A new briefing paper by researchers at Imperial College London looks at the co-benefits of climate change mitigation in the UK, asking what issues are the UK public concerned about and how can action on climate change help to address them?
The briefing, and accompanying animation, shows how action on climate change can have multiple benefits across society, and is relevant to UK public concern, and associated government priorities. It highlights the role that cities and devolved regions can play in capitalising on these co-benefits, and suggests that incorporating them into the decision-making process may help to bring about faster, deeper cuts in carbon emissions.
Key findings:
- Governments face a significant challenge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while meeting competing objectives such as improving public health and reducing unemployment.
- There are multiple benefits – known as ‘co-benefits’ – to taking action on climate change that are not always adequately considered or valued in the policy and decision-making process.
- Benefits of climate change mitigation for the UK include improvements in public health, reduced NHS costs, greater energy security, growth in the low-carbon jobs market and a reduction in poverty and inequality.
- Cities and devolved administrations are best-placed to capitalise on the co-benefits of climate change mitigation as they frequently hold relevant budgets (e.g. health, transport, housing) and understand how different policy priorities impact on each other.
- Faster, deeper reductions in greenhouse gas emissions may be achieved by ensuring that public sector decision-making adequately considers the co-benefits of climate change mitigation
Limiting the global average temperature increase to 1.5°C (or well below 2°C) above pre-industrial levels, as stipulated in the Paris Agreement, will require drastic action by global economies to reduce their carbon emissions (to decarbonise). To stay below these temperature limits, governments must decarbonise while meeting other key objectives such as the provision of healthcare and public services and maintaining stable economic growth. The challenge of meeting competing objectives is often exacerbated by the nature of the political cycle where key objectives tend to be traded off against each other.
Ipsos MORI survey data on what the UK public consider to be the main issues facing the country show that between 2007 and 2018, issues concerning pollution and the environment were cited as being important by a maximum of 10% of respondents in any given year. This compares to figures as high as 60% for the economy (in 2011), 49% for the common market/Brexit (in 2018) and 48% for the NHS/hospitals (in 2017) – and illustrates the importance of framing the need for action on climate change in the context of these established priorities.
This new briefing paper draws on literature from multiple academic disciplines to explore how action on climate change is relevant to UK public concern, and associated government priorities, in four broad areas:
i) health and the NHS;
ii) immigration and security;
iii) the economy and unemployment; and
iv) poverty, housing and inequality.
Numerous benefits from climate mitigation are identified for the NHS and public health – through improvements in air quality associated with the electrification of vehicles and switch from car usage to public and active transport (e.g. walking, cycling) to improvements to the energy efficiency of domestic properties (e.g. increased insulation to keep homes warmer) and moving to a lower carbon (e.g. reduced meat, or, as we would argue at The Vegan Society, a plant-based) diet.
In terms of immigration and security, increasing the amount of renewable energy generated in the UK reduces our reliance on the import of fossil fuels from other countries and improves our energy security. At the international level, climate action reduces the chance of forced migration from climate-related disasters, which in turn may reduce pressure on immigration into the UK.
The future low-carbon economy offers significant potential for economic growth, job creation and the opportunity for the UK to become a world leader in the development, production and distribution of new, sustainable technologies. To buffer potential negative economic consequences of the switch to clean technologies, such as job losses for those reliant on employment in the fossil fuel industry, geographically-targeted programs to redistribute jobs and re-train those affected are essential.
Energy efficiency improvements in the housing sector will help to alleviate fuel poverty and inequality while simultaneously improving the productivity of their residents, particularly those from poorer backgrounds, whose homes are more likely to contribute to illness and negatively impact their ability to work and study.
The authors of the paper suggest that it is at the regional and city levels that the co-benefits of climate action can be best incorporated into the decision-making process in the short-term. It is at this scale that co-benefits are most evident and where interventions can have the most immediate impact.
A specific example of the kind of project that could be rolled by local authorities using a co-benefits approach is the Seasonal Health Intervention Network (SHINE) project of Islington Council and the Greater London Authority. This project brings together health and housing practitioners to enable GPs of patients living in cold, damp homes to ‘prescribe’ double glazing, boilers and insulation to their patients in order to address the root-cause of their illness rather than dealing solely with the symptoms. The project reduces NHS costs while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving the quality of the housing stock.
At the national level the paper suggests that greater collaboration between government departments can increase the chance of the co-benefits of climate action being adequately considered in the decision-making process. The researchers put forward several potential national-level changes, including the establishment of a ‘co-benefits fund’, a minister for the Sustainable Development Goals and an Office for Public Health and the Environment. In the short-term, central government is likely to have a key role to play in facilitating the dissemination of good practice between cities and regions so that successful collaborative approaches can be scaled-up as quickly as possible.
The authors conclude that at all levels, tools are needed to better quantify the co-benefits of climate action to inform the decision-making process. Considering the full benefits of policies that touch on the climate change agenda can help to bring about faster, deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
- Read the full report [acccessed 14/03/19]
- Watch the accompanying animation [acccessed 14/03/19]
The views expressed by our Research News contributors are not necessarily the views of The Vegan Society.
The views expressed by our Research News contributors are not necessarily the views of The Vegan Society.
