The UK Climate Change Act is a Story of Political, Not Environmental, Sustainability

A policy’s implementation is rarely what the policy’s creators and adopters envision, especially in the case of public interest reforms like climate change policies. While there has been ample research on climate change science and related politics, very little research has been done to analyze the political environment of climate change policy implementation. In his paper, “The Political Sustainability of Climate Policy: The Case of the UK Climate Change Act,” Matthew Lockwood applies Eric Patashnik’s framework for understanding the sustainability of public interest reforms to the case of the United Kingdom (UK) Climate Change Act (CCA)—the first application of this framework to both climate change policy and reforms outside of the United States. His analysis demonstrates that the political uncertainty surrounding the CCA is primarily due to decreased importance of climate change within the public relative to other policy issues, institutional changes following the Act’s adoption, and behaviors in the marketplace, primarily in the electricity sector.

In November 2008, the UK Parliament adopted the CCA, setting legally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets. Prior to its adoption, climate change was gaining traction as an issue of importance among the UK public, with nearly 20 percent of voters identifying climate change as an important issue in January 2007, up from 5 percent in January 2000. According to Lockwood, supporters of the CCA were confident that high public support would bolster political sustainability through constituent accountability. However, the CCA proponents failed to take into account the public’s short attention span, and more importantly, the overall salience of climate change relative to other domestic issues like healthcare and economic growth. In a survey of five domestic issues facing Britain, pollution and environmental issues consistently rank among the lowest, even during the periods surrounding the CCA’s adoption. Additionally, the long time horizons of benefits from the policy, versus the immediate costs, created ample opportunities for opposition groups to taint public opinion.

Aside from establishing the five yearly carbon budgets, the CCA also created the Committee on Climate Change. The independent expert body could have been a solution to the credible commitment problem, where politicians “have a political incentive to reverse [a] policy because it is likely to become unpopular or undermines other policy goals.” However, the Committee’s recommendations for emissions reductions and carbon budgets are not legally binding, which effectively reduces the Committee to a monitoring function rather than an independent, empowered arbiter. Lockwood argues this lack of institutional authority further contributes to the political instability of the CCA.

Finally, Lockwood demonstrates that the CCA’s adoption also failed to generate the needed transformation in economic interests, primarily in the electricity sector, where the majority of initial decarbonization was predicted to take place. The top six energy companies made over £6.5 billion in renewable energy investments; however, these same companies have not joined smaller companies and non-governmental organizations in lobbying for a 2030 decarbonization target for the entire industry. Lockwood argues that this is because the top six generating companies have diverse portfolios with high carbon emissions. Uncertainty about the economic consequences from the CCA, coupled with lackluster commitment from firms, has failed to create strong market-based drivers needed to underpin the Act.

Unlike most climate change policy studies, Lockwood analyzes the political landscape surrounding a policy reform that either promotes or weakens an adopted policy’s stability. While the conclusions of the analysis point to a fragile political future for the CCA, the fierce debates in 2011 for a more stringent fourth carbon budget speak to its continued relevance. As the UK’s political landscape continues to change, it will be important to observe the upcoming debates in 2015 when the fifth and final carbon budget is due to be set. Although the analysis focuses on the CCA, it demonstrates that politics is a fundamental factor in assessing the sustainability of policy reforms.

Article Source: Matthew Lockwood, “The Political Sustainability of Climate Policy: The Case of the UK Climate Change Act,” Global Environmental Change 23, No. 5 (Oct 2013): 1339-48. 

Feature Photo: cc/(Kurtis Garbutt)