Barriers to innovation and change: the London experience

The city of London is experiencing a remarkable transformation in its commitment to addressing climate change. In a recent presentation as part of the most recent Japan-UK low Carbon project, Charles Secrett, special advisor to the Mayor, outlined some of the programs in place to move the city to a sustainable, low GHG emissions future. In the process, they had to address the major barriers to change:

“[…]There are many opportunities to reduce household carbon dioxide emissions. For example, switching off lights/appliances at home and office by all Londoners could reduce annual CO2 emissions by 2.3 million tones. If all light bulbs were energy efficient, London would save 575,000 tonnes of CO2 and £139 million from energy bills (2006 prices) per year; if Londoners bought the most fuel-efficient/lowest CO2 car in their preferred class of vehicle CO2 emissions would fall by 30% in this sector.

“So why aren’t people doing them?”

Some highlights from Charles Secrett PowerPoint presentation:

The challenge –turning aspirations to be greener into actions that matter
• In UK, people now believe a sustainable home is: modern (90%); attractive (72%); hi-tech (79%); fashionable (78%); good value for money (72%)
• BUT while 90% of people broadly accept the science, and 70% say they are willing to change –ONLY 20% are changing carbon behaviour slightly (buying local food, recycling, driving car less) and only 5% changing significantly

Changing carbon-heavy behaviour ultimately means changing …
• Attitudes
• Values
• Beliefs
• AND MARKETS

As long as it is cheap, convenient and legal to waste carbon and natural resources, then that is what the great majority of individuals, households and companies will do… at work, home and play.

Blocks to uptake of renewable energy in UK/London
• Lack of statutory targets –Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22) ‘Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy’in 2004 -The Merton Rule (10% of renewable energy in new developments); Mayor guidance 20%; Olympics 20%.
• Confused and frequently changing Government grant systems for local and micro-renewable energy schemes (Government funding scheme -‘The Renewables Obligation’-consistent support for large wind schemes)
• Local authority opposition and public opposition to wind in many rural areas
• Ignorance of planners and developers of policy, costs and technical options/quality


So, what works …
• Laws and Regulations to ban/restrict unsustainable behaviour
• Polluter Pays Levies and Charges–if revenues are recycled into building up low carbon solutions (infrastructure, technologies, products)
• Financial Incentives–grants, discounts, rewards for low carbon choices and behaviours
• Focused Advice and Assistance programmes that are convenient to access for user, and help navigate a muddled market-place
• Widely available information on problems, causes and solutions (especially when help individuals, families companies in short-term)
• Exemplar Best Practice–‘seeing is believing’
• Partnerships across public, private, domestic and voluntary sectors
• Respected Champions
• Coordinated and demonstrable international action

Thanks to Ralph Torrie for pointing the Japan-UK low carbon research to us, where this paper was presented.

Barriers to innovation and change: a first cut at a framework

For some time now, we’ve been discussing within our team our unique focus: identifying and understanding the barriers to innovation and change that would address climate change., i.e what's stopping us from implementing or deploying given technological innovation and changes to reduce GHG emissions.

Our colleague and interim chair of the project’s advisory board Tom Brzustowski has sketched out a preliminary framework for classifying these barriers. As we progress, we will identify more of these frameworks, and we will have the opportunity in the new year to meet with subject matter experts and practitioners to put these barriers to test.

Here are Tom’s preliminary categories of barriers and notes:

Institutional
No appropriate institution exists
. Turf issues among existing institutions break up the needed perspective
. Current institutions don't fit but claim jurisdiction

Practical
. Established practices delay new approaches
. Shortages of people (e.g. trades) with the necessary skills and knowledge

Behavioural
. Resistance to change at the individual level: "old dog, new tricks", etc.
. Change in life/work patterns - too big, too sudden, too many people involved

Cultural
. "taboos"
. "can't imagine…"
. Surprising objections to change in doing things apparently unrelated to the substance

Financial
. too expensive in the short term
. not enough credit
. not enough investors, lenders, etc
. new risks, not understood

Political
. other priorities
. long-term measures, sometimes of preventive nature, don't bring much . political return

Making it happen: what to do to reduce Green House Gases by 50%

Many people have designed approaches and scenarios for dramatically reducing our energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. This includes the early work by Amory Lovins on energy soft paths, especially the low energy scenario that he did for Canada as part of his work on the Conserver Society for the Science Council of Canada in the mid-70s (“Canada as a conserver society: resource uncertainties and the need for new technologies”, Science Council of Canada, Ottawa, 1977). These scenarios demonstrated that with existing technology, it is possible to run our economy effectively with a fraction of the current energy and fossil fuels.

More recently, Ralph Torrie’s work for the David Suzuki foundation (see “Kyoto and Beyond: The low-emission path to innovation and efficiency”, Suzuki Foundation, 2002) listed approximately 150 distinct technologies and changes, which if implemented completely, would result in a 50% reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels, by the year 2030.

All of these 150+ technologies which he lists in his low-carbon scenario are proven and available on the market. If we deploy and implement all of them, we will actually exceed the Kyoto targets. The graph and table below show the results of his scenario calculation, and how the deployment of these technologies will result carbon emissions, sector by sector.

This graph (no. 51 from Torrie's original paper on p. 115) shows how GHG emissions are reduced over the years, sector by sector.

This table shows the percentage reduction by the year 2030 in CO2 emmissions, sector by sector. It is taken from Torrie's table 26, p.117.

To achieve the 60% reduction in GHG emissions for the residential building sector, Torrie calculates that we need to deploy and implement no less that 58 different technologies and changes.

Similarly, we need to deploy and implement 28 different technologies and other initatives to achieve the 71% reduction for the commercial building sector.

For the passenger transportation, deploying and implementing 34 technologies and changes will yield a 75% reduction in eCO2 emmissions. And as Torrie points out, all these technologies are proven and exist on the market.

What next?

Our project "Making it happen" will continue to explore these 150 technologies, see if we can update that list - after all, technologies have evoleved since 2002.

But most importantly, we will look at barriers - institutional, cultural, behavioural, political, etc. that impede or slow down the deployment of these technologies.

Setting sustainability and environmental targets (3): Ottawa’s “Choosing our future”

Here’s one important and highly relevant major exercise of setting long-term goals, objectives and visions for a sustainable city 50 to 100 years from now. The city of Ottawa jointly with the city of Gatineau and the National Capital Commission has embarked on a two to three years exercise to develop a vision for a sustainable region. Following the pioneering work of CitiesPlus in Greater Vancouver, the project will bring a wide range of specialists and stakeholder into the process. Some of the same peole are also involved, including urban planner/ process facilitator Sebastian Moffat from the Sheltair group.

The most recent phase of that project was a four-day charrette held December 9-11 2008 in the Ottawa Art Gallery in downtown Ottawa. The event brought together urban planners, architects, designers, academics, and other specialists to colectively articulate the vision for a sustainable region 50-100 years into the future. To bring the exercise down to earth, four representative neighborhoods were selected, in which the vision was to be worked out in much greater detail, addressing the specific physical, and urban demographic conditions.

The exercise was guided by a set of fifteen end-state objectives describing the features of the sustainable society, which are reproduced here with permission:

1. Ecological limits: Of interest to our own project are the 15 and state goals which the charrette used as a driving force.

2. Ecological capacity: Rates of consumption and waste generation within the region are compatible with the long-term productive and assimilative capacity of the ecosphere.

3. Ecological services: The region’s production and consumption cycles have a net zero or net positive impact on the planet’s long-term ecological productivity and diversity.

4. Municipal ecologies: Natural resources within the National Capital Region provide a framework for land use decisions, ensuring that critical resources are easily accessed, are exploited in a sustainable fashion, and are used to achieve a high degree of regional self-reliance.

5. Cultural assets: The region’s heritage structures, and sites with special historical or spiritual significance, contribute to a strong regional identity and provide a framework for land use decisions, ensuring access to cultural assets for all residents and visitors, and helping to augment the value of local landscapes with a rich overlay of myth, story and artifact.

6. Connectivity: The region is connected at all scales, providing efficient and safe transport of goods and people, offering real choice in transportation modes, and providing frequent opportunities for high quality social interaction, and healthy, affordable lifestyles.

7. Resilience: Natural hazards throughout the region have been mitigated through land use planning, and through disaster-ready design guidelines for buildings and infrastructure.

8. Green infrastructure: Trees, gardens, ponds, wetlands, hedgerows, streams, greenways, green roofs and engineered ecologies have become the elements of a cost-effective ‘green infrastructure’ that cleans and constrains storm water flows, contributes to a quieter and more pleasant micro-climate, shades buildings in summer, improves air quality, and generally contributes to the livability and biodiversity of neighbourhoods.

9. Urban metabolism: The natural resource demand by each neighbourhood is consistent with the long-term capacity of the city’s infrastructure and the region’s resource base.

10. Urban and rural containment: The containment of both urban and rural areas, and an integrated approach to management of the boundary areas, has revitalised urban centres, enhanced the viability of local farming, and increased the quality of life, lifestyle choices, employment and recreation opportunities across the region.

11. Compact, complete communities: The region is a community of communities, where residents can work, shop and play close to home.

12. Adaptive capacity: Neighbourhoods are adaptable and resilient by design, capable of accommodating with ease, both expected and unexpected changes in climate, technology, the economy, resource availability, family size and lifestyle.

13. Housing affordability and choice: Housing meets the needs of the whole community.

14. Security: Neighbourhoods are designed and operated to minimise crime, to quickly respond to and recover from disasters, and to provide residents and visitors with a safe, secure environment in which they have freedom from fear.

15. Everyone has a voice and is heard, and key stakeholders within the region regularly collaborate to set shared directions and align policy.


What makes these end state goals noteworthy is that they cover all the dimensions of society and economy in a given region. They demonstrate clearly that everything in a sustainable society is interconnected. For the purpose of climate change, innovation and barriers to change, our focus will be much narrower and focus on those technologies that relate to energy and greenhouse gas emissions.

Setting sustainability and environmental targets (2): the dimensions of sustainability

Our ongoing exploration of setting sustainability targets for a region like Ottawa Carleton has led us to explore similar exercises in Canada and elsewhere.

The Siemens-McKinsey picture of sustainability for Greater London
McKinsey company, in a study on the transition to sustainability for the greater London area (GLA) sponsored by Siemens, developed this spider web sustainability comparison of London and other major metropolitan areas in the world.




As can be seen in the above diagram, the six metrics for sustainability include CO2 emissions targets from buildings, industry and transportation, as well as municipal waste production, water use and air pollution.


Cities plus and the Greater Vancouver Region
Cities plus, a wide ranging exercise started in 2002 with a grant from the International Gas Union, explored the many dimensions of sustainability for the greater Vancouver region. Its scope for defining a sustainable future to 2100 encompassed many variables, including the end goals illustrated in the blue cinnamon role diagram below:



The end goals for a Greater Vancouver Region in 2100 cover four large categories:

Place:
Natural Habitat and Green Space Systems
Climate
People:
Cultural Systems
First Nations Systems
Health and Well-Being Systems
Social Equity Systems
Infrastructure:
Agri-Food Systems
Communication Systems
Energy Systems
Housing and Buildings Systems
Materials Systems
Mobility Systems
Water Systems
Governance:
Decision Support Systems
Economic Development Systems
Governance Systems
Human Security Systems
Land Use Systems


Some of the quantifiable metrics used include the following:

Developed by the Sheltair Group, http://www.sheltair.com/



QUEST: Quality Urban Energy System of Tomorrow

Another Canadian wide initiative is QUEST (Quality Urban Energy System of Tomorrow) initially led by Lloyd Axworthy, then former BC Premier Mike Harcourt, the in itiative includes a birad range of interested stakeholders, including the following: Canada Green Building Council, Canadian Electricity Association, Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance, Canadian Gas Association, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Industry Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Ontario Power Authority, Pollution Probe,

They published their joint report, “Integrated Energy Systems in Canadian Communities: A Consensus for Urgent Action” in March 2008, and just completed their latest meeting in Victoria in November 2008.

Some of the key features of their vision of sustainability include:

The QUEST initiative also recognizes, that based on the 2006 NRTEE’s “Advice on a Long-term Strategy on Energy and Climate Change” scenario of 60% reduction by 2050 shows that close to half of the reduction could come from buildings, transportation and urban form, what they call "the other 50%", i.e. sustainable communities.

Ralph Torrie's "Beyond Kyoto" analysis for the Suzuki Foundation

Lastly, we present the final results of Torrie's model calculations showing that it is not only possible to rech and exceed the Kyoto Targets for GHG emmissions, but also to do it with increasing population and GDP:

We will return in future posts in much greater depth to this analysis and the technologies and changes that need to be deployed to reach these targets in our future posts.