Estructura esencial de titulaciones adaptable y consensuada consensuada

Parallel to the introduction of NIs, the Climate Change Act was passed in late 2008, making the UK the Þrst country in the world to establish legally binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 2050 (Department of Energy and Climate Change, n.d.). The Act also created the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), an independent public body consisting of academic experts from a range of disciplines which was responsible for setting carbon budgets which set the

trajectory for reducing emissions in the years up to 2050 (Ares, 2008, pp.34-35;

CCC, 2008, v; McGregor et al., 2010, pp.29-32).

ScientiÞc evidence was at the heart of the UK GovernmentÕs emissions target prior to the Climate Change BillÕs introduction. In 2000, the Royal Commission on

Environmental Pollution recommended the UK should cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050 (against 1990 levels), a marked increase on the aspirations of the 1992 Rio Summit stabilisation agreement (Lorenzoni et al., 2008, pp.105-108) and a Òbold challengeÓ to the Blair Government to set targets well in excess of their international and European obligations (Jordan, 2002, p.346). The new target was accepted by the Government as part of a global objective to keep the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide below 550 parts per million, with a view to restricting the global mean temperature increase on pre-industrial times to 2.3¼C by 2100 (Department for Trade and Industry, 2003, p.8; Committee on

Climate Change, 2008, p.9). Such a rise would be slightly above the 2¼C which came to be regarded by policy-makers in later years as a Òguard railÓ against the most dangerous impacts of climate change (New et al., 2011, p.6). However, such a temperature rise would still be likely to cause worsening disease, crop yields, fresh water supply and ßooding for many parts of the world, as well as signiÞcant species extinction and the potential for irreversible decline of the Greenland ice sheet (Stern, 2007, pp.66-67).

The 60 per cent target was maintained as the BillÕs centrepiece until less than two months before its Royal Assent, when the Brown Government accepted the interim advice of the shadow CCC to increase the 2050 target to 80 per cent (Turner, 2008; Committee on Climate Change, n.d.). The CCCÕs subsequent report speciÞed that they were Òresponding to developments in scienceÓ in recommending the increase (Committee on Climate Change 2008, p.31). It was notable that new

scientiÞc evidence could motivate such a change near the end of the BillÕs passage through Parliament, particularly as the government had rejected a Liberal Democrat proposal for an 80 per cent target earlier in the year (Ares, 2008, pp.46-47). The issue of climate change has long been constructed as a scientiÞc problem caused by the heat-trapping properties of greenhouse gases, while largely overlooking the political or economic dimensions that were more prevalent within previous discussions of sustainable development policy (Cohen et al., 1998, pp.360-361;

Demeritt, 2001, pp.328-329). The narrow framing of greenhouse gas emissions as the ÔproblemÕ to be addressed has inevitably led to a focus on the reduction of these emissions as climate policyÕs raison dÕ•tre. This way of seeing climate change has also contributed to a focus on technological solutions (Eastin et al., 2011, p.24-25), manifested in the CCCÕs focus on the potential for emissions reduction by sector (e.g. surface transport, power, shipping) rather than by spatial area (CCC, 2008, pp.

116-133).

The narrow focus on scientiÞc evidence as a source for policy-making has resulted in legislation that sets an unprecedented, time-sensitive challenge for the UK

Government. Meeting the 2050 target would require the reversal of almost constant growth in emissions since the Industrial Revolution (Stern, 2007, p.5) followed by an unprecedented level of decarbonisation. Successfully implementing the number of programmes required to do this is an exceptional challenge given the increasingly complex linkages in the public policy process across space and time, of which climate policy is an example (Helm et al., 2003, pp.447-448; Stern, 2007, pp.65-160;

Hill and Hupe, 2009, p.41). With such an unprecedented and ambitious policy commitment, there must be doubt about whether such targets are domestically attainable (Pielke Jr., 2009; New et al., 2011, pp.8-10), and whether they will turn out to be consistent with the broader aim of restricting the global temperature rise to 2¼C (Bows et al., 2009, pp.9-11).

In sum, the passing of the Climate Change Act reinforced the continued primacy of scientiÞc evidence, and the consequent focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, within the making of climate policy (Demeritt, 2001, p.310). While this mode of policy-making was consistent with restricting global temperature rises, it downplayed the political dimension of such policies (see Figure 2), a trend exacerbated by the introduction of the CCC as an independent, statutory body responsible for recommending policy goals as well as the policies required to

achieve them. This deÞciency in political context was not an accidental feature of the CCC; it was established with the intent of recommending policy measures over the medium and long terms independent of short term political considerations.

However, this brings with it a decreased relevance in the public sphere, particularly for subnational policy-makers who have received little guidance. The government attempted to Þll this gap in 2012 by requesting that the CCC offer guidance to local authorities (House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, 2011, p.12; CCC, 2012)⁷.

7 The CCC report was consulted on and published subsequent to the period of research Þeldwork. It is considered further in Chapter 8.