ABSTRACT

Australia is a well-known climate laggard with a history of political conflict over climate policy and the dubious distinction of being the only country to repeal a national emissions trading scheme (ETS). This article examines the puzzle of why four subnational governments in Australia’s federation succeeded in enacting durable framework climate legislation based on a model that came to be widely regarded as ‘best-practice’. We show that in 2007 South Australia was the first jurisdiction in the world to enact framework climate legislation with a 2050 emissions reduction target and an independent expert advisory committee to provide guidance on the implementation of interim targets. We show that this local legislative innovation set off a process of political learning, policy transfer and a virtuous political competition among like-minded Labour and Labour-Green governments at the subnational level. We call this ‘convergent evolution’ insofar as the legislative innovation and diffusion over the period 2007–2015 was similar to, but occurred independently of, the UK Climate Change Act 2008 and the diffusion of this model elsewhere in Europe. Common to all cases was a strong commitment by the premier and/or the relevant minister to pursue a decarbonisation strategy via targets, and reliance on sources of advice for legislative reform that were professionally and/or politically committed to climate action rather than from vested industry groups. More generally, we argue that framework climate legislation carries lower political risks than an ETS because it does not draw attention to the upfront costs of action. The diffusion of subnational climate change legislation, accompanied by renewable energy promotion, has helped to limit the impacts of Australian national climate policy failure while also providing a springboard for renewed climate legislative momentum at the national level.

Key Policy Insights

• Similar innovations in climate policy and legislation can occur independently in different regions in response to similar global pressures.

• Framework climate legislation based on long-term and progressive interim targets carries lower political risks than an ETS because it does not draw as much attention to the upfront costs of action.

• Innovation in subnational framework climate legislation in a federation can generate a virtuous competition in target setting and renewable energy promotion in states that are not heavily dependent on fossil fuels or close to retiring fossil fuel assets.

摘要

澳大利亚是一个众所周知的气候落后者，在气候政策方面有政治冲突的历史，并且是唯一一个废除国家排放交易计划 (ETS) 的国家。本文探讨了为什么澳大利亚联邦的四个地方政府能够基于一个被广泛认为是“最佳实践”的模型成功制定持久框架气候立法的难题。我们表明，南澳大利亚在 2007 年是世界上第一个制定框架气候立法的司法管辖区，其 2050 年减排目标和独立专家咨询委员会为临时目标的实施提供指导。我们表明，这种地方立法创新引发了政治学习的过程，政策转移和在地方层面志同道合的工党和工党绿色政府之间的良性政治竞争。我们称之为“趋同演变”，因为 2007 年至 2015 年期间的立法创新和传播与 2008 年英国气候变化法案和该模型在欧洲其他地方的传播相似，但独立于其发生。所有案例的共同点是，总理和/或相关部长坚定承诺通过目标实施脱碳战略，并依赖专业和/或政治上致力于气候行动的立法改革建议来源，而不是来自既得行业组。更一般地说，我们认为框架气候立法比 ETS 具有更低的政治风险，因为它没有引起人们对行动的前期成本的关注。

关键政策见解

• 气候政策和立法方面的类似创新可以在不同地区独立发生，以应对类似的全球压力。

• 基于长期和渐进的临时目标的框架气候立法比 ETS 具有更低的政治风险，因为它没有引起对行动的前期成本的太多关注。

• 在不严重依赖化石燃料或接近退役化石燃料资产的州，联邦的地方气候立法创新可以在目标设定和可再生能源推广方面产生良性竞争。