The issue of proportionality is central to climate policy debates about setting targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the development of low-carbon energy. In effect, these debates centre on whether the perceived social costs outweigh the benefits of policies and, if not, whether this may lead to over-investment or ‘policy bubbles’. Political attention, agenda setting and policy image are all crucial drivers of ambitious policy formation, as seen in the case of the United Kingdom's (UK) Climate Change Act (2008). However, as political salience waned and economic depression dragged on, the cost of long-term climate targets have been reconsidered. Based on documentary analysis and 33 interviews with central political actors, this article presents a detailed account of how economic arguments have been used to reinterpret and challenge policies, using the heuristics of ‘over-investment’ and ‘policy bubbles’. Ultimately, arguments about proportionality hinge on which costs and benefits are considered. In the UK, economic and technical framings are typically prioritised, but they do not explain contradictory and politically motivated policy decisions. We discuss these dynamics within the context of maturing renewable energy technologies, high energy prices and the UK's cross-party consensus approach to climate politics.
展开▼
