Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Scott Losee 54 Boronia Ave Holland Park West QLD 4121 [email protected] 0404 467 228
August 22, 2016
Jim Reeves Director-General Department of Environment and Heritage Protection 400 George Street GPO Box 2454 Brisbane QLD 4001
Dear Jim
Submission on Advancing Climate Action in Queensland
I am sure you would agree that climate change policy is vexed, both for mitigation and adaptation. It may be that conventional approaches to policy development are failing us.
With this in mind, 27 professionals gathered on June 21st to ‘hack’ Queensland climate change policy. This letter and the attached report on the hack comprise a collective submission by this group. Neither the group nor the workshop were official, endorsed, aligned, sponsored or political—a group of concerned Queensland professionals if you will.
While this event was prompted by the Advancing Climate Action discussion paper, it departed from responding to the paper and instead reframed the problem. It did so, first, by addressing adaptation as well as mitigation; and second, by applying two experimental workshop techniques. In our view, the approach taken by the discussion paper was conventional, and the alternative perspectives we applied were able to reveal some gaps.
Mitigation
In a strict sense, mitigation policy aims to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, a globally shared natural resource. Units of abatement can be treated as a commodity, and attempts have been made to price this commodity, with mixed success. An advantage of commodifying abatement is that any source of abatement is equally valuable. For example, where Queensland has been unable to pass legislative controls on vegetation clearing, from a strict mitigation sense, this does not matter. Another equivalent source of abatement may be found. Of course, the immediate objection to this argument is that vegetation legislation provides many more, important benefits, beyond abatement. This highlights the prevalence of justifying abatement policies based on their co-benefits—and is exactly how the discussion paper is presented.
In framing mitigation policies, governments typically either (1) do not consider a single goal of abatement to be a sufficiently valuable policy outcome; or (2) need to account for a section of the electorate that rejects human-caused climate change (and hence any investment in treating the
problem). Consequently, governments emphasise mitigation policies with co-benefits. A policy’s ostensible and chief aim is to reduce emissions, but it is not adopted if it does not also deliver other policy outcomes. I’ll call this an, ‘abatement first, co-benefits second’ model.
However, within society and the economy, a unit of abatement has little to no genuine, inherent value to anybody. Its value is linked to a distant, obscure and miniscule contribution to a collective and unlikely effort to reduce the pressure on the atmosphere to within its assimilative capacity. Our workshop approach explored reversing the ‘abatement first, co-benefits second’ model by applying a commercial business model development process, and zeroing-in on the need for find value for customers. This might be called a ‘value first, abatement second’ model. The effect may be only subtly different, in that the approach still straddles multiple outcomes, but placing the focus on value to customers provides the link to action. If there is inherent value, then there is a basis for action. This is the insight that underlies Osterwalder’s highly influential Business Model Canvass.
The attached report describes how we applied this concept in the hack workshop. The short workshop was a very useful opportunity to test this new approach to conceptualising the policy problem and generating policy ideas that may ‘stick’. We concluded that if we were to refine the process (e.g. by providing better definition to ‘customers’ and narrowing the range of topics) we would generate new policy ideas with broad appeal and efficacy.
Adaptation
Although Advancing Climate Action itself does not address adaptation, the government is engaged in a parallel process to develop a Queensland Climate Adaptation Strategy, that is of considerable interest to the professional community. Adaptation policy suffers from its own policy challenges, which are different to those for mitigation. There is no universal commodity of resilience. Unlike, mitigation, adaptation is layered, multi-dimensional and spatially sensitive. Timing is also an awkward matter for conventional adaptation policy because policies and investments have to be made in anticipation of future conditions that are not clearly distinct from present day conditions (e.g. changes in probabilities and frequencies). Like mitigation though, adaptation policies suffer from a lack of apparent, immediate value.
In considering this problem, I thought that an analogy might exist in the way individuals go about planning for retirement or long-term investment. The hack explored this concept as a metaphor for future adaptation and a ‘portfolio’ of resilience. We mapped the usual steps in retirement planning against their possible corollaries in adaptation. This method highlighted some key weaknesses of adaptation policy, that normally follows a rational-comprehensive planning model.
If one were to approach adaptation planning like retirement planning, one would need to understand what the desired future lifestyle would be, quantify what the current level of resilience is, understand risk tolerance and develop and manage a portfolio of resilience. Interestingly, adaptation planning typically begins with detailed analysis of future climate projections, yet in the analogue of retirement planning, close scrutiny of share market fluctuations would be an inappropriate starting point.
The attached report shows how the hack workshopped this metaphor. The discussion established that there was potential for this method to provide a robust framework for integrated adaptation policy. However, given its abstract nature, it required further explanation and time for participants to grasp and apply the process.
Recommendation
It is our recommendation that these two processes be further developed and applied again within government and/or with stakeholders to enhance the robustness of Queensland climate change policy. My colleagues and I would be pleased to meet with you or your representatives to discuss how this may occur.
Yours sincerely
Scott Losee
On behalf of the hack organisers and the named and un-named participants identified in the accompanying report
* Encl. ‘Hacks for Sustainability—Queensland Climate Change Policy’
Hacks for Sustainability –Queensland Climate Change Policy
Brief report on an independent professional event held on 21/6/2016 at QUT, Gardens Point
Scott Losee & Ramola Yardi with Piet Filet22/8/2016
1
Scott Losee [email protected]
Ramola Yardi [email protected]
Piet Filet [email protected]
This document is not for publication in its current form due to the use of images from the internet.
Contents
• Introduction and process slide 3• Mitigation (Business Model Canvass) slide 5• Adaptation (Investment Planning Metaphor) slide 8• Discussion slide 15• Appendix 1 – Blog write-ups slide 17 • Appendix 2 – Raw data slide 21
2
Introduction• An experimental interactive event called a ‘hack’ was conducted on 21/6/2016 at QUT
with 26 professionals.
• In this context, a ‘hack’ was, ‘a clever solution to a tricky problem.’
• This hack session was not official; not endorsed, aligned or sponsored; not political; andintended to be fun for participants.
• The stimulus for the event was the Queensland Government’s discussion paper, AdvancingClimate Action in Queensland.
• Although the discussion paper addressed only mitigation of climate change, the hackevent addressed mitigation as well as adaptation.
• The premise was that climate change policy had been challenging and conventionalapproaches to policy development have had limited success, in the context of the scale ofthe problem and the speed with which social and economic change is required.
• The intent was to look at the policy from new perspectives, recognising that the two policydomains (mitigation and adaptation) are well worn.
• The goal was to identify ‘cut-through’ solutions that can ‘stick’, and side-step vexedpolitics.
3
Process and assumptions
4
• Three core assumptions shaped the discussions;namely, that Queensland cannot stop climatechange; that Queensland is obliged to contributeto reducing emissions; and altruism is anunreliable motivator.
• The hack was divided into two streams, one formitigation and one for adaptation.
• Mitigation concerned reducing greenhouse gasemissions and ‘abatement’ was interpreted as acommodity (CO2-e).
• The method for hacking mitigation was to applybusiness model canvass concept (Osterwalder &Pigneur). The Queensland Government wasinterpreted as the ‘business’, and abatementsubstituted for revenue
• For the adaptation stream, resilience was likenedto capital. The group applied a metaphor of long-term investment or retirement planning as amodel to reflect on adaptation. For example,‘when I retire’ would be substituted for ‘whenclimate change really hits’.
Using the eggs and baskets metaphor, it could be argued that for mitigation, it would be okay for all eggs to be in one basked, but for adaptation, several baskets would be better.
One common approach for mitigation is to use the Marginal
Abatement Cost Curve. The implication is that an organisation
should implement all measures from left (money-making) to right (loss-making) in order of priority.
However, this approach ignores other merits of solutions (e.g.
customer value) and government policy tends to require more
nuance.
The process for the hack.
Note: images removedfor publication
Note: images removedfor publication
Business Model Canvass
5
• The rationale for using the business model canvass approach is that it highlights the factthat without value to the customer, nothing happens.
• The starting point for this approach is the value proposition box.
• When compared to the results of a conventional rational-comprehensive (top-down)policy development approach, this business model canvass approach is likely to identifyactivities that provide tangible and compelling value to ‘customers’.
Original Modified
Mapping abatement actions in the discussion paper to the business model canvass Households
Customer Segments1. Households2. Businesses3. Councils4. Utilities and ‘doing’
agencies
Abatement actions in plan1. Vegetation management2. Landholder participation in the ERF3. ‘Electric super highways’4. Encouraging public transport5. Vehicle emissions standards (federal)6. Queensland Cycle Strategy7. Managed Motorways8. Development assessment provisions9. Renewables and energy efficiency in
housing10. Infrastructure contributes to
emissions reductions11. Sustainability assessment for projects12. National performance standards for
appliances and buildings13. Energy efficiency in government
buildings14. Driving innovation with the Advance
Queensland plan
4 pillars of decarbonisation1. Energy efficiency2. Low carbon
electricity3. Electrification and
fuel switching4. Non-energy
emissions
Businesses
Councils
Utilities/agencies
IdeasComments
IdeasComments
IdeasComments
IdeasComments
6
Building The Canvass
As the group started to add ‘sticky notes’ to the business model canvass it became clear that responding to customer problems and creating value was key.
For example, the Discussion Paper asks for community feedback on how to increase uptake of low carbon transport options. By taking a customer centric or values based approach, the Discussion Paper could instead ask:
7
Customer Segment Problem or Need Questions that Arise
Householders Avoiding traffic congestion & high petrol costs
How can we make public transport so cheap, quick and convenient that you want to travel on it everyday?
Councils Use of bikeways How can we create seamlessly connected and safe bikeways on popular commute and school routes
Other State Agencies Multiple policy directives
How can we partner with Health or Communities on low-carbon transport
DESIGN: F9 Productions, from inhabit.com
Comfortable retirement
Living in our future climate
Adaptation and Resilience
8
• The approach taken to adaptation was to work through a metaphor of retirement planning (or long-term investment planning) as it might apply to planning for climate change adaptation and resilience inQueensland.
Note: images removedfor publication
Investment planning steps metaphorSteps Investment planning metaphor Corollary in adaptation
1 Investment or retirement goals Reasonable, desired future lifestyle
2 Analysing current financial position Analysing current level of resilience
3 Lifestyle while investing (living expenses)
Trade-offs (lock-in spending now vs. ‘wait and see’)
4 Risk tolerance Risk tolerance
5 Investment portfolio Elements that collectively make-up resilience of the community
6 Insurance (Life, TPD, income protection)
Insurance, self-insurance and insurer of last resort
7 Estate planning Welfare of future generations
8 Investment roadmap Adaptation roadmap
9 Reviews and rebalancing Monitoring9
Allocation and diversificationInvestment portfolio• Property
• Family home• Investment properties• Property trusts
• Cash• Fixed interest• Call account
• Shares• International• Small companies• Start-ups• Blue chip
• Gold, art, wine
Qld’s adaptation portfolio• Examples
• Flood mitigation works• Water restriction and demand
management framework• SES• Heat respite options• Community cohesion• Settlement patterns• Crop diversification• Ecosystem connectivity• Reduce other ecological
stresses
10
How do we plan?
11
Finance Climate
It would be inappropriate to use share-market fluctuations as a starting point for retirement planning, yet the practice of climate change adaptation planning has tended to focus highly on scientific data and analysis. It could be argued that this partly reflects the long period of public debate that has occurred regarding whether climate change is ‘real’ and/or caused by human activity.
Note: images removedfor publication
12
Questions posed for adaptation planning by the investment planning metaphor
Queensland Climate Adaptation Strategy –Exploring how stakeholder led initiatives can enhance Qld’s adaptive capacityThe following points were drawn from work to date on the Queensland Adaptation Strategy as led by Green Cross and the Business Adaptation Network. They were shared with the hackers to convey current thinking of the government.
• Manage risks to natural assets & resource-based industries
• Building resilience of Queenslanders to heat waves
• Resilient master planned communities and neighbourhoods
• Urban landscape partnerships to mitigate heat wave and flooding
• Property resilience partnerships that promote design principles, enhance communitysafety and make insurance more affordable
• Partnerships that engage the community on innovative water demand and supply options
• Addressing infrastructure severe weather interdependencies and business continuity
• Building disaster resilience in communities
• Coastal adaptation pathway collaborative planning.
13
Adaptation – some ideas• It is important to establish a baseline assessment of resilience and track progress towards
desired resilience and residual risk levels.
• Resilience must measure how enduring the community and the environment is – builtinfrastructure only assists in achieving resilience.
• Some adaptation investments provide immediate value and benefits to the community,such as shade provision or better design for active travel.
• The state may be ‘underinvested’ in managing the social dimensions of climate impacts(which are at least as costly as infrastructure losses).
• There is potential to improve mapping of risk areas and implications (e.g. flood mapping).
• There may be opportunity to achieve lower insurance premiums and provide better coverthrough collaboration across jurisdictions and between government and insurers.
• Where the planning system and the decisions it produces are not optimal, affectedstakeholders including government may consider insuring against potential losses anddamages.
• Continuing support for climate adaptation relies on understanding within and betweengenerations; education will be fundamental to successful long-term adaptation.
• A climate resilience roadmap could involve selecting some KPIs and associated changes incourse, developing targets by sector (homes, business, government, etc.), identifyingtrigger points and monitoring the positive and negative impacts of adaptation.
14
Discussion• The experience with applying the two processes may have been more valuable than the
specific ideas that were generated in the short time available (with only 60-90 mins. for workshopping activities). Additional time was required to explain the methods to keep participants focussed on a shared perspective.
• The two processes reveal significant gaps in policy focus and effort by the Queensland Government and governments in general.
• The notion of providing value (drawing on the business model canvass) as a basis for policy effort holds some promise in overcoming divided politics.
• Similarly, the retirement planning metaphor construct effectively draws out one or more weaknesses in strategic adaptation planning, such as the lack of integration, an overall goal for resilience, and measuring progress.
• There is a high degree of professional interest in the approach taken by the Queensland Government in the policy domains of climate change mitigation and adaptation. The government could make greater use of this in shaping climate change policy.
• It is likely that fresh and valuable insights could be gained in both these policy domains if these techniques were delivered with sufficient time to develop and record ideas.
• An alternative to the workshop approach would be to have several authors apply the two methods to the policy problems and prepare ‘stories’ that respond to them. This could be used as a further stimulus for worshopping or professional conversations.
15
ContributorsConvenors and facilitators:
• Scott Losee, Ramola Yardi, Piet Filet, Oliver Mitchell
Named participants:
• Charles Brooking, Cindy Fenton, Doug Yuille, Jeff Popp, Julia Callaghan, Kristie McKenna,Mark Davis, Melissa Nugent, Roy Barrett, Ryan Thomas, Sarah Patching, Simone DeKleermaeker
11 additional participants with names withheld.
Correspondence to:
16
Appendix 1Blogs
17
Blog by Ramola YardiLast Tuesday I co-facilitated a Brisbane ‘Hacks for Sustainability’ with Scott Losee and Piet Filet. The Hack was an informal, non-political, exploratory, policy hack of the current Queensland Climate Change Discussion Paper which is out for comment until 5 August 2016. <Linked here: https://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/gi/consultation/3000/view.html> Attended by over 30 people, the hack explored experimental frameworks for understanding and responding to climate change mitigation and adaptation.
For climate change mitigation we drew on the Business Model Canvas originally created by Alexander Osterwalder. <Find out more: http://www.businessmodelgeneration.com/canvas/bmc> The key benefit of the Canvas is that it separates your intent (for example reducing emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change) to the value you provide to customers (for example, less traffic congestion, thermal comfort, control over energy costs).
The Canvas is often used by start-up enterprises, entrepreneurs and business innovators to clarify their value proposition to customers in order to generate new revenue. The Canvas helps piece together all the various elements to deliver a coherent business offering: from customer segments, to distribution channels, to resources, cost structure, partners etc.
For the mitigation side of the hack, we amended the Business Model Canvas so that the Queensland Government became the business; and households, industry, councils and utilities became the customers. The cost structure was cost per tonne of greenhouse gas abatement and the revenue was abatement achieved.
In practice, while the group found that the approach had merit and provided the opportunity to ‘sell’ climate change in terms of values that resonated with the various customer segments; the exercise itself needed to be more structured to draw out a comprehensive list of winning strategies.
Interestingly, a ‘price on carbon’ or emissions trading was not a key consideration of the group as we were more focussed on understanding and responding to customer needs and values.
We are continuing to refine the business model canvas and its application to policy.
The approach was compelling, however. For example, take the four key mitigation strategies in the Queensland Government Climate Change discussion paper:
Energy: The discussion paper asks: how can we increase uptake of renewables and energy efficiency to transition to a cleaner energy future? Instead the Business Model Canvas asks utilities – would you like to grow your portfolio and revenue by expanding your energy supply networks? Or asks householders – would you like to do away with energy bills?
Built Environment: The discussion paper asks: how can we build sustainable communities? Instead the Business Model Canvass asks planners – can you improve health and well-being of residents in this area? Can you design or retrofit to create health outcomes?
Transport: The Discussion paper asks: how can we transition to low carbon transport options? Instead the Business Model Canvas asks households – would you like a peaceful and quiet commute to work? One hour of me-time? What would you like from public transport to offer you that?
Waste: The discussion paper asks: what should our waste priorities be? Instead the Business Model Canvas asks manufacturers: What if someone else could pay you to take away this troublesome waste product that’s taking up space in your plant? What types of businesses should cluster around your production lines to make this happen?
The Business Model Canvas offers a new way of looking at climate change mitigation by asking a different set of questions. This approach may be able to work with a wide range of policies that are not gaining traction because they are focussed on strategic intent and not value to the ‘customers’ whose behaviour they are trying to change.
For comparative purposes, consider coffee pods. Nespresso is a well known example of a sophisticated business model. It offers unique value to coffee connoisseurs combining product with experience: good cafe quality coffee, coffee portions and machines, widely sourced blends, Club membership and boutique stores. Nestle (the owner of Nespresso) “pioneered the … idea of allowing anyone to create the perfect espresso at home” thus responding to untapped need in the consumer market. If Nestle’s business strategy was only to sell more coffee, it may not have disrupted its existing models to achieve such success. <read more here: https://www.nestle-nespresso.com/about-us/strategy ).
If the Queensland Government’s job was to sell coffee, it’s strategy would only be as sophisticated as growing, roasting, packaging, distributing and selling coffee.
Perhaps it is time for business model innovation in government policy.
18
Coffee Pods and Climate Change Policy: New Business Models for Action
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/coffee-pods-climate-change-policy-new-business-models-ramola-yardi?trk=prof-post
Blog by Scott Losee
Thirty interested professionals gathered at QUT to ‘hack’ Queensland climate policy in search of cut-through solutions that can win broad-based support.
The group delved separately into cutting emissions and boosting climate resilience.
For resilience, we worked through a nine step investment or retirement planning process, thinking about what the corollary of the steps would be in adaptation planning.
This revealed new perspectives, such as the idea of measuring what overall level of resilience the State of Queensland currently has—and what it ought to aim for (i.e. analogous to understanding your starting financial position and your desired retirement lifestyle).
When you’re saving for retirement, you have to reflect on your current lifestyle and strike a reasonable balance between enjoying life and saving enough. Several hackers argued that the way we’re living now isn’t sustainable either in keeping carbon emissions low, or in investing in resilience.
In a few cases, conventional adaptation planning contrasted starkly with the metaphorical investment planning. You don’t plan your finances by tracking the minutiae of share market movements—but we love to start adaptation planning by scrutinising countless graphs of projections and meteorological observations.
It was encouraging to see more insights roll-out with the metaphor:
What if we manage a ‘portfolio’ of resilience assets?
What are acceptable losses?
Are governments being sufficiently prudent in holding reserves as the ultimate underwriter?
Does estate planning translate into working out how adaptation can become inter-generational?
Should we review and rebalance our resilience portfolio on a regular basis?
For mitigation, we adopted the Business Model Canvass concept, imagining the State Government as the business and abatement as revenue.
The premise was that climate change mitigation policy struggles because many of the policies are not providing inherent value that would appeal to ‘customers’, giving policies bi-partisan support.
Scott Losee convened the session and led the adaptation workshop. Ramola Yardi of Acacia Environmental facilitated the mitigation stream and Piet Filet of the Flood Community of Practice helped manage the process. Oliver Mitchell was a great help too with keeping the hack on track.
More hack insights to share soon…
19
Can we plan to adapt to climate change like we plan to retire?
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/can-we-plan-adapt-climate-change-like-retire-scott-losee?trk=hp-feed-article-title-publish
Blog by Piet Filet
In the spirit of providing feedback on the Queensland Climate Policy, the Flood Community of Practice joined with other interested colleagues to see what constructive improvements could be suggested. Thirty participants meet at QUT to ‘hack’ Queensland climate policy in search of cut-through solutions that can win broad-based support.
The workshop was lead by Scott Losee of Losee Consulting and Ramola Yardi of Acacia Environmental. Together they designed an engaging after work event of looking at some alternative frameworks that could better formulate responses for the Policy.
The group delved separately into cutting emissions and boosting climate resilience.
For resilience, we all worked through a nine step investment based on the analogy of a retirement planning process, thinking about what the corollary of the steps would be in adaptation planning.
This revealed new perspectives, such as the idea of measuring what overall level of resilience the State of Queensland currently has—and what it ought to aim for (i.e. analogous to understanding your starting financial position and your desired retirement lifestyle).
When you’re saving for retirement, you have to reflect on your current lifestyle and strike a reasonable balance between enjoying life and saving enough. Several participants argued that the way we’re living now isn’t sustainable either in keeping carbon emissions low, or in investing in resilience.
In a few cases, conventional adaptation planning contrasted starkly with the metaphorical investment planning. You don’t plan your
finances by tracking the minutiae of share market movements—but we love to start adaptation planning by scrutinising countless graphs of climate projections and meteorological observations.
It was encouraging to see more insights roll-out with the metaphor:
What if we manage a ‘portfolio’ of resilience assets?
What are acceptable losses?
Are governments being sufficiently prudent in holding reserves as the ultimate underwriter?
Does estate planning translate into working out how adaptation can become inter-generational?
Should we review and rebalance our resilience portfolio on a regular basis?
For mitigation, we adopted the Business Model Canvass concept, imagining the State Government as the business and abatement as revenue.
The premise was that climate change mitigation policy struggles because many of the policies are not providing inherent value that would appeal to ‘customers’, giving policies bi-partisan support. Interesting though is the option to segment the various value propositions to the various customer groups. In doing so the best fit sets of products and services can be better aligned with that Customer groups gains sought and pains avoided.
As this material is compiled we will update this post with any completed feedback.
20
‘Hacking’ into the Queensland Climate Change Policy
http://floodcop.com.au/2016/06/22/hacking-into-the-queensland-climate-change-policy/
Appendix 2Raw Postits from the Hack - Mitigation
21
Value proposition• What do you do?
• What core value do you deliver to your audience?• Which needs are you satisfying?
22
Audience segments• Who do you help?
• Which groups are you creating value for?• Who is your most important audience?
23
Channels• How do you reach them?
• Through which channel does your audience want tobe reached?
• Which channels work best? How much do they cost?
• Utilities/agenciesSell energy into gridDeliver charged batteries (swap)
• Business – idea: recycledconcretebuilding company supply chainsales visit/demofinancial markets(financial/trading products)
24
Audience relationships• How do you interact?
• What relationship does the target audience expect you to establish?
Revenue stream• How much will you make?
• For what value are your audience willing to pay?• How much does each stream contribute to the overall revenues?
25
Key activities• How do you do it?
• What key activities does your value proposition require?• What are most important to your distribution channels,
customer relationships, revenue, etc.?
Key resources• What do you need?
• What key resources does your value proposition require?
26
Key partners• Who will help you?
• Who are your key partners? Suppliers?• What are the most important motivations for the
partnerships?
Cost structure• What will it cost?
• What are the most important costs in your work?• Which key resources/activities are most expensive?
• Public transport – improved infrastructure ($$)note – could lead to more jobs
• Diverse energy portfoliosmultiple use of network
Appendix 2Raw Postits from the Hack - Adaptation
27
28
Investment planning metaphor
Corollary in adaptation Questions posed
1 Investment or retirement goals
Reasonable, desired futurelifestyle
• Do we simply expect to live our current or better lifestyle?• What level of safety do we expect?• What will it be like if we don’t adapt well?
• Building UP and not OUT
• We can live in regional parks with healthy lifestyles and strong renewable economy
• The planet will adapt – will humans and animals?; therefore, new economy = survival
Investment planning metaphor
Corollary in adaptation Questions posed
2 Analysing current financial position
Analysing current level of resilience
• Have we established what the State’s level of resilience is?• Can we measure it? How?• Is it important to know?
29
Investment planning metaphor
Corollary in adaptation Questions posed
3Lifestyle while investing (living expenses)
Trade-offs (lock-in spending now vs. ‘wait and see’)
• What can we afford to invest in adaptation?• What is the maximum amount we can invest?• How does adaptation investment fit with our budget?
Investment planning metaphor
Corollary in adaptation Questions posed
4 Risk tolerance Risk tolerance• What are acceptable losses?• What are the most important things to protect?• What is our investment profile? – High tolerance, or risk averse?
• Carbon use foregone in using more public transport• Carbon foregone in trade-off to working and living in same location• Adaptation costs better with group purchasing• Low income housing funds saved from converting to low carbon homes• Move towards system where producers take responsibility for waste/emissions• Lack of investment in knowledge building activities related to CC adaptation• Take total cost of ownership into account (build and maintain)• Adaptation is a lifestyle. Does not need separate budgeting• Active transport cities; easy to invest in now; long term benefits
Investment planning metaphor
Corollary in adaptation Questions posed
5 Investment portfolio
Elements that collectively make-up resilience of the community
• What are the components of our existing resilience portfolio?• Do we have an appropriate balance? • What are the gaps?• Are we over or under-invested in any components or sectors?
• Need to help the system find equilibrium to adapt• Climate change is not the issue – human survival is!• Personal wellbeing; community infrastructure• Meaningful work opportunities that allow personal
and business goals to be met• Knowledge sharing; identification of risks from
township to township or adjoining communities• More sustaining, purposeful businesses needed• Residual risk is highly underestimated and ignored• Assimilative capacity of our environment• Understanding of key areas vulnerable to CC;
accurate CC impact predictions• Heavy focus on user pays insurance, etc. community
only in ‘disaster’ response
31
Investment planning metaphor
Corollary in adaptation Questions posed
6Insurance (Life,TPD, income protection)
Insurance, self-insurance and insurer of last resort
• How do we handle losses and damage?• What things are easier to insure for than address physically?• What is the cost and quality of our insurance?
• Insurance = certain (small) cost now to cover potentially (large) in the future; insurance against the consequences of CC is possible, but not against CC itself
• Alternative to infrastructure charges• We need a paradigm shift about insurance. Move from full
insurance to part insurance• Predict losses and allow redistribution of resources• Collaboration across jurisdictions• Partnerships between insurers and government to provide
incentive to reduce premiums
32
Investment planning metaphor
Corollary in adaptation Questions posed
7 Estate planning Welfare of future generations
• Will future generations face greater climate change impacts?• How can we ensure that adaptation receives consistent and appropriate
attention in decades to come?
• Generating knowledge on CC and its impact is the key for generating action
• Go beyond educating in ‘green’ behaviours• Alternative notions of assets and security• Prove the value and show that it’s worthwhile• Quantify stocks of resources; water, shelter, energy,
space, biodiversity• Notions of ‘accessibility’ education and rethink
priority access• Let schools talk about climate change• Get the ‘Blue Economy’ up and running as the so
called ‘New Economy’ – transition to it and future generations will just do it
33
Investment planning metaphor
Corollary in adaptation Questions posed
8 Investmentroadmap Adaptation roadmap • What actions do we take to put our adaptation plan in place?
• How shall we arrange and prioritise them?
9 Reviews and rebalancing Monitoring
• What indicators do we need to track? How frequently?• What rebalancing of our resilience portfolio can we consider?• What drastic actions do we need to be prepared to take in worst cases?
• Select some KPIs and associated changes in course• Develop targets for individual homes, business and
government• Identify trigger points – what to monitor• Track savings achieved through mitigation to further support
expenditure• Monitor negative impacts of adaptation * Lismore• I think the most vulnerable groups will be low income, elderly,
etc… and we will need to be prepared to adapt earlier rather than later so that these groups do not suffer
• Equity issues – spatial distribution of vulnerability
