The Climate Change Act: Speaking Truth to

Power?
When the Climate Change Act was passed, it was rightly promoted as a world-leading piece of
legislation. One reason the Act was so ambitious was the high level of cross-party support it
received. It was enacted by the Labour government, under pressure to do more on climate change
by opposition parties and NGOs.

Five years on, it is worth revisiting some of the criticisms that were made of the draft legislation.
Most critics agreed with the principle of climate change mitigation. The political and economic
context for climate change policy was more benign that it is today. Instead, they focused on some
features of the draft bill that were seen as potentially ineffective.

Scrutiny of the Draft Climate Change Bill was intense following its publication in early 2007.
Three Parliamentary inquiries were held: by two House of Commons select committees and an
official scrutiny committee of the Commons and the Lords. During their hearings, three issues
received particular attention.

Advertisement

First, many argued that the bill’s inclusion of a 60% emissions reduction by 2050 from 1990
levels was not enough. The climate science already showed that the UK would need to cut
emissions by more than this to contribute its ‘fair share’ of a global effort to limit average
temperature rises to 2°C. This target was changed soon after the bill became law, when the
current target of an 80% cut was implemented.

More controversially, many NGOs and the Conservative party pressed the government to
implement annual targets rather than the five yearly budgets that were adopted. Whilst it was
argued that annual targets would put government under more pressure to comply, the official
response that they would be too inflexible looks sensible in retrospect. There have been some big
shifts in annual emissions such as the dramatic fall that followed the financial crisis in 2008. Five
yearly budgets mean that such short-term changes can be accommodated whist ensuring that
overall progress is in the right direction. They also allow for adjustment of policies part way
through a budget period if emissions are not on track.
Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet's most important stories
Read more

Second, there was extensive debate about the role of the Committee on Climate Change.
Inspiration was taken from the institutional arrangements governing monetary policy. As David
Cameron wrote in The Independent in October 2006, the Committee would ‘operate in a similar
way to the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee. It will have a duty to observe the
evolving international science on climate change, and to review the UK's progress towards
meeting its carbon reduction obligations, reporting to Parliament every quarter’. The problem
with this analogy is that there is no equivalent of interest rates in climate change policy for the
Committee to review and set. No Chancellor would be happy to let such a body dictate the rate
of an economy wide carbon tax. But even if this were possible, reducing UK emissions requires a
wide range of complementary policies and regulations to be implemented.

There were also concerns that the Committee would not challenge the government when
necessary. These concerns partly stemmed from the view of some Ministers who wanted the
Committee to confine itself to providing technical advice on targets and budgets. For example,
the Minister for science and innovation said that it should not ‘wax wide and lyrical about the
whole range of issues, nuclear, renewables and so on’. In practice, the Committee has been
relatively uninhibited in its statements – both on the overall trajectory of UK emissions, and on
whether specific policies are strong enough to meet carbon budgets. This robust relationship has
continued despite the transition to a more party political chair, Lord Deben.

Third, there was a lot of discussion about accountability. What would happen to the government
if targets were missing or budgets exceeded? Would there be legal action or sanctions? During
evidence sessions, several legal experts told Parliament that the Act would not be enforceable in
the courts. The Secretary of State responsible at the time, David Miliband, countered that
sanctions would be a last resort: ‘the system is designed to pre-empt the missing of a target …
there is provision for banking and borrowing, so there are a number of provisions to help avoid
this situation’.
The opposing views of the government and the critics have not yet been put to the test of course.
UK emissions are currently well below agreed carbon budget levels. The Committee on Climate
Change has stated that compliance with the second budget (2013-17) is likely. But it has also
said that the government will need to do more to ensure compliance beyond that, especially if the
economic recovery strengthens. Whilst the fourth carbon budget is currently under review at the
behest of the Chancellor, it is unlikely that the Committee will call for significant changes of
course.

Whatever happens, David Miliband was probably right. It is far more likely that potential
breaches of targets or budgets would be known well in advance. If this were to happen in future,
it will be essential that the strong scientific and economic arguments for decarbonisation
continue to prevail. Barring any radical change to the science, the right response to any shortfall
would be to review and strengthen policy action.

Professor Jim Watson is research director of the UK Energy Research Centre. This post is part
of a short series on the Political Science blog, marking the 5th anniversary of the Climate
Change Act.

As 2019 begins…

… we’re asking readers to make a new year contribution in support of The Guardian’s
independent journalism.

Three years ago we set out to make The Guardian sustainable by deepening our relationship with
our readers. The same technologies that connected us with a global audience had also shifted
advertising revenues away from news publishers. We decided to seek an approach that would
allow us to keep our journalism open and accessible to everyone, regardless of where they live or
what they can afford.

More than one million readers have now supported our independent, investigative journalism
through contributions, membership or subscriptions, which has played such an important part in
helping The Guardian overcome a perilous financial situation globally. We want to thank you for
all of your support. But we have to maintain and build on that support for every year to come.

Sustained support from our readers enables us to continue pursuing difficult stories in
challenging times of political upheaval, when factual reporting has never been more critical. The
Guardian is editorially independent – our journalism is free from commercial bias and not
influenced by billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. No one edits our editor. No one
steers our opinion. This is important because it enables us to give a voice to those less heard,
challenge the powerful and hold them to account. Readers’ support means we can continue
bringing The Guardian’s independent journalism to the world.

Please make a new year contribution today to help us deliver the independent journalism the
world needs for 2019 and beyond. Su