Photo credit: www.theguardian.com

Understanding Perceptionware in Environmental Policy

Perceptionware is a term that captures the essence of technology designed primarily to create a façade of action rather than deliver tangible results. The effectiveness of such technology on a large scale often takes a back seat to its ability to placate public concern and discourage government regulation of controversial industries.

Managing public perceptions can be a costly endeavor, often involving significant expenditure of public funds on illusory solutions. A notable case is carbon capture and storage (CCS), a technology that involves capturing carbon dioxide emissions from various sources like power stations and industrial plants. Despite two decades of development, CCS has largely failed to meet its environmental promises, succeeding primarily in enhanced oil recovery. Some fossil fuel companies have even attempted to promote the minimal carbon retention as a environmental benefit, overshadowed by the increased fossil fuel production that follows. This disingenuous marketing has led to billions in government subsidies to these companies.

The former UK government allocated £20 billion to promote CCS — a technology that has been evolving for fifty years without significant breakthroughs. Shockingly, the Labour Party, amidst cutbacks to other sectors, vowed to maintain this funding in its policy agenda.

Another example of perceptionware involved the ambitious claims surrounding algae-based fuels. Fifteen years ago, fossil fuel companies invested heavily in marketing this promising alternative, yet these initiatives have since been quietly abandoned. A former employee from Exxon’s algae division lamented the prioritization of marketing over substantial research funding, reflecting a broader trend in the industry.

ExxonMobil, in particular, has become proficient in creating a perception of sustainability. For instance, the company advertised that British motorists could benefit from a carbon capture project at its Hampshire refinery. However, as of recent reports, Exxon has neither launched the project nor invested in its development, though the company insists that plans are still progressing.

The unveiling of various “green” aircraft prototypes over the last quarter-century further exemplifies perceptionware. Despite numerous announcements regarding innovative aircraft and fuels, these initiatives have yet to substantially reduce emissions. Instead, their primary role has been to shield companies from legislative scrutiny.

Recently, the UK government introduced plans focusing on sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), proposing three types: biofuels, waste-derived fuels, and synthetic kerosene. While the desire to implement new environmental technologies is commendable, relying on them as substitutes for effective policies raises serious concerns. A previous government statement explicitly acknowledged that its SAF initiative aimed to avoid flight demand management — emphasizing that drastic measures for true change were being sidestepped.

The current Labour administration seems to embrace this approach as well, thus baking it into policy despite obvious pitfalls. Expanding the use of aviation biofuels could increase overall demand, creating adverse side effects like food scarcity or habitat destruction. The simple arithmetic of supply and demand often eludes policymakers, who appear disconnected from the broader implications of their strategies.

Regarding waste-derived fuels, the initial promises have repeatedly failed to materialize as intended. Instead of fueling innovations with waste cooking oil, industries have resorted to sourcing cheaper palm oil when production increased. Similarly, biomass initiatives, once promising, have shifted towards unsustainable practices by utilizing entire trees rather than just waste material.

Synthetic kerosene, although theoretically a better option because it combines green hydrogen with carbon dioxide, faces its own challenges. It remains prohibitively expensive and has not progressed significantly in 25 years, leading the government to project that only a tiny fraction of UK jet fuel will meet this criterion by 2040.

Fishy market dynamics persist; as air travel resumes, projections indicate a rise in aircraft pollution back to pre-pandemic levels. Notably, jet emissions accounted for roughly 8% of the UK’s total emissions before Covid-19, and analyses suggest that without effective intervention, aviation could claim an alarming percentage of the national carbon budget by 2050, primarily driven by the expected increase in air passenger numbers.

To truly mitigate the environmental impact of aviation, a more direct approach, such as implementing a frequent flyer levy, could prove beneficial. However, the government continues to rely on perceptionware, favoring superficial solutions over robust policy changes.

A recent paper in a scientific journal examined over 1,500 climate policies worldwide and found that only a small subset had produced significant results. These successful policies included measures like fuel taxes, emissions caps, and enhanced regulatory frameworks. Such strategies inevitably clash with entrenched interests, a conflict the current political climate seems keen to avoid.

As the situation unfolds, there remains a glimmer of hope for more informed and effective environmental policies. If the new government genuinely aspires to avert ecological catastrophe, adopting evidence-based approaches and abandoning costly, superficial alternatives would be imperative.

Source
www.theguardian.com