Climate policy as social policy? A comprehensive assessment of the economic impact of climate action in the UK

Andrew Sudmant (), Dom Boyle, Ruaidhri Higgins‐Lavery, Andy Gouldson, Andy Boyle, James Fulker and Jamie Brogan
Additional contact information
Andrew Sudmant: Edinburgh Climate Change Institute, University of Edinburgh
Dom Boyle: Price Waterhouse Coopers
Ruaidhri Higgins‐Lavery: Edinburgh Climate Change Institute, University of Edinburgh
Andy Gouldson: Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds
Andy Boyle: Your Climate Strategy
James Fulker: Price Waterhouse Coopers
Jamie Brogan: Edinburgh Climate Change Institute, University of Edinburgh

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2025, vol. 15, issue 3, No 2, 476-490

Abstract: Abstract Co-benefits are central to the case for climate action but are side-lined in many economic analyses. This paper presents an evaluation of three dimensions of the costs and benefits of climate change interventions in six urban regions of the UK. Findings indicate that meeting the UK’s 2033–2037 climate targets could yield £164 billion in total benefits. Notably, only 13% of these benefits are financial, in contrast to the 79% of which are social benefits. These social benefits include improvements in public health, reduced traffic congestion, and increased thermal comfort in homes. These results underscore the need for economic evaluations to expand their scope and move beyond the narrow financial cost–benefit analysis that predominates. Moreover, the magnitude of the social benefits underscores the need for integrating social and climate challenges in policymaking. Concurrently, the results demonstrate the sensitivity of the social benefits of climate actions to the normative aspects of empirical analysis. Determining whether emissions reductions in the transport sector, for example, should be achieved through the deployment of electric cars, expansion of public transport, and/or increases in walking and cycling requires both technical analysis and value-based decision making. Ensuring that decision-making processes are deliberate and transparent in empirical analysis is therefore critical. We conclude by suggesting that institutions such as the UK Climate Change Committee and Scottish Climate Intelligence Service should take the opportunity to be more explicit in the normative decisions embedded in their empirical work to demonstrate best practice for the wider research community.

Keywords: Climate change; Co-benefits; Urban climate action; Sixth Carbon Budget (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13412-024-00955-9 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:15:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s13412-024-00955-9

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13412

DOI: 10.1007/s13412-024-00955-9

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences is currently edited by Walter A. Rosenbaum

More articles in Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences from Springer, Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().