Afterword 269
Government support to minimise financial risk through policy incentives to
investors and households can in itself expose both governments and energy consumers to significant financial risks if the cost of the policy escalates. While governments can implement measures to manage this risk, they have limited
control over many factors, such as the cost development of solar PV systems,
electricity prices, and European energy and climate directives.
Heavy subsidies for low- carbon energy may have perverse impacts if the end
users fail to achieve ‘buy in’ to a technology’s deployment. When end users were
provided with fully subsidised technology installations they often took an ‘easy
come, easy go’ attitude to the technology and abandoned them, rather than
attempting to rectify the problem.
Good governance is essential for successful implementation of low- carbon
pathways. Scaling up these technologies often requires co- ordination across
various government institutions at different governance levels. Co- operation
can sometimes be difficult due to poor communication, differing priorities, and
entrenched disagreements between different agencies. Good governance also
applies to the policy support schemes. Monitoring and enforcement procedures
are critical to a scheme’s success but are often seen as minor components and
poorly funded or implemented.
Dominant industries can be strongly entrenched within the socio- economic
norms of society. Politicians are often hesitant to support low- carbon pathways if
there are risks of disrupting the status quo, particularly if they think this will result
in public backlash. Politicians who advocate a departure from the entrenched
position can be great enablers of change but create high risks if political backing is
withdrawn, particularly in countries with unstable political climates.
Public resistance to a low- carbon deployment can be reduced through careful
design and stakeholder involvement. Public support is easier to achieve when technologies fit within the local landscape and do not have significant negative impacts
on people. If public resistance is anticipated, early stakeholder involvement can
reduce risks by allowing stakeholders to modify the scheme and achieve ‘buy in’.
Successful deployment can also be improved by considering the environment
and social- economic context of (sub)national regions. Areas within a country
can vary hugely in their suitability for a technology and the economic ability of
its residents to invest in a technology. Social practices can also influence successful technology deployment. We saw this in countries with diverse climatic
regions which impacted programmes to improve the energy efficiency in homes.
Technologies and policies intended to reduce emissions may also unintentionally have a negative impact on social justice, including gender equality, and
efforts should be made build a detailed understanding of their impacts.
Finally, the timescales required to mitigate climate change and the technologies
necessary to combat it often fail to align with those of stakeholders. Households
often judge impacts on their finances over very short timescales, while politicians
are mindful of their next election. These short timescales contrast with popular
framings of climate change and low- carbon technology, with models often looking
to the mid- century and beyond when assessing economic and climate impacts.
Government support to minimise financial risk through policy incentives to
investors and households can in itself expose both governments and energy consumers to significant financial risks if the cost of the policy escalates. While governments can implement measures to manage this risk, they have limited
control over many factors, such as the cost development of solar PV systems,
electricity prices, and European energy and climate directives.
Heavy subsidies for low- carbon energy may have perverse impacts if the end
users fail to achieve ‘buy in’ to a technology’s deployment. When end users were
provided with fully subsidised technology installations they often took an ‘easy
come, easy go’ attitude to the technology and abandoned them, rather than
attempting to rectify the problem.
Good governance is essential for successful implementation of low- carbon
pathways. Scaling up these technologies often requires co- ordination across
various government institutions at different governance levels. Co- operation
can sometimes be difficult due to poor communication, differing priorities, and
entrenched disagreements between different agencies. Good governance also
applies to the policy support schemes. Monitoring and enforcement procedures
are critical to a scheme’s success but are often seen as minor components and
poorly funded or implemented.
Dominant industries can be strongly entrenched within the socio- economic
norms of society. Politicians are often hesitant to support low- carbon pathways if
there are risks of disrupting the status quo, particularly if they think this will result
in public backlash. Politicians who advocate a departure from the entrenched
position can be great enablers of change but create high risks if political backing is
withdrawn, particularly in countries with unstable political climates.
Public resistance to a low- carbon deployment can be reduced through careful
design and stakeholder involvement. Public support is easier to achieve when technologies fit within the local landscape and do not have significant negative impacts
on people. If public resistance is anticipated, early stakeholder involvement can
reduce risks by allowing stakeholders to modify the scheme and achieve ‘buy in’.
Successful deployment can also be improved by considering the environment
and social- economic context of (sub)national regions. Areas within a country
can vary hugely in their suitability for a technology and the economic ability of
its residents to invest in a technology. Social practices can also influence successful technology deployment. We saw this in countries with diverse climatic
regions which impacted programmes to improve the energy efficiency in homes.
Technologies and policies intended to reduce emissions may also unintentionally have a negative impact on social justice, including gender equality, and
efforts should be made build a detailed understanding of their impacts.
Finally, the timescales required to mitigate climate change and the technologies
necessary to combat it often fail to align with those of stakeholders. Households
often judge impacts on their finances over very short timescales, while politicians
are mindful of their next election. These short timescales contrast with popular
framings of climate change and low- carbon technology, with models often looking
to the mid- century and beyond when assessing economic and climate impacts.