Climate impacts and the co-benefits of action
Three different approaches to the impacts of climate change are briefly described in this post. The first focussed on public views about five climate issues of wide interest in the UK. The second presented to a UK audience the views of a panel of experts on a wider range of climate issues, with the aim of stimulating interest and action. The third concentrated on the ways in which the benefits from climate mitigation tend to be overlooked in the European context, and how this might be remedied.
Citizens’ Panel
A recent publication by the Climate Change Committee (CCC) described
the work of a Citizens’ Panel on climate adaptation in the UK. The aim of the
project was to understand public views on the subject, and so to guide the
CCC’s future advice to the UK Government (CCC, 2026). There were two key
questions: “Which of the impacts of climate change are you most concerned about
and why?” and “What do you think should be done to adapt to these impacts?” The
panel worked on five aspects of climate change: Overheating in homes; The
impact of climate change on nature; Transport disruptions; Flooding of homes;
and Water and energy shortages and disruptions. In addition, they considered
themes that ran across the five subject areas, such as the speed of climate
change, mitigation in general, the need for investment in long term adaptation,
and the co-benefits of solutions. While the report does not discuss in detail
how the five impact topics were selected, it seems likely that the choice was
influenced by the previous work of the CCC on areas of high risk for the UK,
and by the need to select topics open to discussion by a panel of
non-specialists.
National Emergency Briefing
A different approach involving a far greater range of
climate related topics was taken by another recent UK project. The National
Emergency Briefing (NEB) was held in London in November 2025 before a large
audience with a wide range of interests and experience. It aimed “to provide a
clear, evidence-based assessment of the climate and nature crisis” and to “urge
the UK government to treat the situation as a national emergency” (NEB, 2026). The
aim of influencing government no doubt influenced the choice of topics, which
were Nature, Climate, Tipping Points, Weather Extremes, Food Security, Health, National
Security, Economics, and Energy Transition. Each topic was presented by a
different expert in the subject, who set out the issues and suggested some
solutions. A selection of issues and solutions follows.
Nature: The UK ranks low in global measures of biodiversity,
with 1 in 6 species at risk of extinction. The Government is “largely off track
on almost every target set under the Environment Act.” The number of deaths in
England from heat related causes in 2022 was higher than those from road
traffic accidents. Soil degradation and loss of pollinators represent
significant economic damage. Solutions: treating nature as critical
infrastructure, preventing pollution of rivers, degradation of soils, and destruction
of habitats, rewarding restoration, and encouraging a culture of care.
Climate: Few climate scientists still believe that the 1.5°C
target is still within reach; to stay within 2°C, global emissions must fall 8%
every year. If the UK is to take its fair share of reductions, its emissions need
to fall at 13% each year. Solutions: home retrofitting, zero-carbon new builds,
rapid public transport, EV charging, zero-carbon electricity, electrification
and deep cuts in aviation.
Tipping Points: The 1.5°C target is likely to be exceeded in
2030, and the tipping point for the world's coral reef ecosystems has already
been crossed. We risk a tipping of the Amazon rainforest, and some climate
models show a significant risk of tipping the Atlantic Meridional Overturning
Circulation (AMOC), with profound implications for the climate of Great
Britain. At 3°C of warming, the chance of tipping the AMOC is estimated at 50%.
Solutions: radical acceleration of action towards zero emissions and promotion
of positive tipping points in transport and home heating.
Weather Extremes: By 2050,
eight million properties in England will be at risk of flooding; heatwaves in Europe “are intensifying faster
than anywhere in the world”, increasing the occurrence of wildfires; some
heatwaves in the Global South “can now kill even a healthy person resting in
the shade”; and we are not “adequately addressing cascading climate risks and
failures where another event hits before recovery from the first.” Solutions: cutting
emissions together with upgrading flood defences and drainage, retrofitting
homes, planting trees, stress-testing critical infrastructure, and addressing weak
governance, unclear responsibilities, and insufficient funding.
Food Security: major corn harvest failures might occur once
every three years with 1.5°C of warming, but could happen every other year at
2°C. The UK is deeply dependent on the rest of the world, importing nearly half
of its food. One third of the food price inflation in 2023 was driven by
extreme weather events. Civil unrest driven by food supply crises is almost as
likely as not within a decade. Solutions: shifting to plant-rich diets,
reducing food waste, improving production and increasing climate resilience.
Health issues: hazards include respiratory health and
changes in communicable diseases. Crumbling economies, food shortages and
migration could overload our health service. The Institute of Actuaries warned
that the global economy could drop by 50% by 2070, and economic damage due to
climate change could mean that we “won’t be able to fund a health service”. Solutions:
getting rid of particulate pollution, more active transport and physical
activity, and moving to plant-based diets.
National Security: “Climate change can be thought of as a
threat multiplier, fuelling global instability and competition for water, food
and land.” Crises can cascade together. People can be forced to move within
countries and across borders. “The climate crisis is now shaping strategic and
military competition.” Solutions: supporting energy independence by using renewables
and dispersed energy on a decentralised grid to both reduce dependence on
foreign oil and gas and make out own energy system less vulnerable to attack.
Economic issues: many companies put profit before progress
and face no penalties for failing to act responsibly; the tobacco industry
provided an example. The UK economy would be stronger now if decarbonising the
power sector had progressed faster. The costs of inaction “massively outweigh
the cost of action.” Solutions: aligning incentives so that standards, taxes,
subsidies, and procurement back the businesses that are investing and
innovating to reduce risk; support for retraining people to work in lower
carbon businesses.
Energy Transition: Rapidly rising energy bills have driven inflation
and cost of living pressure, causing “significant political risk” for the
energy transition. There is clear evidence that power from renewables will be
more affordable and economically secure. “Around half of the UK's recessions
since 1970 have been caused by fossil fuel price shocks.” At present over “80%
of UK homes are heated with gas, leading to financial crisis for many.” Solutions:
shifting rapidly to renewables, promoting electric cars, insulating our homes
and using heat pumps, structuring bills to reflect the lower cost of
renewables, decoupling the cost of electricity from that of gas, and investing
in clean energy jobs.
(The National Emergency Briefing is available as a film: details
are given in the NEB 2026 reference.)
Co-benefits
“Co-benefits - the secondary benefits of climate change
mitigation action - offer an opportunity to reframe energy reduction as
financially advantageous and also address a wide range of other policy goals.” Finn
and Brockway (2023) surveyed energy demand reduction (EDR) co-benefits in
Europe. They present five categories: Health, Energy Security, Economy, Social,
and Environment, with economic co-benefits as the highest proportion, and air
quality as the most cited individual benefit.
The difficulty of reducing energy demand is demonstrated by the
global lack of success to date; the lack of binding legislation on energy
policy, and the dependency of energy policy success on how well the
socio-technical challenges are confronted. These challenges include “financial
feasibility, political credibility, and social acceptability”. Success “requires
overcoming powerful and entrenched ideological obstacles” and more emphasis on co-benefits
could help in this difficult task. The authors claim that co-benefits “are
often either not identified or overlooked” and cite the UK’s Committee on
Climate Change's sixth carbon budget as an example, “limited to general
comments about health and environmental co-benefits.” They aim “to collate the
type, frequency, and scale” of energy demand reduction policy co-benefits in
Europe.
From their literature review, they list the best part of a
hundred co-benefits; the following are the three or four most cited in each of
the five main categories. In Health: air pollution/quality; improved physical
activity and wellbeing; reduced transport accidents. In Energy Security: greater energy sovereignty; reduced load
management; greater water resources security; improved energy delivery. In Economy:
higher employment; greater productivity; lower infrastructure operation and
maintenance costs. In Social: reduced fuel poverty; reduced noise; greater
thermal comfort. In Environment: reduced air pollution; greater ecosystems and
biodiversity preservation; higher resource quality and management.
The same co-benefit can of course occur in more than one
category; reduced air pollution appears above under both Health and Environment,
and reduced accidents, listed under Health, would also have economic benefit. The
authors point out that their categories, derived from European literature, may
not be applicable elsewhere in the world.
In their conclusion, the authors present four key insights. First,
the array of Energy Demand Reduction co-benefits was wider-than-expected. Second,
the economy and social co-benefits were more prevalent and evenly distributed
than the literature conventionally shows. Third, classification of co-benefits helps
to inform practitioners of the relevance and interactions between EDR policies.
Fourth, work on the quantification of co-benefits is still in its early stages,
and more research would be justified.
References
CCC, 2026, Citizens’ panel on climate change adaptation in
the UK, Ipsos, May 2026, online, accessed 20 May 2026
https://www.ukclimaterisk.org/publications/
Finn, O., and Brockway, P., 2023, Much broader than health:
Surveying the diverse co-benefits of energy demand reduction in Europe, Energy
Research & Social Science, online, accessed 20 May 2026
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629622003930
NEB, 2026, National Emergency Briefing, online, accessed 20
May 2026
Comments
Post a Comment