The importance of talking to YOU about complex environmental issues: Insights from research with the public

on, low carbon transitions, and climate engineering

Dr Karen Parkhill (Senior Lecturer in Human Geography, Environment Department, University of York).karen.parkhill@york.ac.uk @DrKAParkhillwww.energywelfareproject.org @energywelfare

Presentation given at:University of York, Environment Public Lectures.

Tuesday 15th November 2016.

Acknowledgements• Dr Catherine Butler (University of Exeter)• Prof Nick Pidgeon, Dr Nem Vaughan, Dr Adam Corner.• All public/stakeholder participants.

The importance of talking to YOU about complex environmental issues• Publics as scientific citizens – different insights

• Publics not as decision-makers but part of the decision-making process – Case Study of Climate Engineering.

• Publics as part of reflexive governance – Case Study of Welfare, Employment & Energy Demand.

• Final thoughts.

Why do (/should) we engage with publics?❌To legitimise technological choices.

❌To prevent or close down public contestation

To open up & give ‘broader attention to the full range of potentially viable choices’ (Stirling, 2007, p. 293).

Why do (/should) we engage with publics?‘What is lacking is not just knowledge to fill the gaps but alsoprocesses and methods to elicit what the public wants, and touse what is already known. To bring these dimensions out ofthe shadows and into the dynamics of democratic debate, theymust first be made concrete and tangible’ (Jasanoff, 2003 p. 240)

• Stop privileging scientific knowledge above all else – recognise the value of different knowledges.

‘Energy systems are more than collections of fuels and technologies. Energy consumption profoundly affects everything from how individuals work, play, socialize, and eat to how industries cluster, how cities and economies grow, and how nations conduct their foreign affairs’ (Laird, 2013, pp. 150-151).

CASE STUDY 1:PUBLICS PART OF THE DECISION-MAKING

PROCESS

Geoengineering Definition“deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change” (Royal Society, 2009: 1).

(Lenton & Vaughan, 2009)

Geoengineering research in the UK

Two projects funded from EPSRC/NERC Geoengineering– IAGP (Oct 2010 – Feb 2015)– SPICE (Oct 2010 – March 2013)

Aims of SPICE

SPICE Workpackages

Responsible Innovation?• Dimensions of RI

– Anticipatory – describing & analysing (un)intended impacts

– Reflective – ethically reflecting on narratives of expectation & the social transformation these might bring

– Deliberative – opening up visions/impacts etc. to others, inviting & listening to wider perspectives

– Responsive – using reflexivity to influence the direction & pace of the innovation process

The Test-bed & STAGEGATE

• October 2011• June 2011 STAGEGATE– Expert panel– 5 criteria

“mechanisms had been identified to understand public and stakeholder views regarding the predicted applications and impacts” (Macnaghten & Owen, 2011: 479).

Macnaghten & Owen, 2011

Methods

• Case site areas:– 3 x pilots Cardiff– 3 x main (Norwich, Nottingham, Cardiff)

• Reconvened workshop format– 1.5 days

• Sample (n=32)– Diverse sample: gender, age, ethnicity, SEG,

educational level

Numerous ‘Scientific’ Insights Offered

Methodology & Justification

Will it add CO2/cause pollution?

How can your track the particles and what they do?

How will the site be chosen& criteria used to assess?

Methodology & Justification

How will it affect wavelengths of

light?

What effect will the full-scale have on other

countries?

What impacts will it cause?

Knowledge Limitations

To what extent can you upscale findings

from 1kn-20km?

How will this address the wider risks of SA?

Governance & Communication

How will the results be shared with other

countries?

Who’s accountable if things do go wrong?

Who would be in control of the full-scale project?

Limited input due to complexity of ‘extraordinary’ tech?

William – No we need to do this [investigate geoengineering] but the answers I think are a bit – well they’re beyond me anyway.Frank – Yeah, I don’t think the answers can be done by a layman. That’s gonna take someone more intelligent than me to sort it out. (Norwich)

Limited input due to early stage of development?

‘Participants also questioned if, given the emergent stage that most geoengineering techniques are at, it was even worthwhile for them to take part in deliberations. They struggled with understanding what help their ruminations could be when the techniques are likely to radically change throughout the development process. Such struggles were indicative that, at times, participants would get “lost” in the details of a technique. Once brought back to broader dimensions (such as intentionality, responsibility, governance, impacts, ethics, and so forth), most participants seemed comparatively more comfortable deliberating’ (Parkhill et al., 2011: 233).

The need for engagement to develop/maintain trust

Cath: I think you’d wanna know about the safety of it. That would be the main concern; why didn’t they tell us that? That type of thing……Gwen: Yeah, it’s like a conspiracy theorists dream isn’t it?Cath: Yes.Gwen: What were they really pumping into the atmosphere?Cath: Yeah, so if it was only fresh water why didn’t they tell us?(Cardiff)

Limited input: Accountability

• Worried about being held accountable if things go wrong.Meredith: I wouldn’t wanna be asked. I wouldn’t wanna have any involvement in it. I wouldn’t wanna have an opinion on it. What if they done like a ballot vote and 80% decided yeah and something went wrong? I don’t wanna be to blame if it goes wrong. Morgan: It could cause conflict as well especially if we were asked. (Cardiff).

Limited input but still some input

• Despite difficulties, most participants did feel that publics should be engaged with on a continual basis.

CASE STUDY 2:ILLUMINATING POLICY

INTERCONNECTIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Welfare, Employment and Energy Demand

Examining Tensions and Opportunities in the Delivery of

Demand Reduction

Dr Catherine ButlerDr Karen Parkhill

Dr Karen BickerstaffProfessor Gordon Walker

Project background

The role of government objectives, investments and ways of providing shapes our need for energy (e.g. Bourdieu, 1990; Shove, 2004; Hand et al. 2005; Butler et al. 2014).

Energy demand is not just about energy policies.

Tensions between energy demand reduction and wider social goals being addressed in other policy areas.

Project overview• Focus on welfare and employment policy and the

Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) as the main policy body with responsibilities in this area.

• Synergies and conflicts between welfare policy and energy demand issues (e.g. improving poor quality housing; welfare reforms).

• Examine implications of welfare and employment policy :– Our energy needs– Our daily lives

Department for Work and Pensions

• Created in 2001 (merging of department of social security and policy groups from department of education and employment)

• Secretary of State – Damian Green (MP Ashford)

• Whitehall’s ‘highest-spending’ department 170bn - Austerity

• Main responsibilities: Pensions and ageing society, poverty and social justice, welfare reform

‘Bedroom tax’

Benefits to all working age people (inclu.) reduced

Pension age raised

Energy Demand Reduction– 50% relative to 2011 by 2050

Reduce energy vulnerabilities – i.e. reduce fuel povertyFuel poor if lower than average income, and higher than average fuel cost

Previous 10% definition – target was to eradicate by 2016

LIHC – ‘It is not a problem that can be eradicated in any meaningful way...’ (DECC, 2013)

Project Methods

Document analysis (2015 ongoing)

Policy and stakeholder in-depth qualitative interviews –

national to local scales (2015-2016)

Three UK case study areas: Biographical interviews with people directly impacted by

welfare policy (Oct 2016 – March 2017)

Policy framings, aims, & potential consequences

AusterityWorklessness

Individual Deficits

Scope for reshaping policy

agendas

“Work is undeniably the best and most sustainable route out of poverty.”

(DWP Reducing Poverty Indicators, Entrenched Worklessness, 2014)

Growth of zero hours contracts?

Working for free as benefits spent travelling to work experience?

Increased digitalisation?

Creating new vulnerabilities?

Constituting needs for energy?

“Your work coach may refer you to these schemes… you may do work experience to add some career history to your CV.” (Back to Work Schemes, 2014)

The Policy Problem & Solution: Worklessness

‘Entrenched worklessness can leave children without a role model and contribute to and compound problems experienced by adults: mental health problems are more common among people who are out of work than those in employment, whilst

large numbers of those claiming benefit experience problematic drug and alcohol use or have a history of offending. Work is

undeniably the best and most sustainable route out of poverty.’ (DWP Reducing Poverty Indicators, Entrenched Worklessness,

2014)

Exacerbating/Developing New Vulnerabilities

“I think there are potentially the problems that spring to mind that the people are likely to be experiencing are that it generally means for most people a reduction in their income. The fact that it’s [Universal Credit] paid monthly will be a huge shock for many people who have only ever budgeted weekly or perhaps fortnightly, that it’s only paid to one member of the household.”

(Interviewee – policy stakeholder).

Exacerbating/Developing New Vulnerabilities

“I think changes in employment patterns generally is quite interesting. I think we saw changes with the recession to the structure of a lot of people’s employment. Unemployment didn’t fall that much after 2008 but we’ve seen a lot more people in insecure work, zero hours contracts, it’s been in the news a lot that there’s been a growth in temporary work and agency work, and particularly self-employment as [colleague] said. That might mean that if people are in less secure employment they end up travelling further maybe. It might mean working patterns over the working day are changing, or over the week.”

(Interviewee – policy stakeholder)

“Yes. Obviously the big change over to universal benefit, the caps, the reduction, the below inflation level increases in benefit. These are all things that we are aware of and it’s probably our frontline staff who are more acutely aware of those who are dealing with fuel debt. A lot of the work we’ve been doing with foodbanks over the last year mean that we’re aware of what’s happened to people when they’ve had benefit sanctions where they’ve had changes in payments and just how fragile household budgets are and just how fragile some household economies are when they can’t take even a two week delay in receiving benefits. They have nothing to fall back on.“

(Interviewee – policy stakeholder)

Exacerbating/Developing New Vulnerabilities

“they’ll (DWP) produce impact reports on each of the policies, sometimes you have to read between the lines, they’re sometimes a bit… when I first looked at the impact report on disabled people and I thought, “this doesn't seem right, I’ve worked out how much Universal Credit is going to affect disabled people and some people are going to be hugely worse off and yet they’re saying there’s no impact”, and then I noticed this tiny little reference underneath, “we haven't taken into account support for disabled people”, I thought how do you decide there’s no impact because you haven't taken into account the policy? “

(Interviewee Policy Delivery)

Exacerbating/Developing New Vulnerabilities

Issues with Policy Evaluations

“…all the different evaluation projects that were happening to look at specific issues. This tends to happen in isolation effectively with research, because people get so focussed on the one specific thing that they’re looking at, but there was no overarching of bringing them all together” (Interviewee – policy stakeholder).

Need for Reflexive Governance

• It is through talking to publics that: – expected and unexpected (positive and negative) implications of

policies revealed.– Recognise new vulnerabilities and new forms of marginalisation.– Interconnections between policy areas are particularly illuminated.

Final Thoughts

• Publics are more than capable of engaging with complex science.

• Scientific citizens (Irwin, 1995), philosophers, moralisers, governors, regulators, ethicists, and much more.

• Offer new/different insights and perspectives.

• Just a call for: more research? evidenced-based policy, based on research?