Renewable energy in Australia: a wider policy discourse

ABSTRACT

This paper assesses the evolution of generation technology-mix in Australia, with specific emphasis on understanding how such evolution has been shaped by wider political and socio-economic influences. This assessment is predicated on the argument that the contemporary, quintessentially techno-economic, policy discourse on renewable energy is deficient, as it ignores climacteric political and socio-economic influences on generation technology-mix. The methodological framework employed in this paper is informed by the core tenets of technological change theory. The assessment suggests that generation technology-mix in Australia has historically been overwhelmingly influenced by the underlying technological paradigm of the electricity industry; and that this technological paradigm essentially draws its imprimatur from the wider political and socio-economic contexts. By implication, it suggests that a rapid uptake of renewables will have widespread ramifications, extending into political, socio-economic and cultural realms of a society. Clearly, existing policy discourse – that tends to focus on technical potentials, cost competitiveness, externalities and risks of various renewable technologies – is deficient. A much broader discourse is needed. This paper also made an attempt to develop a basis for such a discourse by reviewing broader aspects of the Australian society that would be affected by a rapid uptake of renewables.     

Do global climate summits influence public awareness and policy preferences concerning climate change?

A survey-embedded experiment implemented around the time of the 2014 annual Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (N ≈ 1200) examined whether such summits are able to increase citizens’ awareness of climate problems. This study finds that exposure to positive or negative cues about the COP increases climate change awareness, particularly among participants who start out with a low level of awareness. Neither positive nor negative cues about the COP significantly affect people’s policy preferences. Our finding resonates with Bernard Cohen’s observation that the mass media may not often be successful in telling people what to think, but they are successful in telling readers what to think about.     

The role of scientists in statutory interpretation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Like many federal statutes, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) contains vague or ambiguous language. The meaning imparted to the ESA's unclear language can profoundly impact the fates of endangered and threatened species. Hence, conservation scientists should contribute to the interpretation of the ESA when vague or ambiguous language contains scientific words or refers to scientific concepts. Scientists need to know at least these 2 facts about statutory interpretation: statutory interpretation is subjective and the potential influence of normative values results in different expectations for the parties involved. With the possible exception of judges, all conventional participants in statutory interpretation are serving their own interests, advocating for their preferred policies, or biased. Hence, scientists can play a unique role by informing the interpretative process with objective, policy‐neutral information. Conversely, scientists may act as advocates for their preferred interpretation of unclear statutory language. The different roles scientists might play in statutory interpretation raise the issues of advocacy and competency. Advocating for a preferred statutory interpretation is legitimate political behavior by scientists, but statutory interpretation can be strongly influenced by normative values. Therefore, scientists must be careful not to commit stealth policy advocacy. Most conservation scientists lack demonstrable competence in statutory interpretation and therefore should consult or collaborate with lawyers when interpreting statutes. Professional scientific societies are widely perceived by the public as unbiased sources of objective information. Therefore, professional scientific societies should remain policy neutral and present all interpretations of unclear statutory language; explain the semantics and science both supporting and contradicting each interpretation; and describe the potential consequences of implementing each interpretation. A review of scientists’ interpretations of the phrase “significant portion of its range” in the ESA is used to critique the role of scientists and professional societies in statutory interpretation.     

Robust technology policy against emission leakage: The case of upstream subsidies

Asymmetric regulation of a global pollutant between countries can alter the competitiveness of industries and lead to emissions leakage, which hampers countries’ welfare. In order to limit leakage, governments consider supporting domestic trade-exposed firms by subsidizing their investments in abatement technology. The suppliers of such technologies tend to be less than perfectly competitive, particularly when both emissions regulations and advanced technologies are new. In this context of twin market failures, we consider the relative effects and desirability of subsidies for abatement technology. We find a more robust recommendation for upstream subsidies than for downstream subsidies. Downstream subsidies tend to increase global abatement technology prices, reduce pollution abatement abroad and increase emission leakage. On the contrary, upstream subsidies reduce abatement technology prices, and hence also emissions leakage.     

Vertical fiscal externalities and the environment

We show that imposition of a state-level environmental tax in a federation crowds out pre-existing federal taxes. We explain how this vertical fiscal externality can lead unilateral state-level environmental policy to generate a welfare gain in the implementing state, at the expense of other states, even absent any environmental benefits. Using a computable general equilibrium model of the Canadian federation, we show that vertical fiscal externalities can be the major determinant of the welfare change following environmental policy implementation by a state government. Our numerical simulations indicate that – as a consequence of vertical fiscal externalities – state governments can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by over 20 percent without any net cost to themselves.     

“We cannot let this happen again”: reversing UK flood policy in response to the Somerset Levels floods, 2014

The Multiple Streams Framework offers a theoretical account of how policy proposals move from latent possibilities to becoming favored for implementation. We apply this framework in the context of the policy response to the 2013–2014 flooding of the Somerset Levels and Moors. Stakeholder interviews and analysis of news media coverage evidence the way in which a specific policy option that had fallen out of favor with the national Environment Agency – dredging – came to the fore and was eventually adopted during the period in which the conjunction of problem, policy, and political pressures came to a head. Local political activists mobilized a wider campaign with the help of social media and capitalized on national political sensitivities to successfully promote dredging. What is less clear is the longevity of the policy reversal, given funding constraints.     

Framing Dynamics and Political Gridlock: The Curious Case of Hydraulic Fracturing in New York

‘Fracking’ was on New York's agenda since 2008, yet no decision was made about it until late 2014. The gridlock is an intriguing puzzle given that the Marcellus shale is considered a ‘world class’ energy supply, and development has been aggressive in other US states. While policy scholars typically conceptualize gridlock as policy stability, this paper examines it as a dynamic process by which competing discourse coalitions engage in interactive framing processes that (re)structure the discussion. This suggests that the interaction between contending coalitions influences gridlock. Yet, we lack knowledge about interactive framing between competing coalitions during policy controversies. Our main finding is that a central mechanism of gridlock is the production of conflict through interactive framing dynamics that deny a shared discursive space capable of ushering in a consensus, or reasoned agreement. In New York, this contest evolved from a policy consensus about the economic benefits of fracking to policy negotiation that incorporated environmental threats, and to prolonged policy controversy in which competing discourse coalitions contested notions of fracking in relation to energy production, environmental protection, public health, economic development, and governance. While a ban has been instituted, the failure to bridge discourse coalitions suggests that controversy will persist unless meaning disputes are resolved.     

Moving targets: Carbon pricing,energy markets,and social movements in Australia

Reporting on the origins and directions of social movement strategy on climate and energy issues in the last decade, the shifts in ‘climate movement’ practice are discussed using a neo-Polanyian account of the political economy of climate change combined with sociological analysis of the strategic decisions campaigners reported making. Since the mid-2000s, Australia’s climate movement has been engaged in three concurrent arenas of political contestation. The longest-standing arena of movement activity has been negotiations over climate policy. More recently, activists and communities are engaged in a struggle over the expansion of fossil fuels. A third contest has been waged over the present and future position of renewable energy technologies in Australia’s electricity market. In the wake of climate policy failure, energy campaigns have been deepened, and it seems that a broader energy justice agenda is being forged. New strategic dilemmas are visible in the field.     

Normative Framing and Public Attitudes toward Biofuels Policies

Although the power of elite issue frames to shape public attitudes toward different policies is well established, the relative influence of different types of frames in competitive framing environments remains uncertain. For example, we do not fully understand the relative influence of economic versus normative frames on the public's policy attitudes, despite the common use of both types of frames to promote the same policy in many settings. Using data from a 2010 national Internet survey, this paper investigates the relative influence of economic versus normative frames on public attitudes toward the contentious policy issue of biofuels. The results indicate the importance of normative frames in shaping public attitudes on this issue, suggesting the relevance of normative frames more generally in shaping public opinion beyond the narrow confines of typical “morality” policies such as abortion or gambling.