“A writer stands outside a story yelling, “Open Sesame!” and the story, as if a seed, opens. And treasure is found inside. That treasure, of course, is just another story, and it all begins again…”
 – The Paris Review (19 September 2012) 

Do you remember the story of ‘Ali Baba and the Forty thieves’? Do you remember the part where after the clear annunciation of the words ‘open sesame,’ the mountain opens to reveal a cave full of treasures? The Paris review goes on to debate all of this but my childhood argument about the story was far simpler.

I was convinced after hearing the story that people had heard him all wrong. What sense did ‘open sesame’ mean anyway? The phrase ‘open, says me’ was far more instructive. A couple more years added onto my age and I’m beginning to believe that words aren’t always very clear, least of all ‘magic words.’

As children, ‘please’ is the only magic words a parent seems to want to hear, not ‘abracadabra’ or ‘wingardium leviosa,’ which you can blame J.K Rowling for. My poor parents heard enough of that. As adults ‘magic words’ such as ‘please’ take on a different life, it’s the polite thing people add to instructions, it’s not really a request like, ‘please may I have a glass of milk?’ Instead it’s, ‘please include form x,y, z and q.’ Which, really means if you don’t include it we will not consider your tax forms, job application, university thesis or anything else of use, really.

We still have ‘magic words’ as adults, however. A few words can elicit often certain reactions from any number of people. Some of which are about as disruptive as the mountain opening on the fault-lined hills of a California city or saying you took a shower to protect you from HIV/AIDS to a country that has been battling to educate a population about HIV/AIDS prevention. (Imagine appropriate Zapiro caricature of South Africa’s President Zuma and insert here). Examples? If you want to rile up corporate business people in the U.S you say the words ‘health care’ or ‘Obama care,’ if you want to rile up environmentalists, you say ‘fracking.’ These words in themselves mean little without the context. Without context about the concern for aquifers potentially becoming polluted with mismanagement (I’m thinking Macondo Blowout disaster) the anger over fracking makes about as much sense as saying ‘open sesame’ to a beehive.

For climate change, the trending magic words seem to be ‘a price on carbon.’ Those words have become so revered to this audience that they are seen as a silver bullet solution to the whole global warming debate. Those with economic interests in a carbon market are debating this, as are policy makers. There must be a reason this is more of a debate than the silver bullet it is made out to be. No one is really shooting it anywhere yet. For those in favour these words stand to open the mountain full of treasure, to those opposed you’re probably just shouting at a beehive and are at risk to get stung. So what is the context of the debate?

Feel free to chime in, an open invitation to anyone, except trolls. Sorry trolls, you provide little value, and, unless you can be entertaining in your remarks please stick to your billy, scape, goats.

Say ‘what’?
As I understand it, and, a disclaimer, I’m still trying to make good sense of it, a price on carbon will enable a market mechanism to trade carbon emissions. In essence it’s a free market ideal to follow the implementation of a government policy, a fiscal instrument, such as a carbon tax or a cap and trade system. The in’s and outs of this differ with preferred methodologies. The core ideal, however, seems to be: pay for carbon now and save on adaptation and what many are citing as the expensive costs of disaster relief that are associated with climate change, rising sea-levels, droughts, extreme weather etc. Putting a price on carbon should ideally disincentivise carbon intensive industries continuing with the business as usual scenario, at least not without having to pay for not adapting their practices. It would also allow for the creation of revenue for the mitigation and adaptation costs associated with climate change, help to decrease government deficits and simultaneously promote more responsible business practices. When you put it like that you can see the silver quality to the bullet.

Advocates:
Christine Lagarde, the Managing director of the IMF, has been a vocal advocate of putting a price on carbon. A similar argument can be made, that, if carbon emissions are seen as a negative externality, like pollution is the result of not having a price for corrupting our resources, then the best way to correct this deficiency would be to adjust the market and let it sort itself out. Lagarde views incentives as the key to sustainable development, more specifically, stable pricing. Former Vice President Al Gore is another supporter of carbon pricing.

But:
Unfortunately deciding on a price for carbon has been anything but easy. Of course, no one agrees. And to top it all off the markets have had several years of inspiring anything but confidence, despite recent indicators hinting at improvements and potential stability. The Cyprus debacle managed to get everyone in a tizz not long after the Dow Jones decided to rally and show us it’s best performance since 2007. 

Another pro to add to the debate:
A recent UHCR paper details the expected millions of people who will be displaced by coastal flooding, agricultural disruption and will result in crossborder relocation. This is probably an expensive movement, with massive legal ramifications. There is already a UN Sub-Commission tasked with dealing with the disappearance of States and territories. The question is simple, and simply without an uncomplicated answer, where do you put all the people who will be out of a home because of environmental degradation. Even if it’s a gradual displacement it is still anticipated. And problematic. One can only imagine how much it would cost to make a pretty floating city like the one featured below to house climate change refugees. For the people already complaining about immigration policies, imagining what happens when more people are forced to move, is likely to look like one of Dante’s circles of hell. At least this is the impression I’ve racked up from my own, current ‘non-resident alien’ status. So, to summarise you have the idea that investing now and accepting a carbon price would help in the long run.

Another but:
That is the long run view, and that always is juxtaposed with the short-run. Namely the immediate effect on trade, assuming not everyone plays the same game, and with the effects on corporate profits. There are a few players, however, who are looking at joining the game.

Game players:
The UK was due to adopt a carbon floor price on 1 April 2013. China has indicated it is implementing a carbon tax, dates and policy specifics still to be announced.
And, another win for the BRICS, South Africa will implement carbon pricing by 2015. California is piloting a Cap and Trade program, where it is working to establish a floor price. The price has increased over time with a series of auctions, which has made players hopeful about the involvement of businesses. 

Immediate issues:
There is a challenge to establish a floor price. California has been battling this out in a bill that has taken about 4 years to gain recognition. While they’re trying to prove that it works there are a few brave players entering the field, they are however going to pay to play. It is estimated that business who do join the market will face higher energy costs than their non-playing international competitors. Britain would be paying 18 – 4 pounds equivalent, about 4.5 times the price of EU with the adoption of its carbon floor price. Of course telling companies that you want to enforce something that may affect their prices on the global market or profit margins will probably make you about as popular as screaming ‘I believe in a person’s right to abort a pregnancy’ at a ‘pro-life’ rally in the middle of America.

Those not in favour, such as Tory Reformist Martin Callanan, believe the market mechanism will require adjustments. Failure to have enough people on board likely isn’t going to bode well for any market place. But is it sufficient to leave it to international institutions such as the IMF to set up the board game before we play? Voting against the measure could be seen as short sighted, especially if you have the opportunity to help make the rules. We already have taxes on things like alcohol and smoking and that is meant to influence the decisions individual life rather than a global collective. But again that is the only one side of the argument. The overall success of a carbon price will likely depend on participation, and if we can’t start a conversation about it and what it would really mean, well then it probably doesn’t matter what you say to the mountain.

Perhaps the magic word in all of this is that a lot of people don’t like the way ‘tax’ tastes when it rolls off of your tongue. It would seem we have two opposing magic words, ‘a price for carbon’ which to others means ‘tax.’ On the one hand you’re shouting at a treasure-filled mountain, on the other you’re shouting at a beehive.

What would it mean to you? 

“Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault. Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only Beauty. There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.” 
-Oscar Wilde, “The Picture of Dorian Gray.”

Beauty is something society has always had a bit of a fetish with. Snow White and Sleeping Beauty had small forest creatures following them around, birds sang to them. Cinderella befriended a mischief of mice that aided her fairy godmother in preparing perfect ball attire just when she had lost all hope. Being beautiful on the inside and was always rewarded with beauty on the outside, whilst authors and illustrators cruelly bestowed warts and large crooked noses on the more wicked of characters. If only there were such clear signs in real life. Fairytales were, however, not the only ones to translate physical attributes from character. “The Picture of Dorian Gray” by the famous, and perhaps my favourite-ever writer, Oscar Wilde imparted the same, although slightly more shocking, portrayal of how people wear their deeds. A painter captured Dorian’s soul in a portrait, which depicted his angelic features. The corruption of Dorian’s soul was detailed in the portrait and the darker his deeds became the more grotesque his depiction grew, his own face however remained flawless. Of course he hid the portrait.

The shades of grey, (no reference to the literary abomination that has been stealing places in the top charts from perfectly good books, (more of a reference to Eagle Eye Cherry’s song, Shades of Grey,)) creep in as we grow up.  We are then taught that beauty has various faces and that, thank you Aesop’s fables, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is however one problem with all of this, sometimes the truth, is in fact quite ugly, in which case there are fewer people who want to behold it.  The latest development is that people have cottoned onto this fact and figure that if they can dress it up and give it a bit of a make-over the truth may get a better reception.

The EU has its fashion capitals but they are now going beyond dressing up people and taking their fashionista efforts towards climate change in the campaign: “A world you like, with a climate you like.” Connie Hedegaard, the European Commissioner for Climate Action, launched this campaign, with the goal of showing how climate mitigation can result in both tangible economic benefits and improve a general quality of life (http://iciscenter.org/a-world-you-like-with-a-climate-you-like/). A central feature will be a website which will showcase low-carbon success stories until the end of 2013 with the aims of generating better traction in achieving the greenhouse gas emission reductions for the EU of 20% by 2020 and 80-95% by 2050. A positive spin a day keeps the gloom doctor away? It looks like that is what they are trying to do. Does this mean we can move away from talking about talking and discuss the solutions we are trying out?

“We have a choice: We can ACT on our knowledge about climate change. Or we can sit idly by and watch as things get worse. Both options come with a price tag. So why not create a world we like, with a climate we like- while we still have time? With this campaign we want to focus the debate on the solutions and find out what is holding us back from applying them.” – Connie Hedegard ((http://iciscenter.org/a-world-you-like-with-a-climate-you-like/)

There are some mixed reviews about the EU becoming a fairy godmother for climate change, particularly with regards to whether such magic will stick or if all will turn back to pumpkins on the midnight hour. While the devil will be in the details I would argue that the EU might be onto something by pursuing this strategy. It could be something for other countries to consider as a supplement to the CO2 emission reduction targets currently being driven by international pressure and perhaps some trepidation about the worst effects of climate change. Let’s not forget the desire to avoid this all together.  

Enter, climate change. As it is the facts aren’t so pretty and it’s understandable that no one wants to gaze longingly into its eyes. In fact if you can avert your eyes and pretend it’s not there you may feel better for it. That does, however, come with a price, starting at guilt, and consequently looking a polar bear in the eyes has never been more difficult. There is a growing consensus, that while climate change is natural, it is our deeds, which are speeding it up. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found the following claims likely (bearing in mind that the inability to disprove is the closest thing to undeniable proof that we can have in science):

i) “There has been a substantial anthropogenic contribution to surface temperature increases in every continent except Antarctica since the middle of the 20th century.

ii) “Temperature extremes have changed due to anthropogenic forcing.”

ii) “Tropospheric warming is detectable and attributable to anthropogenic forcing (latter half of the 20th century.)

And with a greater than 95% likely “Warming during the past half century cannot be explained without external radiative forcing.” In a nutshell there was anthropogenic change detected in the surface temperature with high significance levels and a less than 1% error probability. (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html)

This is more than a clue, I think it’s safe (beyond a reasonable doubt) to say that it was Colonel Mustard and Miss Scarlett in the drawing room with far too much greenhouse gas emissions. As for the casualties, well we’ve heard it all numerous times. A brief recap of the icecap situation: there is pervading shock of the rapid rate of the Arctic melt and this year’s record low of 24% sea-ice coverage is a five percent drop from the previous record low in 2007. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/science/earth/arctic-sea-ice-stops-melting-but-new-record-low-is-set.html?_r=0). Add that to list, on which we also have stressed out polar bears, volatile weather, global warming, sea-level rise, ocean acidification and a grave implications for the future of food security. Our deeds are not looking so pretty right now. An ugly truth, I know, and Never-Never Land with Peter Pan seems like it could be infinitely more fun. The EU is committing to staying away from Never-Never Land but what would ordinary citizens like to do? It seems unclear in the US where climate change hasn’t featured nearly enough on the presidential debates, instead we are joking about “a binder full of women.” (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/binders-full-of-women-now-has-a-binder-full-of-jokes/).

The truth is out there but people don’t really want to read the news, especially if it’s all doom and gloom. Joking about “a binder full of women” does seem far more fun. Approximately 84% of Americans find the news depressing, according to “Inside Reporting,” Tim Harrower, pg. 16 (2007). Unfortunately if that means they don’t get to read the news they may have missed out on “A world you like. With a climate you like.” Talking about solutions may be less depressing and in addition to proving that the climate change problem is not that insurmountable it might just mean we actually get to see the results. Everyone can do something if they choose not to look away. It all adds up, but this is not a climate-specific phenomenon, it appears to be part of a larger part of the human psyche.

It seems to me the same attitude we have to inequality, we see people homeless on the street and a look comes over our eyes, a kind of self-conscious, embarrassed expression that is just casual enough that we can get away with ignoring what we see. School, Afrikaans class to be exact, introduced me to the best description I have heard yet, of this look- the look that looks away, the one reserved for beggars, overzealous vendors and prostitutes. “Ek wou verbymik met die selfbewuste ongeërgde blik, wat ons vir bedelaars en pendelaars en hoere reserveer .” – Die Straatkind, by Linda Roos. That line is probably the only thing I remember from Afrikaans class, other than the rather vivid image of my Afrikaans teacher’s routine performance where he would jump on a desk in a pretend fit of rage and in a brief pause before hurling a dictionary or duster at an unsuspecting wall or desk, would scream at the class: “what did the baboon teach you!?” I’m still convinced drama was his calling, but I digress.

A real life example? San Francisco has its fair share of homeless people, something I was surprised to find when I moved out here, for such a progressive society one would have thought it would have been sorted out by now. But, in spite of the city spending approximately $200 million a year on trying to sort out the ‘homeless problem,’ journalists fear it is only getting worse (http://www.sfgate.com/homeless/). There are however positive programs seeking solutions. There is a man who sits day in and day out at a bus stop a few blocks from where I live. He laughs regularly tends to greet people with a customary ‘budda-bing!’ I still have no idea what that means but as he says it you can see the precariously place strip of tinfoil over his front teeth and a face lightly creased with lines from smiling and a beard speckled with grey. He is a kind man, his name is Jasper and he sells the San Francisco ‘Street Sheet,’ (http://streetsheetsf.wordpress.com/vendor-program/). You contribute what you would like and in return you are handed a newspaper. Jasper is perhaps the most loved person I have ever seen consistently occupy a bus-stop, he seems to know everyone, or at least he makes you feel that he does. I don’t know where Jasper goes when it’s dark but there is a different man who takes the night-shift for occupying the bus-stop, and Jasper’s surly replacement cares little for dialogue and his only interactions with people, which I have witnessed, consists of introducing you to a cup, the assumption is that he would like you to put money in it, but I’ve never actually heard him say those words. The conversation you would normally have with Jasper doesn’t feature with the stranger, and I’m willing to bet he hasn’t benefitted from the bus stop as much as Jasper has. I’m sure this is going to sound frightfully insensitive but there is something about helping someone who is happy about you helping them that makes you feel good and want to do it again. Who said helping people doesn’t have a selfish element. When you feel good about doing something you’re going to want to do it again, that’s the bottom line. It’s a no brainer there, but the big question is then why do we so seldom apply this approach to policy? People tend to want to put off the dentist after all but if you have a nice dentist, it’s not so bad. I’d be willing to bet that Joe Biden has a great dentist.

Dress it up, dress it down, make a world you’d like to live in, hug a polar bear or be practical and look at the policy in your area. The companies that make things cool, the ones that people like, are the ones that are making an impact. This is exactly the kind of thing the EU policy is addressing, they are trying to engage key players to do exactly that. Welcome the cool-factor, may it lead to a cooler climate. There are examples of this in the USA although policy hasn’t exactly followed the same trajectory. Opower for example has increased energy efficiency and reports savings of at least 1.5 TWH through its reporting system and has helped consumers save more than a $170million in utility bills in the last 5 years (http://opower.com/company/news-press/press_releases/62). They also do it with a stylish interface that makes it fun, easy and you get to save money, while saving the environment. As far as concepts go it’s a win, win. It’s also apparently hard not to quote Covey’s “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.” Change makers in the business world are employing these tactics, just look at how Google made information accessible and easy, it’s almost fun looking things up. Perhaps it is time policy makers employ these tactics and highlight all the good stuff (beyond trying to win an election). After all, “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” – Maya Angelou.

Clearly not all other bloggers are convinced of the merits of this strategy. For example the k2p blog writes this campaign off as stupidity:
“The sun will continue on its merry way and our climate will perforce follow willy-nilly, even if our politicians and bureaucrats and so-called climate scientists think that modern day “rain dances” will give them climate control.” (http://ktwop.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/climate-control-no-less-a-world-you-like-with-the-climate-you-like/) But then let me ask you this, an exercise in rebranding may get more people to pay attention, especially if we finally get to discuss solution. People have a tendency to be attracted to shiny things and clearly the business as usual approach isn’t getting us anywhere. I’m all for “A world you like. With a climate you like.” Especially if it means I can swap the theme song for the flying monkeys in the wizard of OZ for Louis Armstrong’s ‘wonderful world.’

It is a beautiful thing if we can find a way to make the future a prettier one and want to behold the truth, even if we have to put a bit of makeup on its face. Finding the beauty in doing that, in making the future better, would by Oscar Wilde’s account be a sign of being cultivated, and for those he thought there was hope. Hopefully we will not see it all dressed up with nowhere to go but a positive attitude always has grounds for merit. At the very least they say a positive attitude may not make all of your problems go away but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.

If the idea of being able to guiltlessly look the polar bears in the eyes isn’t quite enough for you and you still need a dose of feel good might I prescribe having a look at the EU success stories. It may make you feel good to know how Bulgaria made electric cars more accessible, how Hungary is building sustainable food production systems by combining aquaculture and hydroponics. And if you’re feeling a little warm and fuzzy after that you could be useful in Sweden where they are using natural body heat for buildings. All available on: http://world-you-like.europa.eu/en/ ). 

I don’t know about you but that is the kind of beautiful I like to see.

Once upon a time there were three little pigs, starts the story by James Orchard Haliwell-Phillipps, each built a house to stop the big bad wolf from eating them. The first little pig built his house of straw, and the second built his house from twigs. Both were very satisfied until the wolf huffed and puffed and blew their house down, they consequently became dinner. The third little pig, reputedly the cleverest of the three, built his house of bricks and as much as the wolf huffed and puffed he could not blow the house down.

As children we learn from fairy tales, the ones we read in picture books, and were left to contemplate in our dreams as we drifted off after bedtime stories. Much like the story of Alice in Wonderland. Lessons are woven through the introduction of imaginary characters, there is always a villain and a hero, together creating some kind of black and white picture lesson ingrained into the minds of youths. As we grow older we see the pictures differently and learn to recognize the shades of grey spreading between the black and white but the image from the lesson remains imprinted into our minds. Reading about the latest developments in sustainable building and Net Zero Energy buildings reminded me of the three little pigs and the big bad wolf.

The lesson seems to come down to building strong foundations. We can choose to translate this literally into how we construct our infrastructure or, more figuratively, our lives. What I have taken from this story is that our brick buildings will need to be sustainable and the cement we use needs to be made of resiliency.

When we hear about climate change, science does not want to say that climate change directly causes adverse weather effects and natural disasters but it recognizes a correlation between climate change and the increased frequency of adverse weather effects and natural disasters (see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Synthesis Report, 2007). Given the changes in weather and natural disasters across the world this lesson in resiliency seems more important than ever. If the big bad wolf is climate change, in this story, it seems he has been huffing and puffing quite a lot of late.

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/us/temperatures-soar-as-heat-wave-continues.html) reported a record-setting heat wave spreading from St. Louis to Washington, which has culminated in 36 weather-related deaths, “buckled roadways” and two trains being derailed. Overall this has been reported as the hottest summer recorded for the Northern hemisphere (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/04/climate-changes-extreme-weather-us-heatwave ). I’m sure we’ve heard those words before, if not several times and either we can put that down to the media seeking attention for the weather, or for those less optimistic, perhaps we are the proverbial frogs in the boiling water becoming accustomed to the temperature rising and abnormal weather events becoming the norm. Recent earthquakes in Italy certainly seem different to the norm (http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-29/world/world_europe_italy-earthquake_1_58-magnitude-earthquake-60-magnitude-quake-quake-response?_s=PM:EUROPE). No one in the region can remember as many earthquakes occurring in such a short time frame. The Royal Society published papers to the effect that climate change could even affect the earth’s crust, which could increase the incidence of earthquakes and volcanic activity (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1267137/Climate-change-spark-volcanoes-earthquakes-tsunamis.html).

One of the most remarkable things about human beings is said to be our ability to adapt. Growing up in South Africa our winters were never as severe as those I encountered in Europe and the USA, but in both I noticed the way they adapted to their weather conditions in a very specific way- building temperature control. I learnt that in winter it is wise to wear something light under the layers I put on to guard me from the cold outside, so as to be able to cope with the heat inside. In summer I learnt it was wise to bring a jersey/sweater if I was going to be inside so that I wouldn’t get cold.

So far we have learnt to adapt to the seasons by equipping our buildings with devices that make the weather inside more favourable than the conditions we experience outside. This has proven to be a short-term fix. Heating and cooling is the most energy intensive characteristic of our buildings, it accounts for half of all the energy used in buildings and one third of global final energy consumption, (http://www.iea.org/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=2400 ).

Consequently this is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, but through energy efficiency and low/zero carbon heating and cooling technology we have the potential to reduce around 2gigatons (Gt) of C02 emission by 2050. The good news is that not only is much of this technology commercially available but it is being used. Could this be the new brick house?

One of my favourite blogs Clean Technica (www.cleantechnica.com) reported on the latest developments in Philadelphia as they endeavor to become the greenest city in the USA through “super-green” developments. The Nexus Energyhomes development is developing energy efficient homes in the Northern Liberties community in Philadelphia. By combing efficient air filtration, volatile compound (VOC) building materials, energy recovery and geo-solar technology they are hoping to produce Net Zero Energy homes, with the highest green building standards in line with the National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB). The mix of this technology is said not only to be sustainable but will also allow residents to enjoy plummeting utility bills.

A Net Zero Energy Building (NZEB) is a relatively new concept used to describe a building, which produces the same amount of energy per year as it uses. Although there are only a few of these such buildings the advances in technology are making them more feasible. The exact metrics tend to vary but there is an overall consensus according to the National Institute of Building Science in the USA (http://www.wbdg.org/resources/netzeroenergybuildings.php) that the building design minimizes energy requirements and uses renewable energy systems to meet energy demand. 

There are four ways according to the Department of Energy and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to define net zero energy, these are: Net Zero Site Energy, Net Zero Source Energy, Net Zero Energy Costs and Net Zero Energy Emissions. For those more interested in the specifics you may want to look at this: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39833.pdf.

While this seems to work best for smaller buildings and homes, it is increasing in popularity and larger buildings are giving it a try as the communications Director of the New Buildings Institute recently noted: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=net-zero-energy-buildings-in-us. This is a development, which is likely to make the US Green Building Council with all their LEED ratings smile, just like a Cheshire cat.

What is the caveat to all of this? Well to draw on the reminder sent out by Dr. Sandra Knight of FEMA at the first-annual Dupont Green Week this year in Washington DC: in the face of climate change construction also needs to be safe and resilient. Her message is that while powering on in an energy efficient manner we shouldn’t forget to think about resiliency.

In one sense energy efficiency is resilient in itself, but as consumers I imagine that we have to ensure that the buildings are also strong enough to withstand the worst huffing and puffing of the big bad wolf.