A new study shows that, like it or not, UK politicians are increasingly taking to Twitter. They are constantly co-opting the idea of “climate pragmatism” to delay and weaken action on climate change. Our team of researchers interviewed MPs for nearly a decade. These conversations were an incredible reminder of the progress we’ve made in climate political discourse. This research raises major red flags. This example illustrates how such language has the potential to undermine the UK’s ambitious climate targets in a context already rife with political polarization and a harmful economic agenda.
This research highlights that a significant number of elected officials shroud their climate plans in an umbrella of pragmatism. They usually defend this strategy as an effort to protect the fragile political consensus that exists in support of achieving net zero emissions. This term is quickly picking up steam as opposition builds from conceited leaders of the Conservative/RE-Form parties. At the same time, Labour leader Keir Starmer is under pressure from his own party to row back on net zero plans.
Political Divisions and Climate Skepticism
Keir Starmer’s leadership will be under great strain as he attempts to reconcile deliverance of such lofty climate aims with parallel commitments to enhance economic growth. Starmer’s government is under pressure to reconcile its commitment to net zero emissions with plans for infrastructure projects, such as a new runway at Heathrow airport. This tension between progressive environmental aspirations and the competing needs of economic development highlights the contradictions baked into today’s climate politics.
Alarm over this rollback is coming from notable quarters, even from former Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. The authors warn against treating climate change as a crisis. Sunak recently referred to “pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic” climate actions after announcing hundreds of new licenses for oil and gas fields in the North Sea. Environmental advocates have denounced this action. What they don’t dispute is that it doesn’t come close to meeting the urgency required to address climate change head on.
Kemi Badenoch, another key political figure, described her strategy to “maximize extraction” of the UK’s oil and gas resources from the North Sea as a “common sense” energy policy. This position is emblematic of a larger trend among politicians who are pushing for incremental and partial changes instead of full, systemic reforms.
“A realistic voice in the climate debate is required, neither ideological nor alarmist but pragmatic.” – The report
Implications of Climate Pragmatism
Climate pragmatism presents a dangerous precedent on rhetorical grounds alone, but what would that mean for the UK’s future climate goals? Critics contend that this approach will further encourage the development of less transformative solutions and lead to a cycle of continued delay. The report’s key finding is that the UK has indeed succeeded in cutting emissions by half since 1990. That progress is now at risk from policies at all levels of government, particularly harmful road-building programs and a failure to insulate housing.
As Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, recently stated, there’s some irrationality that has infected debate about climate change today. He advises that approaches based on a rapid future fossil fuel exit will prove insufficient and unsuccessful. He argues that hard caps on consumption are not the answer. This is a sentiment echoed by numerous MPs. Given all of this, they argue for a more incremental approach that accepts the messy realities of public opinion.
“People know that the current state of debate over climate change is riven with irrationality.” – Tony Blair
A growing group of MPs are warning that the fallout from radical climate policies on communities’ quality of life is an unacceptable cost. One MP noted, “Do you realize what the consequences of that will be… you’d have a revolution in Britain if you tried to do that, in terms of destroying people’s quality of life.” Her remark highlights the tightrope walk politicians need to perform between striving for bold environmental progress and maintaining political feasibility.
The Future of Climate Policy in the UK
As the political landscape continues to evolve, the challenge remains: how to effectively address climate change while accommodating economic growth and public sentiment. Starmer’s government finds itself at a crossroads, needing to navigate its net zero commitments alongside projects that may contradict these aims.
The growing influence of climate pragmatism in political circles could be a double-edged sword. This strategy attempts to counter that by making climate policy more attractive. It risks undermining the bold action that is urgently needed to fulfill the commitments to reach our climate goals. MPs have rightly pointed out the need to take people with them on the path towards sustainable practices.
“First and foremost be pragmatic. Accept incremental change because incremental change often accelerates, but you take people with you. If you didn’t take people with you, you’ll start getting resistance.” – An MP
This small study raises a critical question. Pragmatism will be key to reaching political consensus in the near-term, but we cannot trade away our long-term environmental priorities. As opposition continues to mount, debates are getting more heated. So UK politicians need to be looking for the sweet spot where ambition meets realism in their discussion of the path to climate action.