UK Climate Change Act remains legally sound 15 years on, experts say

Despite recent government backtracking on climate policies, the UK’s landmark legislation is still widely seen as a success

The UK’s Climate Change Act of 2008 remains one of the most important legal innovations to hold governments accountable for reducing carbon emissions, said several panellists at an event organised by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment on April 24.

The act was a first in obliging governments to set legally binding emissions reduction targets, in line with an 80 per cent emission cut by 2050 compared with 1990 levels.

In 2019, the 80 per cent target was replaced with a 2050 net zero target, with the UK becoming the first major economy to commit to climate neutrality in a legally binding agreement.

The act has been credited as largely responsible for decarbonising the UK’s energy sector, with renewables today accounting for more than 40 per cent of the country’s electricity generation.

However, this progress is coming under scrutiny following the government’s recent decision to backtrack on several climate policies, including postponing the phaseout date for the sale of new petrol and diesel cars to 2035 from 2030 and granting new oil and gas licences in the North Sea.

Addressing climate change is about investment and clarity, and this change in direction has created market uncertainty, said Lord Nicholas Stern, chair of the GRI and the event’s moderator.

“The current failure is not legal a one, it is a political one. The CCA as such is not failing,” said Alina Averchenkova, a distinguished policy fellow at the GRI.

She said the act fundamentally changed the UK’s institutional framework, requiring, for instance, regular reporting on progress towards the carbon budget targets established under the legislation. She also attributed more informed and better structured political debates on climate change to the timetables set by the act.

Democratic process

An important aspect of the act is that it requires the government to hit reduction targets through pre-established carbon budgets, but does not impose specific policies to reach the targets.

The legislation balances the timescales of climate change, which requires constant dedication and “cannot start and stop”, and those of the democratic process, where a mandate to govern needs to be renewed, argued Lord Deben, former chair of the UK Climate Change Committee and current member of the House of Lords.

The Climate Change Committee is an independent body responsible for proposing reduction targets under the act, which the government considers before they are approved by parliament.

One problem is that MPs may be committed to net zero but not to the tough policies required to reach net zero, said Deben, adding: “It is easier to be green in opposition.”

The tension between achieving carbon budgets and setting appropriate policies has also led to the act being used in court challenges. In 2022, the High Court of England and Wales ruled that the UK government’s net zero strategy failed to fully detail how it would meet the emissions reduction targets legally required under the legislation. As a result, the government was forced to amend its strategy.

Possible improvements

Despite the act proving to be resilient in holding governments to account, the speakers also highlighted some areas where it is not succeeding in driving climate action.

At present, the act and the UK’s nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement are not aligned, with planned emissions reductions under the Climate Change Act too low to reach the Paris goals, said Lord Robert Carnwath, a former justice at the UK Supreme Court and now visiting professor in practice at the GRI. Carnwath also noted that the legislation imposes a duty of care only on the secretary of state, letting other public bodies off the hook.

Deben suggested all planning decisions should be subject to the UK’s climate commitments, while Averchenkova agreed that policy certainty is useful but insisted that governments require flexibility to take into account the changing technological landscape and the latest scientific evidence.