ABSTRACT

Climate change advisory bodies are rapidly proliferating around the world, often with statutory underpinning. While they are argued to be an important component of effective climate governance, few studies have systematically assessed their political influence. Using the UK Committee on Climate Change (CCC) as a case, this paper investigates how such bodies influence political debates on climate change. To do so, we build an original dataset of all CCC mentions in UK Parliamentary proceedings from 2008–2018. We find that CCC analysis is used by all major political parties, that its influence has grown over time and that it has influenced policy debates both within its statutory remit (carbon budgets) and more broadly (energy policy and flood defence spending). Furthermore, most politicians have been supportive of the CCC. They have utilized the information it produces to hold government accountable and to argue for more ambitious policy. We find little evidence that CCC analysis is politicized or that it merely functions as a ‘legitimiser’, providing justification for the government’s pre-decided policy choices. Instead, we find that the CCC functions primarily as a knowledge broker, offering trusted information to policymakers, and at times as a policy entrepreneur. Overall, the CCC experience demonstrates that climate change advisory bodies can play a key role in climate governance.

Key policy insights

• The information and analysis produced by the CCC is widely cited by Parliamentarians across the political spectrum and is often used as the technical basis for political arguments calling for greater ambition.

• CCC evidence has substantial influence in areas that are directly covered by its core statutory mandate, but also wider climate change-related Parliamentary debates, indicating knowledge spillovers.

• The UK experience shows that an expert advisory body can strengthen climate governance by serving as an impartial knowledge broker, contributing to more evidence-based and ambitious policymaking.

摘要

气候变化咨询机构在世界范围内迅速增加，通常有法定的支持。虽然它们被认为是有效气候治理的重要组成部分，但很少有研究系统地评估它们的政治影响。本文以英国气候变化委员会 (CCC) 为例，研究这些机构如何影响有关气候变化的政治辩论。为此，我们构建了 2008 年至 2018 年英国议会程序中所有 CCC 提及的原始数据集。我们发现所有主要政党都使用 CCC 分析，它的影响力随着时间的推移而增长，并且它在其法定职权范围内（碳预算）和更广泛的（能源政策和防洪支出）影响了政策辩论。此外，大多数政治家一直支持 CCC。他们利用它产生的信息来追究政府的责任并主张制定更雄心勃勃的政策。我们发现几乎没有证据表明 CCC 分析被政治化了，或者它仅仅起到了“合法化者”的作用，为政府预先决定的政策选择提供了理由。相反，我们发现 CCC 主要充当知识经纪人，向决策者提供可信赖的信息，有时还充当政策企业家。总体而言，CCC 的经验表明，气候变化咨询机构可以在气候治理中发挥关键作用。我们发现 CCC 主要充当知识经纪人，向决策者提供可信赖的信息，有时还充当政策企业家。总体而言，CCC 的经验表明，气候变化咨询机构可以在气候治理中发挥关键作用。我们发现 CCC 主要充当知识经纪人，向决策者提供可信赖的信息，有时还充当政策企业家。总体而言，CCC 的经验表明，气候变化咨询机构可以在气候治理中发挥关键作用。

关键政策见解

• CCC 提供的信息和分析被各个政治领域的议员广泛引用，并且经常被用作呼吁更大雄心的政治争论的技术基础。

• CCC 证据在其核心法定任务直接涵盖的领域具有重大影响，但在更广泛的与气候变化相关的议会辩论中也具有重大影响，表明知识溢出。

• 英国的经验表明，专家咨询机构可以通过充当公正的知识经纪人来加强气候治理，为更多基于证据和雄心勃勃的决策做出贡献。