The Global Energy and Climate Policy course offers an introduction to the theoretical and practical understanding of how energy and climate change policies are designed, shaped, advocated and implemented. As energy markets go truly global, domestic energy policies are becoming more and more entangled with wider issues of international governance. Concurrently, the urgent need to mitigate and adapt to climate change and transition to a low-carbon future is adding a further layer of complexity. The course is aimed broadly at people interested in learning more about interconnected issues in energy and climate policy globally. It assumes a level of interest but no necessary previous knowledge. However, the course also offers sufficient up to date research and new critical perspectives to be of interest to people with expertise in or academic familiarity with the topic as well. The main aim of the course is to provide this wide-ranging introduction in a self-contained, but in-depth form, alongside the important practical skills necessary to understand and discuss energy and climate policy, and lay the groundwork for greater engagement in the future – either through academic study, in the public, private or not-for-profit sectors.
Energy Security 2 - Diversification and Cost
Loading...
來自 University of London 的課程
Global Energy and Climate Policy
102 個評分
從本節課中
Climate change and energy security: resolving a tri-lemma
This week provides an introduction to the various conceptualisations of energy security and considers the implications these can have on energy and climate change strategies.
與講師見面
Harald HeubaumDr
Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy (CISD)
There's policymakers who would say that we need all of the above strategy to energy.
We need to diversify our portfolios,
and on the face of it,
that seems like a very logical approach to energy.
So don't put all your eggs in one basket -- have different sources of energy,
perhaps also get that energy from different countries,
from different partners; produce some of it at home,
some of it perhaps in a distributed way.
Is there anything wrong with looking at energy through this lens of diversification?
Fossil fuels, nuclear, renewables,
all of the above,
isn't diversification something we ought to have?
I think there is a hugely strong argument for diversification.
The only challenge I find with the concept of diversification
itself is that idea that diversification for its own sake.
So I've always questioned quite how effective solar power in rainy London would be,
but it's about finding things that are appropriate for the time and the place.
In Saudi Arabia for example,
solar power has been incredibly popular because in the height of the day,
most energy is used for heating and cooling,
will generate that from solar power.
It's a much more effective and affordable and sensible way
to power heating and cooling than to burn oil,
which can then be sold on the open market,
and therefore is a very positive benefit for that country.
It's about understanding the dynamics of the different countries,
the relationships between them.
Thereon, it's not as simple as saying there's a "We buy it from there,
we buy it from there."
Every country has a different relationship with different countries.
We have to understand that the international relationships
between these also have a role to play.
Aside from those issues, you know,
I do think personally that diversification is the future,
unquestionably, but it needs to be done in an organized fashion,
and it needs to be done in a complementary way.
Indeed, I think the single most important contribution
that future research around climate and energy security could make
is around lifecycle emissions accounting and finding a way
for the political classes to understand the importance of that issue,
to recognize that an INDC that's built only on
the emissions that are produced within your economy really
only tells half the story as well as conceals half the opportunity for a very,
very different type of discussion around climate change action.
That is where we need to go.
Indeed, you could perhaps be so bold as to say that the Paris Agreement
will invariably fail in the absence of lifecycle accounting supporting it.
Are you bringing in renewables and are you trying to bridge
between the high-carbon energy solutions and zero-carbon energy solutions?
So, if we say,
the diversity as it stands is acceptable as we think of it as a transition period.
It's okay, we still do have some elements of coal and oil,
but we are slowly phasing that out.
I think that's more successful.
It might not be entirely what the promitigators want,
but I think that gives you more solutions and more secure energy security,
and it's gonna get you further than,
I mean a straight swap at the moment just isn't possible with
the technology we have or the political inclination we have.
So again, I think focusing on an ice-bridging approach would answer that.
Access depends on price.
There's almost an assumption that moving to renewables will lead to,
in the longer term,
a cheaper, cleaner form of energy.
That's not necessarily the case,
we could have a global monopoly on the delivery
of renewable energies and we're starting to see that happening already.
Some people say that what needs to happen is a decentralized system -- particularly,
say in Sub-Saharan Africa,
where there is lots of potential for renewable energies in
Sub-Saharan Africa -- to achieve energy security for individuals and communities,
away from international and continental energy security issues,
but it depends on who is delivering it.
So access then becomes an issue about economics.
And then sustainability issues are linked up to this as well.
Biofuels is a great one on sustainability and if you're having large-scale plantations,
they are using large amounts of water on land that may have been,
not stolen but the people that lived there didn't have
tenure rights because they were never given tenure rights because they were
there under sort of customary illegal systems.
Then, that's perceived as sustainable in one location,
because there's a sustainability criteria and
a tracking system to say this is sustainable biofuels.
But for the people on the ground,
that's not a sustainable situation.
Affordability tends to be the breaking point because,
consistently, fossil fuels have been able to
provide very unique yields at very unique prices.
And in a way that's,
that's what the alternative has to match -- you can't cost more and perform more poorly.
That flies in the face of all energy systems that we've known to this point and it's,
in some cases, very,
very difficult to to be able to match up.
But I would suggest that sustainability, affordability...
