Leaning into this difficult political moment for climate mitigation
For well over forty years, a battle has raged between groups for and against climate change mitigation. For those of us with a deep desire to avoid the worst outcomes of climate change it has been difficult to persevere through the various cycles of attack. Now we find ourselves, yet again, facing well-funded, widely communicated opposition from the coordinated forces of right-wing populism and fossil fuel interests. As I suggest in a new, free to access book, ‘Climate Politics: Can’t live with it, can’t mitigate without it’, we need to lean into this politically fractious moment.
Current mitigation debates reflect and speak to different groups within a rapidly changing environment. In an era of growing inequality and cost-of-living crises, arguments about getting rid of climate mitigation policies, partly to avoid public costs (whilst ignoring the costs of not mitigating), can sound pragmatic. The recent actions of petrostates, like Russia and the United States, are changing how governments of fossil fuel importer nations interpret energy security. Many of whom are now advocating for energy greater independence, usually via transitioning to renewables. We also know that we need to rapidly accelerate emissions reductionto meet the UNFCCC Paris Agreement 2˚ C target, let alone meet the aim to limit warming to 1.5˚ C above pre-industrial levels.
These kinds of debates make some of us want to avoid the contentious politics surrounding mitigation policymaking. Doing so, however, can not only reduce our ability to design more just policies but can also serve to strengthen the hand of anti-mitigation groups. This is partly because, if we look at the scenarios where we do manage to meet 2050 targets, what is most striking is that public policy drives emission reduction. What’s more, because policies are informed by political debates and created within public institutions with the intention of having societal outcomes, policy and politics are dynamically inter-twined. Over the timeframe required to decarbonise economies, mitigation policy will be political. This is the core argument of my new ‘Climate Politics’ book.
Indeed, and this is my second key argument, climate mitigation policies have already resulted in a range of changes. Mitigation strategies were initially focused on making low emissions technologies and systems available. Associated policies have resulted in: lower emissions in some countries, relatively lower emissions globally, and rapid renewable growth. Creating affordable and accessible alternatives is one step towards enabling fossil fuel phase out. Arguably, in many parts of the world that stage has been reached – coal demand fell in Europe and the USA in 2024, whilst current expectations are that oil and gas demand will peak around 2030.
These changes are positive in emissions terms, but from the perspective that I take in the book, the start of the fossil fuel phase out process was always going to be hotly contested. Some powerful fossil fuel businesses and countries now face considerable transition risks, whilst types of available energy jobs within societies are also changing. This explains, in turn, why there has been so much activity from anti-mitigation groups. At the same time, those that feel that they have not benefitted, or stand to lose economically, from current mitigation policies are starting to listen to them. This is partly because in many countries access to low emissions technologies, like solar panels or electric vehicles, has been restricted to relatively well-off households.
What this makes us realise, is three politically important things. The first is how central policies that actively drive fossil fuel phase out (and that take account of the contested politics of doing so) are to making sure that low emissions systems replace fossil fuels. The second is that the social outcomes of climate mitigation are important politically. Reducing emissions has many positive social outcomes, although these can be harder for many to see, but non-emissions social outcomes of mitigation policies can be more near-term and visible. As such, designing policies that better distribute the benefits of mitigation is one route towards keeping climate mitigation on agendas and taking the sting out of the tail of opposing narratives. Lastly, the need to actively communicate the societal benefits of reducing emissions and the varied positive outcomes of different types of mitigation policy – including in health, economic growth, and jobs terms. Luckily, we know much more now about how to design policies that engender co-benefits and that minimise negative societal outcomes.
Which leads to the third key argument of my new ‘Climate Politics’ book. Whilst politics constrains mitigation, it also enables and shapes change. Mitigation policies have already produced positive outcomes, whilst political institutions, like policy departments and government legislation, are vital to our ability to make climate polices that drive further change. Seeking to avoid anti-mitigation narratives, often by limiting climate policy debates to technocratic circles, can protect decisions from opposition. However, doing so can also leave ordinary citizens, who increasingly experience policy outcomes and who need to take part in processes of emissions reduction, feeling like they have been ‘done to’. These kinds of approaches can further underpin already widespread lack of trust in politics in many countries.
Instead, now is the time to think about the varied ways in which politicisation, including through improved capacities for deliberation and learning, can be viewed as a positive in terms of building more effective mitigation strategies and policies. Climate Politics offers readers this novel way of understanding the politics of climate mitigation policy with the intention that this knowledge can be used as a basis for thinking proactively about how to go about policymaking.
Take capacity for deliberation as one positive (if deployed correctly) aspect of the politics of mitigation policy. Although we are, in many countries, at the contentious point of phasing out fossil fuels, given the past 30 years of experiences, our collective abilities to understand what works in terms of technical changes has advanced considerably. But we also know more, when we look around the world, about how to design climate policy that benefits more of society and supports groups vulnerable to change.
In the area of coal phase out two starkly different political approaches can be used as examples of what works better socially. The UK’s 1980s/90s transition away from coal was, and remains, socially harmful for those affected, whilst Spain’s ‘Just Transition’ approach of the late 2010s was far more socially and politically acceptable. Indeed, there are indications from Scotland’s approach to just transitions for the North Sea that some of these lessons about participation and deliberation with those most affected are starting to be applied in the UK.
Coming back to today’s difficult climate debates – we can also deliberate to better understand WHY it is that anti-mitigation narratives are being taken up by some within society. It is far more insightful to engage with the politics of mitigating, which includes fossil fuel phase out. To reduce emissions, we face into the power behind current anti-mitigation strategies and understand why they are listened to by some. Fossil fuels, and those that they empower, will continue to contest sustainable change – and we need to be informed to better respond.
Caroline Kuzemko is a Professor of the Political Economy of Climate Change at the University of Warwick and a Co-Director of the UK Energy Research Centre. Her work explores the roles of politics and policy in enabling, constraining, and shaping low emissions energy transformations. Her publications include books on Climate Politics: Can’t Live with It, Can’t Mitigate without It; The Energy Security-Climate Nexus: Institutional Change in the UK and Beyond; and a special section on ‘New Directions in the IPE of Energy’, in Review of International Political Economy. She previously worked as a Director at UBS, London.
Photo by Danielle Barnes on Unsplash