ABSTRACT

Sweden’s 2017 Climate Act is part of a climate policy framework aiming for net zero domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. The framework was based on a proposal from the All Party Committee on Environmental Objectives (the Committee), in which members from all participating parliamentary parties agreed unanimously. This was despite a contested climate debate running in parallel, notwithstanding strong criticism from business confederations and trade unions. Aiming to draw lessons of value for climate policy-making, this study explores the main factors that influenced the work and outcomes of the Committee, based on a series of in-depth interviews and document review. The research design is linked to policy process theories. The interviews mainly concern underlying motives, the role of knowledge, the influence of impact assessments, and international influence. It is shown that a continuous and comprehensive learning process in the Committee was instrumental for achieving consensus, including addressing concerns among some members regarding policy costs and constitutionality. The Committee was also influenced by policy developments elsewhere, referred to as policy diffusion, notably from the U.K. Climate Change Act and the UNFCCC COP 21 policy process. Over time, a cross-party consensus among Committee members emerged and led to the invention of an original policy proposal. The consensus was instrumental for generating support for the proposal in an otherwise conflictual political landscape. As a result, a governmental bill based on the proposal was eventually enacted into law, renewing Sweden’s climate policy with a climate change act coupled to ambitious climate objectives.

Key policy insights

• Joint learning on factually complex and normatively contested climate issues requires time and comprehensive processes but can lead to policy inventions and ambitious outcomes.

• Policy diffusion between countries may be important for raising ambitions and shaping innovative, new elements of national climate policy.

• Framework climate change acts and specific climate laws can be mutually supportive, i.e. frameworks foster more ambitious sectoral laws and the more precise sectoral laws, the easier it is to agree on stricter overall ambitions.

• Adoption of more stringent climate policies may require precise dismantling of arguments working against action, in particular on policy costs.

摘要

瑞典的 2017 年气候法案是旨在到 2045 年实现国内温室气体净零排放的气候政策框架的一部分。该框架基于环境目标全党委员会（委员会）的一项提案，其中来自所有参与的议会党派的成员一致同意。尽管受到商业联合会和工会的强烈批评，但同时进行了一场有争议的气候辩论。本研究旨在为气候政策制定提供有价值的经验教训，在一系列深入访谈和文件审查的基础上，探讨了影响委员会工作和成果的主要因素。研究设计与政策过程理论相关。访谈主要涉及潜在动机、知识的作用、影响评估的影响、和国际影响力。事实表明，委员会中持续和全面的学习过程有助于达成共识，包括解决一些成员对政策成本和合宪性的担忧。委员会还受到其他地方政策发展的影响，称为政策扩散，特别是来自英国气候变化法案和 UNFCCC COP 21 政策进程。随着时间的推移，委员会成员之间形成了跨党派共识，并导致了原始政策提案的发明。共识有助于在原本存在冲突的政治环境中为该提案提供支持。结果，基于该提案的政府法案最终被颁布为法律，通过与雄心勃勃的气候目标相结合的气候变化法案更新瑞典的气候政策。

关键政策见解

• 就实际复杂且在规范上存在争议的气候问题进行联合学习需要时间和全面的过程，但可以带来政策发明和雄心勃勃的成果。

• 国家之间的政策传播对于提高国家气候政策的雄心和塑造创新的新要素可能很重要。

• 框架气候变化法案和具体的气候法律可以相互支持，即框架促进了更有雄心的部门法律和更精确的部门法律，更容易就更严格的总体目标达成一致。

• 采用更严格的气候政策可能需要精确消除反对行动的论点，尤其是政策成本。