Moving the Overton window

Abstract

By the time this editorial goes to press COP26 will be well underway. The meeting is an international negotiation with the potential to strengthen international climate policy and resolve, but it is also a moment to reflect and pay attention to climate change and the main response on the table so far. Anyone who has followed UNFCCC processes for a number of years will know that these meetings rarely deliver to the extent we need. Something that seems to be confirmed by the 2021 Emissions Gap Report, which takes stock of current national climate pledges, compares them to where emissions would need to be to limit warming to 1·5°C or 2°C above preindustrial levels (Paris Agreement compliance) and calculates the difference, which is the emissions gap. Suffice to say the gap is still large, and although there has been significant progress, a COP26 outcome compatible with the Paris Agreement is looking increasingly unlikely, not only in terms of emission pledges but also in terms of climate finance and adaptation actions. The reasons for this are of course many and complex, but part of the problem seems to lay with policy makers failing to understand or at least act on the seriousness and urgency of the challenge. For example, in the run up to hosting COP26, the UK government has attempted to grant licence for the opening of a new coal mine and continues to subsidise North Sea oil despite ending public financial support for fossil fuel projects overseas and just cut domestic flight duty. Some of this policy inconsistency is likely related to vested interest lobbying, but perhaps also insufficiently joined up governance and some attempt to try to balance existing domestic energy usage with rapidly evolving international markets. But why are such factors still dominating policy? Perhaps it lies in a sluggish Overton Window. The Overton window is a political science concept that represents the range of ideas the public is willing to consider and accept. In short it dictates what is politically acceptable and therefore possible at a given moment. The politically feasible can and does shift significantly over time, but it seems we still have much to do to enhance the space and importance of climate change and associated policies in contemporary Overton Windows. Although public concern about climate change has grown rapidly in recent years and is being shown to pose a serious threat to public health everywhere, though not equally, many policy responses are still proving to be politically unpalatable; for example demand-side measures that reduce energy use, except through improved efficiency, are generally perceived to be unpalatable compared with technological supply-side solutions. This can perhaps be traced back to notions about who and what is causing climate change and therefore who bears the most responsibility for change. As many climate activists are now pointing out, climate change is often framed as a problem for all of humanity. For example, the concept of the Anthropocene can seem to imply contemporary changes in the world are a human wide problem. However, it is not accurate or helpful to simply see climate and wider environmental problems as natural results of human vice. Clearly certain types of activities drive consumption more than others. On the supply side, just 20 firms are responsible for about 35% of greenhouse gas emission since 1965. On the demand side, national energy use and associated emissions differ dramatically by nation and perhaps even more notably by income group within nations, and these differences in energy use are only weakly linked to welfare beyond a certain point. Climate changes and wider issues of environmental and social injustice represent a powerful challenge and critique of certain aspects of contemporary economic and societal structure and power, but not to all ways to live everywhere. In moving forward beyond COP26 we need to populate our national and international Overton windows with an increasing visibility, and understanding of the seriousness and urgency, of the climate problem and an understanding of the costs of inaction as well as the costs of climate policy. But perhaps most of all, we need a wider understanding of who is responsible and benefits the most from greenhouse gas emissions, so we can see who should pay most and what activities need to change first for a healthier planetary future for everyone. The 2021 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: code red for a healthy futureThe Lancet Countdown is an international collaboration that independently monitors the health consequences of a changing climate. Publishing updated, new, and improved indicators each year, the Lancet Countdown represents the consensus of leading researchers from 43 academic institutions and UN agencies. The 44 indicators of this report expose an unabated rise in the health impacts of climate change and the current health consequences of the delayed and inconsistent response of countries around the globe—providing a clear imperative for accelerated action that puts the health of people and planet above all else. Full-Text PDF