality.

Are there any advantages in this dual approach (climate and nature)?

Climate change requires a global institutional architecture for policy. It is long-term, persistent, and often appears intangible, at least until a wildfire or flood arrives at a place near you.

In contrast, much in nature is local, recoverable, and tangible. Effective nature policies can be based on community institutions that are often voluntary - clubs, societies, charities, etc., and harness regional government. Restoration and conservation have immediate positive spinoffs including physical and mental health – but of course they also contribute to climate resilience.

If embedded in education, local actions can help to encourage the broader societal ´buy in´ and behavioural change required for longer-term global climate support.

There is a telling Reith Lecture given over a decade ago by the British historian Niall Ferguson³. He recounts how a little local grumbling stirred a community in South Wales to tidy up a beautiful beach and coastline that was strewn with plastic.

He emphasises the importance of local institutions in civil society for economic and cultural development more widely.

As far as climate goes, it is only when we finally realise that we are all in the same boat that we are likely to steer the right course. Attending to nature locally can help us to see that, and much more besides.

^1. Richard Rumelt: Good Strategy Bad Strategy. Profile Books.

^2. Michael Liebreich and Bryony Worthington: Cleaning Up – Pragmatic Climate Reset Episode 228.

^3. Niall Ferguson: The Rule of Law and its Enemies – Civil and Uncivil Societies. Reith Lectures 2012.