Search

Rising temperatures exacerbated by climate change are a growing concern in the UK. This paper assesses the state of heat risk governance in the country through an analysis of the Adverse Weather and Health Plan (AWHP) launched in 2023, which replaces the former Heatwave Plan (HWP) for England — the prominent policy for addressing heatwaves in the UK. Through 17 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, the paper assesses the perceived effectiveness of the new plan in addressing heat risk. The findings demonstrate that AWHP has been positively received and is considered to have well-functioning institutional arrangements and strategies tailored to manage immediate heat risks. However, areas for improvement are identified: the need to enhance public communication and broaden the cross-sectoral understanding of heat impacts beyond the domain of 'health'. Further, the research reveals gaps in leadership, institutional structure, delineation of roles and responsibilities, and funding and resources for addressing long-term heat risk and preparedness in the UK. The paper explores these and highlights the need for strengthening governance and capacity to tackle the multi-dimensional climate risk, i.e., heat, effectively. • UK heat policy lacks consideration for long-term risks. • Understanding heat impacts beyond health is crucial for effective risk mitigation. • Establishing an institutional structure with clear leadership is essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Against the backdrop of a fragmented and evolving governance landscape, this paper examines how effective climate commissions are in engaging the public to co-produce local climate action in the UK. Climate commissions are emerging amid heightened concerns regarding the top-down style of policymaking on climate change and resource-constrained local authorities. However, less is known about how they engage the public who are pivotal for climate action, both in signalling greater ambition from governments and through their own mitigation and adaptation efforts. This paper draws on qualitative interviews with an array of individuals both inside and outside climate commissions in the UK, and utilises Cash's theoretical framework of 'salience, legitimacy and credibility' to assess how effective climate commissions are in engaging the public to co-produce local climate action. The findings indicate a discernible chasm between commissions and the broader public. Equally however, they provide hopeful perspectives into the effect that more collaborative engagement, that speaks to local concerns and leverages local knowledge, would have on commissions' 'salience, legitimacy and credibility' and, additionally, the legitimacy of local authorities. Moreover, they suggest that deeper collaboration with local networks of community groups, who are not yet represented on commissions, could foster more sustained climate action. It concludes by considering the novel implications of these emergent insights for the Cash framework and what this means for commissions in their future engagement with the public. • Knowledge co-production resonates in both theory and practice. • Local and grassroot action is critical to meet climate mitigation and adaptation goals. • Ensuring 'salience, legitimacy and credibility' can lead to more effective climate policy. • Climate commissions need to better leverage local knowledge to drive climate action. • Community groups are under-utilised in climate conversations and decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The design of energy and climate policy is usually seen as an 'expert' domain, relying on technical tools such as economic analysis. However, policy requires the support of politicians and citizens alike, through the democratic process. Many policies, such as reducing carbon emissions from homes and transport, also affect people's lives directly. It is thus necessary to supplement technical analysis with methods that allow an exploration of people's views, values and behaviours. One such method is codesign, whereby groups of citizens work with policy analysts to develop strategies informed by the lived experience of citizens, as well as the specialist knowledge of analysts. There is a history of co-design approaches in public services such as healthcare, but there have been few attempts to co-design public policy measures. This paper reports on a Citizens' Panel, a representative group of people working with specialists to create co-designed policy recommendations for reducing carbon emissions from homes. The process revealed that policy co-design can provide detailed, viable proposals. In this case, panellists emphasised the necessity of leadership and support from government; tailored, consistent information; targeted regulation; and financial incentives. Finally, the wider potential role for policy co-design for energy and climate is addressed. • Co-design processes are widely used but rarely applied to the design of energy and climate policy. • Co-design processes can embed citizen perspectives in policy design. • The paper reports on an experimental panel on home energy decarbonisation. • Co-design can ensure that policies are effective and will gain support of politicians and publics. • Changes to cultures of policymaking are needed to embed such approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims to add to the emerging empirical mitigation deterrence literature by drawing on ongoing research into a particular form of greenhouse gas removal technology – biochar – and associated biochar carbon markets. As such, the aim of this paper is to explore whether the UK carbon market for biochar, in practice is likely to contribute to delays in emissions reduction. In other words, we explore whether UK biochar carbon markets are (likely to be) as much of a problem for mitigation deterrence as imagined or envisaged within the mitigation deterrence literature. We draw from original data collected in 2022 from 33 semi-structured interviews with mostly UK based experts who have an interest or potential interest in biochar, supplemented with a document analysis. Conceptual approaches from the social studies of finance have guided the analysis, an approach that enables systematic investigation of experts' understandings of the biochar carbon market landscape in the UK. Although biochar proponents forwarded narratives – or fictional expectations – about how the future trading of carbon credits in carbon markets could lower the cost of producing biochar on a large scale, other experts doubted the credibility of these narratives. Whilst the construction and sustainable functioning of a UK-based biochar carbon market remains a speculative, rather than credible proposition, it nevertheless constitutes a threat of mitigation deterrence because of the assumption that a UK biochar carbon market will become a reality. There is the promise of future removals even if this is only imagined. • Biochar carbon markets are resisted by most experts in the study. • Techno-optimism about biochar production is based on fictional expectations. • Biochar carbon markets are a mitigation deterrence threat. • Consider failure to reduce emissions instead of mitigation deterrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]