Introduction
Climate change is fast becoming one of the most important issues facing humanity in the near future. Many countries have begun to establish frameworks that will allow them to avoid dangerous climate change within their borders; one of these pieces of legislation is known as the Climate Change Act of 2008. This piece of legislation, passed into law in the United Kingdom in 2008, establishes a number of foundational legal minimums that the United Kingdom needs to meet before the year 2050. Essentially, this is a legal structure that forces individuals and companies in the United Kingdom to work together to fight against the implications of global climate change. This piece of legislation has had numerous impacts on policy in the United Kingdom, and has even resulted in the formation of an independent Committee on Climate Change, whose role it is to determine the appropriate direction for the policies of Great Britain.
This discussion will highlight a number of important issues in the fight against climate change. Not only will it investigate the role of historical legislation on the development of this particular piece of legislation on climate change as a whole. There are, of course, numerous ways that legislation impacts the development of a country and that country’s policies; the United Kingdom is no exception. As such, a political, social, cultural, and economic analysis of the Climate Change Act of 2008 will be conducted, and potential future impacts of the Act will also be investigated in some depth. Without a thorough understanding of these issues, it would be nearly impossible to establish a comprehensive analysis of the Act and its implications for future policy.
Background
Interestingly, there have been numerous policies established in the United Kingdom that have been designed to address the issue of climate change as a whole. The United Kingdom is in quite a unique geopolitical situation; while the U.K. is part of the European Union, the country also retains somewhat more sovereignty than other nations in the European Union, including continued control over the pound. This interesting and unique geopolitical paradigm is one of the most unique facets of the discussion of climate change within the political structure of the United Kingdom—especially as the United Kingdom tends to be somewhat more politically right-wing than other European Union member states. However, the United Kingdom has indeed acknowledged that carbon dioxide emissions are a problem for the country as a whole, and the country has begun to design and implement policies that are established primarily to support a shift in behavior and policy towards a more ecologically-friendly political structure. The current political climate is such that there are many individuals and powerful groups within the British government that support the establishment of ecological-protection policies. More and more, protective solutions are being found that balance the needs of the economy with the needs of the environment. However, one of the most important current trends is the movement away from the single bottom line in business: today, changing political landscapes have made the establishment of environmental protections a bolstering factor for business rather than a destructive one. In this section, the background of climate change issues, policy trends in the United Kingdom, and current statistics will be examined to establish a foundational understanding of the issues surrounding climate change politicization in the United Kingdom and the world as a whole.
Climate Change
Climate change is sometimes called “global warming,” but this is something of a misnomer (Hulme et al. 1999). In some parts of the world, the environment is certainly warming; however, warming is a simplistic view of the complex and multifaceted changes that are occurring as a result of human activity around the world (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003). There are some who claim that climate change is a myth and that the strange weather patterns are part of a normal weather cycle, but in reality, most scientists agree that human beings have had a direct and immediate impact on the global weather patterns in the world today. (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003). Scientists around the world can track the patterns of the global climate, and there are very real impacts associated with human activity that is linked to these patterns (Solomon et al. 2009).
Climate change comes with many symptoms, so to speak. One of the primary changes that occurred as a result of the human impact on the climate is distinctly different weather patterns (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Berkhout, Hertin and Gann 2006; Chappells and Shove 2005). When extreme weather happens more frequently, these changes mark significant changes in the statistical distribution of weather events and weather patterns (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009). In some places, these changes may look like warming events; in other places, these trends look like cooling events or an increase or decrease in extreme weather. However, regardless of the changes, they are all part of the global process of climate change (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009).
In most places around the world, there are normal, seasonal weather patterns that are associated with natural climate change (Solomon et al. 2009). However, there are also external forcings that can influence global climate change. Greenhouse gas production is one of the primary external forcings that has influenced the change in global climate cycles in recent years (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009). The production of greenhouse gases has a negative effect on a normal climate process known as the greenhouse effect (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009). As human beings produce more greenhouse gases, they have a tendency to speed up this greenhouse effect, and make the warming effect of the gases stronger around the world (Berkhout, Hertin and Gann 2006; Chappells and Shove 2005; Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009). This is one of the reasons why global climate change is sometimes referred to by news sources and laypeople as “global warming” (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009; Bates 2016).
The production of carbon dioxide is the biggest contributor to global climate change, according to most schools of thought (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009). Since the industrial revolution, global production of carbon dioxide has increased exponentially—and the problems associated with global climate change have likewise become more significant. The most industrialized countries of the world, obviously, contribute more significantly to the problem of carbon dioxide production than the less developed countries of the world (Hulme et al. 1999; Bates 2016; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009). The Kyoto Protocol were established as a way to get nations around the world to agree on a certain threshold of carbon dioxide production per year; the United Kingdom is closely associated with these goals (Bates 2016; Bates 2016).
Climate Change Trends and Statistics
The trends that will be discussed in this section will focus on trends associated with energy use and carbon dioxide production specifically in the United Kingdom. Because the world is not yet united in the fight against carbon dioxide emissions, the trends do not hold true globally. The United Kingdom government has been very open about providing the appropriate information to the people of the United Kingdom; carbon dioxide still accounts for 82 percent of the total greenhouse gas that the United Kingdom produces, and thus still remains a priority (Bates 2016; Committee on Climate Change 2015; Kemp 2010). According to Bates (2016), “Between 2013 and 2014, the largest decreases came from the energy supply sector, down 13.6 percent (25.7 MtCO2e) due to a decrease in the use of coal for electricity generation; and the residential sector, down by 17.0 percent (13.1 MtCO2e) due to a reduction in use of natural gas for space heating. Demand for heating was lower in 2014 due to the temperature being 1.2 degrees Celsius warmer on average than 2013” (Bates 2016). However, despite still producing significant carbon dioxide emissions, the United Kingdom still fell significantly below its prescribed threshold for the year. As can be seen in Figure 1, taken from Bates (2016), the United Kingdom has been incredibly effective in its attempt to reduce emissions through the current legislative process. Not all countries have been as successful as the United Kingdom has been on this particular front (Kemp 2010; Bates 2016).
Climate Change Policy in the United Kingdom
The primary piece of legislation for discussion in this piece will be the Climate Change Act of 2008, as enacted by the Parliament in the United Kingdom. Before the current piece of legislation was enacted, a previous version of the bill was introduced and failed to pass muster (Meinshausen et al. 2009; Committee on Climate Change 2011). The legislation was, in fact, very similar to the Climate Change Act of 2008; the political situation of the time did not allow members of Parliament to pass the legislation, although the bill was incredibly popular among voters and members of Parliament alike (Committee on Climate Change 2011; Secretary of State 2008). However, despite the fact that the initial bill did not pass, a second bill was introduced in 2007; it was passed in 2008, and it based its threshold for greenhouse gas production on the measurements set forth by the Kyoto Protocol.
The overall goal for this particular piece of legislation is to ensure that there is an eighty percent reduction in greenhouse gas production for the United Kingdom as a whole before the year 2050. Although it may seem as though this benchmark is far away, there are many complications associated with meeting this benchmark: even though this particular piece of legislation has been effective, the reductions are still occurring only slowly (Scrase, Smith and Kern 2010; Committee on Climate Change 2011; Committee on Climate Change 2015; Bates 2016; Bates 2016).
The Kyoto Protocol and Global Climate Change Policy
The meeting in Kyoto that outlined the global changes in greenhouse gas emissions that must occur has become known as the Kyoto Protocol (Climate Change 2011; Committee on Climate Change 2015;Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009). The standards that were set during this conference—held in 1992—continue to be the goals for many countries around the world today. The Kyoto Protocol designed “commitment periods,” which allows member states of the protocol to assess their current status and make the necessary adjustments (Solomon et al. 2009; Berkhout, Hertin and Gann 2006; Chappells and Shove 2005). The first commitment period was between 2008 and 2012; this coincides perfectly with the implementation of the Climate Change Act of 2008, which will be discussed in more depth in the following section. One side effect of the establishment of the Kyoto Protocol was the establishment of a large-scale, worldwide emissions trading market, which is quite economically powerful to this day (Kemp 2010; Berkhout, Hertin and Gann 2006; Chappells and Shove 2005; Climate Change 2011; Committee on Climate Change 2015).
The Climate Change Act of 2008: An Analysis
The Climate Change Act of 2008 changed the fundamental standards for the United Kingdom insofar as carbon dioxide emissions are concerned (House of Commons 2008). This particular Act uses the Kyoto Protocol as the benchmark for development; this benchmark is set so that the six greenhouse gases that the Kyoto Protocol mentions are below the threshold to be contributing directly to global climate change (Committee on Climate Change 2011; Committee on Climate Change 2015; Bates 2016; Bates 2016; Committee on Climate Change 2016; Committee on Climate Change 2016). The Climate Change Act allows the United Kingdom to break down time periods into “commitment periods” of four years, after which the overall progress that the United Kingdom is making towards its goals can be reassessed. Without this reassessment, things might change—and the overall structure of the program might become inappropriate or largely ineffective (Eaton, 2016; Committee on Climate Change 2011; Committee on Climate Change 2015; Bates 2016; Bates 2016; Committee on Climate Change 2016; Committee on Climate Change 2016). The domestic targets set for reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be seen in Figure 2 below, taken from the Committee on Climate Change (2015).
The Climate Change Act allows individuals and businesses (primarily the latter) to incorporate carbon trading activities in their measurements (Committee on Climate Change 2011; Committee on Climate Change 2015; Bates 2016; Bates 2016; Committee on Climate Change 2016; Committee on Climate Change 2016). In some ways, the United Kingdom has had to balance the expectations of both the European Union and the international community via the Kyoto Protocol; the development of the Climate Change Act protocol structure is a direct result of this varied international pressure; it gives the country a more established set of baseline structures to measure (Committee on Climate Change 2011; Communities and Local Government 2012).
Economic Analysis
The switch to a more environmentally friendly structure has not come without an economic price. The economic costs of ignoring climate change are high, but so too are the costs of implementing these new structures that are designed to reduce the carbon footprint of the United Kingdom (Committee on Climate Change 2011; Communities and Local Government 2012). However, despite the many costs associated with the implementation of this policy, economists generally estimate that the implementation of the Climate Change Act of 2008 will result in an increase in GDP by the end of the third commitment period (Committee on Climate Change 2011; Communities and Local Government 2012). In addition, there are some suggestions that the capital that will be saved will go back into the economy in the form of real disposable income. Although there are some problems in industry right now and some industries are having to bear higher burdens than before, there is no alternative: climate change mitigation must occur and it must occur now, before the climate change becomes too overwhelming (GVA Grimley 2016; Committee on Climate Change 2011; Communities and Local Government 2012). The implementation of new building structures will also provide potential income to the United Kingdom; environmentally friendly building solutions will help fight against the significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions that are the result of buildings in the United Kingdom (Hertin, Berkhout, Gann and Barlow 2003; GVA Grimley 2016; Middlemiss and Parrish 2010).
Social Analysis
Although the design and implementation of new policies is important, and the Climate Change Act is important on a political level, it is also important to engage socially with the people and encourage changes in behavior on an individual levels as well (Pelling and High 2005). Although the implementation of the Actor-Network Theory structure will be discussed in some depth in the next section, it is still important to discover the role of social change in the success or failure of implementation of this type of legislation. As previously discussed, there was a previous version of this bill that failed to make it through the legislative process; however, social tides shifted in only a few short years. This allowed the legislation to pass through both the House of Lords and the House of Commons with only minimal fanfare. Social change, then, can be immensely powerful for the implementation of a new piece of legislation (Pelling and High 2005). The social support that the environmental movement has gained in recent years is also indicative of a cultural shift that developed in the wake of the 1990s. This cultural shift is a movement that tends to be more protectionist towards the environment.
Cultural Analysis
The cultural shift that allowed the development of this piece of legislation—and the one that will continue to allow this piece of legislation to exist—is one that tends towards mitigation. Mitigating the problems associated with greenhouse gas emissions is something that was largely ignored until the 1990s, but came into sharp focus as it became clear that something had to be done in the United Kingdom about the amount of greenhouse gases that the country as a whole were producing. Even today, important cultural changes have to be made to appropriately protect the environment in the United Kingdom. One of the primary changes that needs to occur is a fundamental change in the building industry. Buildings are one of the primary problems for the United Kingdom, and the country cannot continue to rely on non-renewable resources for the establishment of the construction industry (Shimoda 2003; Chappells and Shove 2005; Guy 2011). The sooner that the United Kingdom building industry accepts this cultural change, the more likely that the country as a whole will be able to begin to chip away at the greenhouse gas emissions that need to be addressed in the coming commitment periods (Taylor 2016; Shimoda 2003; Chappells and Shove 2005; Guy 2011). The knowledge is available—the cultural shift must happen.
Political Analysis
Politically, climate change has always been championed largely by more liberal parties. However, the Conservative Party has suggested that they support the general idea of legislation that restricts greenhouse gas emission; the party merely thinks that this particular iteration of the bill is far too strict. Unfortunately, the problem is so significant that the government had to establish a response to the problem as quickly as possible. Even the Liberal Democrats believe that the standards set forth by this particular bill were problematic because they allowed the targets for carbon emissions to be readdressed every four years. The problem, many politicians believe, is that everyone is abdicating responsibility in the development of coherent, long-term carbon emissions reduction. Although this particular piece of legislation is designed to offset that, instituting this kind of change can be quite a long process. It will also require political investment from politicians of many different election periods and perhaps even different generations. This bill was, and still is, an attempt to balance the flexibility necessary for a long-term piece of legislation against the need for solid, coherent, goal-based policy.
Applying Actor-Network Theory to Climate Change
Actor-network theory suggests that both human and non-human actors should be considered in context when looking closely at a system. Human and non-human actors, according to the theory, interact with each other in varied ways; however, all these ways are predetermined by the potential output of the system as a whole (Rydin 2015). Rydin (2015) suggests that climate change—more specifically, the measurement and cessation of excess greenhouse gas production—can be governed using actor-network theory—in fact, the researcher suggests that the actor-network theory is extraordinary for modeling moments of “societal shift” and “controversy” (Rydlin 2015; Geels 2011; Pelling and High 2005). Rydin (2015) writes, “within the planning consent process, the material nature of the development shapes and solidifies network inter-relationships. It has suggested that the embodiment of compliance within the materiality of the development – through its spatial location, the designed form and adopted technology – results in the development acting as the focal point within the planning consent networks. This is shaping agency for sustainability. Key elements of the network dynamics are the detailed nature of planning policies combined with co-constructed evidence about the energy performance of the development. The calculative exercises of energy modelling and associated building classifications contribute to this evidence, but these potential black boxes are not yet closed, and there remains space for negotiation within the networks” (Rydin 2015). Berker (2006) and Alcadipani and Hassard (2010) suggest that while there might be struggles associated with organizing via actor-network theory, there is some evidence to suggest that assigning agency to non-human actors helps build a better structural support for analyzing the geopolitical system that is resisting against global climate change mitigation structures. While some suggest that ANT suggests that all actors are equal within the network, Alcadipani and Hassard (2010) suggest that there are actors that are inherently unequal because each actor has a restrictive set of potential outcomes in the system. Climate change can be understood in this context on the global scale: most actors are equal, and the system is complex and made up of both human and non-human actors with significant agency. In fact, agent-network theory specifically suggests that these networks that are formed within systems like the international geopolitical structure are specifically heterogeneous (Alcadipani and Hassard 2010; Rydlin 2015; Berker 2006).
Potential Future Policy Solutions
There are only a few potential solutions associated with global climate change, unfortunately, and it is likely that all or most of these solutions will have to be implemented on an international scale for the problem to be offset completely. The solutions can be broken down into three different categories: first, mitigation; second adaptation; and third, geoengineering (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009). Each of these potential solutions solve part of the problem associated with global climate change, but a creative mix of the three alternatives is probably the only true potential solution in the long run (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009; Bates 2016). Clearly, the United Kingdom has taken the first steps to establishing strategies for dealing with the problems associated with global climate change, but it is likely that as new solutions develop, new policy reactions are likely to develop as well. The United Kingdom is lucky in its successes with the Climate Change Act of 2008, but even this relatively successful piece of legislation has a number of failed pieces of legislation behind it; these failures could potentially be repeated all around the world (Kemp 2010). Unfortunately, dealing with both policy and climate change is time-sensitive for the people of the world and the world itself (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009; Bates 2016).
Adaptation
Adaption is, perhaps, the solution that very few people want to discuss in the fight against global climate change. From an environmental point of view, to adapt would be to further contribute to the destruction of the planet; this is not, of course, a good solution to the problem of global climate change (Shimoda 2003; Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009). To accept this solution is to accept that human beings have done harm so irreparable that there cannot be any solution to the problem of global climate change. Although some degree of acceptance is probably necessary, the focus should be instead on mitigation of the current issues and on geoengineering the current conditions to be more appropriate and natural—in an effort to save the existing climate patterns on the planet (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009). Economically speaking, this is not a good solution either: the potential unseen effects of adaptation and ignoring global warning cannot even be measured in the long term. The changes in climate would likely result in significant changes in necessary infrastructure (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009). This alone has the potential to be massively expensive and difficult; as such, adaptation continues to be a problematic solution from both an environmental and an economic point of view (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009 Bates 2016; Committee on Climate Change 2016; Committee on Climate Change 2016).
Mitigation
The Climate Change Act is legislation that tries to act as climate change mitigation. Very few want to accept global climate change as a given if it can be changed or stopped; there are untold threats associated with global climate change that cannot be foreseen (Committee on Climate Change 2011; Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009). By taking a relatively aggressive stance towards carbon dioxide output in the United Kingdom, the U.K. government has taken steps to mitigate global climate change and its effects on the people (Committee on Climate Change 2011; Guy 2011; Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009). However, there are other potential mitigating programs that can and should be considered—and one of those programs should be the development of “green” building policies (Berkhout, Hertin and Gann 2006; Chappells and Shove 2005; UNEP 2015). In fact, as much as forty percent of the energy used in the United Kingdom is used on buildings; one of the best ways to mitigate problems associated with energy use is to address the construction of buildings. These kinds of mitigation might focus on the development of more efficient building styles, the use of environmentally conscious materials, or the development of good behavior in individual citizens through the use of various types of incentives (UNEP 2015; Taylor 2015; Seyfang 2010; Mills 2003).
Geoengineering
Climate engineering, sometimes known as geoengineering, is still a relatively new process, and although it is not necessary part of the Climate Change Act structure, it is still an interesting look at the trends associated with climate change mitigation (Berkhout, Hertin and Gann 2006; Chappells and Shove 2005). This process should, in theory, allow human beings to alter the gases present in the atmosphere to produce different mixes that might slow or even stop global climate change as a process (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009). However, no large-scale projects are in the works; this is a potential political way forward for the countries that have the potential capital to develop the infrastructure (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009). It would indeed change the way that countries interacted over the issue of global climate change, and it would undoubtedly become a hot political issue if it were implemented on a large scale. Many are hesitant to suggest this type of solution because the systems that control the global climate are very complex; without a clear understanding of each, the potential to harm the environment further is quite high (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009; Scrase, Smith and Kern 2010).
Discussion and Conclusions
As climate change is an immensely important issue in the modern day, it is clear that all nations must develop their own methods for dealing with issues like carbon emissions and greenhouse gases. Not every attempt to deal with this issue is immediately successful, and it can be seen by the history of this particular piece of legislation that there are many potential problems that have yet to be solved. Indeed, with the implementation of this law, questions arise regarding the global nature of the problem. Although every country has the responsibility of dealing with climate change and associated struggles within their borders, not every country has begun to deal with the issue. When these issues are dealt with on a national, domestic level, some changes can be made, but there are still serious problems with global commitment to the change (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009).
The Kyoto Accord attempted to bring some kind of global consensus to the international stage, but as is the problem with nearly all international agreements, the honor system is largely at play in the establishments of oversight for countries who have agreed to reduce their carbon footprint. Countries that are trying to improve their environmental record must spend significant money to try to change infrastructure and develop new ways to conduct industry and growth; however, the technologies to support these pursuits are still largely in development, and they are very expensive (Berkhout, Hertin and Gann 2006; Chappells and Shove 2005; UNEP 2015; Seyfang 2010). Development of new technologies over time should be part of every country’s search for “green” expansion; while the United Kingdom is certainly not the worst offender insofar as carbon footprint is concerned, there is still significant clean-up that must be done to build a cleaner future. This political realm is fraught with controversy. Many politicians have, until recently, been hesitant to engage in debates and legislation of environmental issues because they are such controversial topics. Establishment of the connection with the European Union just exacerbated the political difficulty of the issue of climate change, with is undoubtedly part of the reason why the history of climate change legislation in the United Kingdom has developed in the manner it has.
One of the most interesting aspects of the Climate Change Act of 2008 is that it does indeed establish goals for the government, but it also leaves much of the implementation of these goals open-ended. Perhaps this is one of the best ways to deal with the problem of climate change: as new minds work on new solutions, new opportunities arise for policymakers to change the trajectory of a country’s policy. While there is immense public support for these kinds of cleanup efforts, there are still numerous structures in place that largely support pollution and provide economic incentives for companies and individuals to continue to pollute the environment at a high rate (Hulme et al. 1999; Karl and Trenberth 2003; Solomon et al. 2009). Some believe that the environment overall is too far gone—that there is no coming back from the environmental destruction that human beings have wrought on the planet as a whole. However, with policies like the Climate Change Act of 2008, governments are able to turn back the clock within their own borders. The design and implementation of this Act, then, will hopefully be the impetus for other countries to design and establish their own policies that are put in place to protect the environment as a whole.
References
Alcadipani, R. and Hassard, J., 2010. Actor-Network Theory, organizations and critique: towards a politics of organizing. Organization.
Bates, L. 2016. 2014 UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Final Figures. London: Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Bates, L. 2016. UK progress towards GHG emissions reduction targets. London: Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Berker, T., 2006. The Politics of ‘Actor-Network Theory’-What Can ‘Actor-Network Theory’Do to Make Buildings More Energy Efficient?. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 1(1), pp.PP-61.
Berkhout, F., Hertin, J. and Gann, D.M., 2006. Learning to adapt: organisational adaptation to climate change impacts. Climatic change, 78(1), pp.135-156.
Chappells, H. and Shove, E., 2005. Debating the future of comfort: environmental sustainability, energy consumption and the indoor environment. Building Research & Information, 33(1), pp.32-40.
Committee on Climate Change, 2011. Implementing the Climate Change Act 2008: The Government’s proposal for setting the fourth carbon budget. London: HM Government.
Committee on Climate Change, 2015. Reducing emissions and preparing for climate change: 2015 Progress Report to Parliament. London: Committee on Climate Change.
Committee on Climate Change, 2016. The Fifth Carbon Budget: The Next Step towards a low-carbon economy. London: HM Government.
Committee on Climate Change, 2016. Updated energy and emissions projections 2015. London: HM Government.
Communities and Local Government, 2012. National Policy Planning Framework. Department for Communities and Local Government.
Eaton, G. 2016. Provisional estimates of UK Greenhouse Gas emissions for 2015, including quarterly emissions for 4th quarter 2015. London: Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Geels, F.W., 2011. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 1(1), pp.24-40.
Guy, S., 2011. Designing fluid futures: Hybrid transitions to sustainable architectures. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,1(1), pp.140-145.
GVA Grimley, 2016. How do we decarbonise UK Real Estate by 80% by the year 2050?
Hertin, J., Berkhout, F., Gann, D. and Barlow, J., 2003. Climate change and the UK house building sector: perceptions, impacts and adaptive capacity. Building Research & Information, 31(3-4), pp.278-290.
House of Commons, (2008). Climate Change Act 2008. London.
Hulme, M., Barrow, E.M., Arnell, N.W., Harrison, P.A., Johns, T.C. and Downing, T.E., 1999. Relative impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate variability. Nature,397(6721), pp.688-691.
Karl, T.R. and Trenberth, K.E., 2003. Modern global climate change. science, 302(5651), pp.1719-1723.
Kemp, M., 2010. Zero Carbon Britain 2030: a new energy strategy. The second report of the Zero Carbon Britain project. Centre for Alternative Technology.
Meinshausen, M., Meinshausen, N., Hare, W., Raper, S.C., Frieler, K., Knutti, R., Frame, D.J. and Allen, M.R., 2009. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 C. Nature,458(7242), pp.1158-1162.
Middlemiss, L. and Parrish, B.D., 2010. Building capacity for low-carbon communities: The role of grassroots initiatives. Energy Policy, 38(12), pp.7559-7566.
Mills, E., 2003. Climate change, insurance and the buildings sector: technological synergisms between adaptation and mitigation. Building Research & Information, 31(3-4), pp.257-277.
Pelling, M. and High, C., 2005. Understanding adaptation: what can social capital offer assessments of adaptive capacity?. Global Environmental Change, 15(4), pp.308-319.
Rydin, Y., 2012. Using Actor–Network Theory to understand planning practice: Exploring relationships between actants in regulating low-carbon commercial development. Planning Theory, p.1473095212455494.
Scrase, J.I., Smith, A. and Kern, F., 2010. Dynamics and deliberations: comparing heuristics for low carbon innovation policy. Brighton: Science and Technology Policy Research, pp.1-42.
Secretary of State, 2008. Interim advice by the Committee on Climate Change. London: Department for Energy and Climate Change.
Seyfang, G., 2010. Community action for sustainable housing: Building a low-carbon future. Energy Policy, 38(12), pp.7624-7633.
Shimoda, Y., 2003. Adaptation measures for climate change and the urban heat island in Japan's built environment. Building Research & Information, 31(3-4), pp.222-230.
Solomon, S., Plattner, G.K., Knutti, R. and Friedlingstein, P., 2009. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, pp.pnas-0812721106.
Taylor, T. (2016). Assessing carbon emissions in BREEAM. Watford: BRE Global.
UNEP. 2015. Buildings and Climate Change: Status, Challenges and Opportunities. United Nations Environment Programme.
