260 Jenny Lieu et al.
socio- political boundaries, such as different governmental jurisdictions including:
city and city- region levels (building sector in the Chinese cities), provincial level
(oil sands production in Alberta and biogas in Bali), national level (rolling out
solar power in Spain and Chile), and international level (European steel sector
impacting Austria). Inconsistencies between sub- national and national priorities
were also observed, which do not necessarily align with international priorities. For
instance, technological innovations and the supportive policies needed are not
necessarily co- ordinated. At the sub- national level (cities/counties/state/provinces),
policies have been implemented with more success in some regions than in others,
in part due to the power of regional and local governance to enact supportive
policy or local by- laws. Additionally, polices at the EU level or national level
broadly indicate overarching energy and climate goals, but at the local level
implementation can come down to a specific use of space (e.g. land use). The
perception of risk at the local level was strongly related to how stakeholders
understood and experienced the impact of a technology or policy in their social
space including the ecological environment. We see this in the country studies
that highlight the importance of different climatic zones and socio- economic
realities when implementing policies and technologies (e.g. China and Chile).
Scale is also relevant with respect to the size of investment needed in a specific
centralised or decentralised technology. The investment required for different
scales of technologies (large- versus small- scale technologies) has implications on
the magnitude of the investment risk and the level of reassurance required to
secure the investment, or formal government support, needed to overcome the
cost risk (e.g. geothermal in Kenya, nuclear power in the UK). Scale is also
important when it comes to rolling out technologies across a wider geographical
region which, although the logical next step once technologies have been
successfully tested, is an often- neglected aspect. This scaling up can complicate
both implementation and consequential risks as problems that occur at the project
level can be magnified and have wider social- economic and environmental
impacts that are more difficult to address and contain (scaling up biogas in
Indonesia and solar power in Greece and the Netherlands).
Time is another consideration in the pathways, where the short term (years),
medium term (decades), and long term (century) are relevant. Time often
intersects with other scales, as already indicated, and influences risk perception
and the urgency of actions required to mitigate risks. Adverse climate change
impacts are often perceived as a long- term problem from a global perspective, as
indicated in the Paris Agreement. In the country studies, most stakeholders
perceived their problems within the boundaries of the immediate future (several
years) and only some considered a medium time horizon (several decades). Very
few stakeholders framed their problems beyond mid- century and even fewer to
the end of the century, a timeframe that energy, economy, and climate models
often consider when assessing impacts of climate and technological changes.
However, some technologies, including nuclear power and oil sands
technologies, prompted much longer- term views on the environmental impact
of the technologies’ waste products.
socio- political boundaries, such as different governmental jurisdictions including:
city and city- region levels (building sector in the Chinese cities), provincial level
(oil sands production in Alberta and biogas in Bali), national level (rolling out
solar power in Spain and Chile), and international level (European steel sector
impacting Austria). Inconsistencies between sub- national and national priorities
were also observed, which do not necessarily align with international priorities. For
instance, technological innovations and the supportive policies needed are not
necessarily co- ordinated. At the sub- national level (cities/counties/state/provinces),
policies have been implemented with more success in some regions than in others,
in part due to the power of regional and local governance to enact supportive
policy or local by- laws. Additionally, polices at the EU level or national level
broadly indicate overarching energy and climate goals, but at the local level
implementation can come down to a specific use of space (e.g. land use). The
perception of risk at the local level was strongly related to how stakeholders
understood and experienced the impact of a technology or policy in their social
space including the ecological environment. We see this in the country studies
that highlight the importance of different climatic zones and socio- economic
realities when implementing policies and technologies (e.g. China and Chile).
Scale is also relevant with respect to the size of investment needed in a specific
centralised or decentralised technology. The investment required for different
scales of technologies (large- versus small- scale technologies) has implications on
the magnitude of the investment risk and the level of reassurance required to
secure the investment, or formal government support, needed to overcome the
cost risk (e.g. geothermal in Kenya, nuclear power in the UK). Scale is also
important when it comes to rolling out technologies across a wider geographical
region which, although the logical next step once technologies have been
successfully tested, is an often- neglected aspect. This scaling up can complicate
both implementation and consequential risks as problems that occur at the project
level can be magnified and have wider social- economic and environmental
impacts that are more difficult to address and contain (scaling up biogas in
Indonesia and solar power in Greece and the Netherlands).
Time is another consideration in the pathways, where the short term (years),
medium term (decades), and long term (century) are relevant. Time often
intersects with other scales, as already indicated, and influences risk perception
and the urgency of actions required to mitigate risks. Adverse climate change
impacts are often perceived as a long- term problem from a global perspective, as
indicated in the Paris Agreement. In the country studies, most stakeholders
perceived their problems within the boundaries of the immediate future (several
years) and only some considered a medium time horizon (several decades). Very
few stakeholders framed their problems beyond mid- century and even fewer to
the end of the century, a timeframe that energy, economy, and climate models
often consider when assessing impacts of climate and technological changes.
However, some technologies, including nuclear power and oil sands
technologies, prompted much longer- term views on the environmental impact
of the technologies’ waste products.