1. 1

2.  Should the program have a required course in policy/governance?  Should it be a course like this or something else? 2

3.  Week 1 Course overview  Week 2: Sustainable Energy as a Social and Political Challenge  Week 3: Formal Government Processes –  Week 4: Policy process, Actor Dynamics  Week 5: Policy Analysis in a Political Context  Week 6: Policy Instruments  Week 7: Midterm Exam + nuclear power 3

4.  Week 8: Energy Planning and Approval Strategies  Week 9: Rest of Canada  Week 10: Clean energy, international trade, climate diplomacy  Week 11: The Two Giants: Energy Policy in China and the US  March 12: Simulated Multi-stakeholder Consultation  April 4: Synthesis, Reflection 4

5.  What should be covered that we didn’t address?  Is there a need for more policy-relevant analytical methods? 5

6.  What should be reduced or eliminated to make room for new stuff? 6

7.  Assignments  Midterm  Simulation and paper – is acting like an advocate an important learning experience? 7

8.  pedagogy 8

9.  Climate (clean energy) challenge compounded by temporal and spatial inconsistency  Motivated reasoning: people filter facts through the values/worldview – convincing people with factual reason when implications conflict with their values is a major challenge 9

10.  Authority: ability to make rules backed up by coercive power of the state  Found in formal rules and procedures – understanding them in a necessary step in influence  Who decides? At what level?  Power/influence: ability to influence outcomes  More diverse sources 10

11.  Fundamentals to analysis  Problem definition  Criteria  Alternatives  Consequences  Trade-offs 11

12.  There are a variety of instruments available in clean energy policy, and they come with a different package of attributes and consequences 12

13.  Nuclear power is low GHG but costly and comes with distinctive real and perceived risks  Project planning and approval is complex and there are frequently tradeoffs between quality and coherence on the one hand and political realities on the other 13

14.  Different countries face different challenges because of different  resource endowments  policy legacies  Political cultures  Institutions 14

15.  International trade rules constrain the use of certain policy instruments  Collective action dilemma in global diplomacy formidable 15

16. 16

17.  Sustainable energy requires that prices reflect their true environmental and social cost  Government action is required to internalize costs  Policy is made by politicians whose core interest is reelection, which discourages them from imposing costs April 4, 2012Sustainable Energy Policy17

18. Transition to clean energy is feasible and affordable But…we are stuck Requires politicians to raise energy prices Which is improbable without intense social pressure 18

19.  Confidence in one or both instruments to price carbon:  Economy wide carbon tax  Economy wide cap and trade  Supplementary policies  Energy R&D  Regulations to foster sector specific change 19

20. Mitigation measures would induce 0.6% gain to 3% decrease of GDP in 2030 Stabilisation levels (ppm CO2-eq) Range of GDP reduction (%) 445 - 535< 3 535 - 5900.2 – 2.5 590 - 710-0.6 – 1.2 Costs of mitigation in 2030 20

21. There is a profound tension between the incentives of politicians to avoid imposing costs and the need to use government action to increase prices April 4, 2012Sustainable Energy Policy21

22.  Politicians “lead” – move beyond electorate  Electorate creates incentives for politicians to act  Organize  Mobilize 22

23.  Acting according to short term material interest won’t solve the problem  Act because it is the right thing to do

25. Tahrir Square, February 11, 2011

27. 27

28. April 4, 2012Sustainable Energy Policy28