ABSTRACT

Climate Change Acts (CCAs) have become a key legislative tool to mitigate climate change. While various case studies have shown that ambition varies greatly, little is known about why this is the case. This comparative study aims to fill this gap by examining the emergence of six CCAs across four legislatures: Scotland (2009 and 2019), Austria (2011), Denmark (2014 and 2020) and Sweden (2017). We focus on climate change discourse broadly and processes of deliberation within legislatures specifically, to explore how they influenced the ambition of the six CCAs from our analysis. We combine extensive document analysis with 43 semi-structured interviews conducted between June 2018 and May 2019. We show that heightened attention at the discursive level combined with a strong deliberative process within legislatures to underpin all of the more ambitious CCAs. Overall, governments are more likely to adopt strong CCAs when prominent discursive junctures politicize climate policy and when parliamentary deliberation is strong. The overarching climate discourse and parliamentary deliberation had an even greater influence in our case studies than the political orientation of governments. Centre-left governments adopted weak GHG emission reduction targets at times of low political salience for climate but were more ambitious when supportive politicization of climate was present.

Key policy insights

• CCAs have very different levels of ambition. While some are merely symbolic, others set out ambitious climate policy frameworks.

• Climate policy discourse, in a broad sense, shapes the content of CCAs. Prominent discursive junctures can support ambitious legislation.

• The level of deliberation in parliaments is another factor that shapes CCAs. More deliberation often helps to raise ambitions, in particular when broader discursive conditions are in favour of climate issues.

• Supportive climate discourse and opportunities for deliberation had more influence on the ambition of CCAs (in particular on GHG emission reduction targets) than the political orientation of governments.

摘要

气候变化法案 (CCA) 已成为缓解气候变化的重要立法工具。虽然各种案例研究表明，雄心壮志差异很大，但人们对这种情况的原因知之甚少。这项比较研究旨在通过检查四个立法机构中六个 CCA 的出现来填补这一空白：苏格兰（2009 年和 2019 年）、奥地利（2011 年）、丹麦（2014 年和 2020 年）和瑞典（2017 年）。我们广泛关注气候变化话语，特别是立法机构内部的审议过程，以通过我们的分析探索它们如何影响六个 CCA 的雄心。我们将广泛的文件分析与 2018 年 6 月至 2019 年 5 月期间进行的 43 次半结构化访谈相结合。我们表明，在话语层面的高度关注与立法机构内强有力的审议过程相结合，以支持所有更雄心勃勃的 CCA。总体而言，当显着的话语关头将气候政策政治化并且议会审议很强时，政府更有可能采用强有力的 CCA。与政府的政治方向相比，总体气候话语和议会审议对我们的案例研究的影响更大。中左翼政府在气候政治显着性较低时采用了较弱的温室气体减排目标，但在存在支持性气候政治化时则更加雄心勃勃。当气候政策政治化的显着话语关头以及议会审议有力时，政府更有可能采用强有力的 CCA。与政府的政治方向相比，总体气候话语和议会审议对我们的案例研究的影响更大。中左翼政府在气候政治显着性较低时采用了较弱的温室气体减排目标，但在存在支持性气候政治化时则更加雄心勃勃。当气候政策政治化的显着话语关头以及议会审议有力时，政府更有可能采用强有力的 CCA。与政府的政治方向相比，总体气候话语和议会审议对我们的案例研究的影响更大。中左翼政府在气候政治显着性较低时采用了较弱的温室气体减排目标，但在存在支持性气候政治化时则更加雄心勃勃。

关键政策见解

• CCA 有不同程度的野心。虽然有些只是象征性的，但有些则制定了雄心勃勃的气候政策框架。

• 从广义上讲，气候政策话语塑造了 CCA 的内容。突出的话语关口可以支持雄心勃勃的立法。

• 议会的审议水平是影响共同国家评估的另一个因素。更多的审议往往有助于提高雄心，特别是当更广泛的话语条件有利于气候问题时。

• 与政府的政治方向相比，支持性气候话语和审议机会对 CCA 的雄心（尤其是温室气体减排目标）的影响更大。