英国气候治理中证据和专业知识的使用:坎布里亚煤矿案例。

UCL open environment Pub Date : 2024-02-06 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.14324/111.444/ucloe.000068
Rebecca Willis
{"title":"英国气候治理中证据和专业知识的使用:坎布里亚煤矿案例。","authors":"Rebecca Willis","doi":"10.14324/111.444/ucloe.000068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is an overall scientific consensus that no new coal mines can be developed, if the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rises is to be met. Yet in December 2022, following a lengthy Public Inquiry, the UK Government approved the development of Woodhouse Colliery in Cumbria. In doing so, it accepted the claim that the coal mine would be 'zero carbon' and could even result in lower global emissions overall. As this paper demonstrates, there is no independent evidence to support these claims, whilst a large body of independent evidence comes to the opposite conclusion. This paper uses the example of Woodhouse Colliery to examine the use of evidence and expertise in climate governance processes. It finds that the nature of expertise and evidence is not properly considered, and that there is ambiguity and confusion surrounding the implementation of the UK's climate legislation, particularly the Climate Change Act. It also finds that the ways in which the decision-making process solicited and assessed evidence was flawed, promoting a 'false balance'. This ambiguity and false balance provide scope for developers to argue the case for destructive developments, even while claiming adherence to climate ambitions. The paper concludes by suggesting reforms to governance processes, to provide a more transparent and credible implementation of policies to achieve the UK's net zero target. Suggested reforms include clearer rules governing fossil fuel phase-out; greater transparency and better handling of conflicts of interest in decision-making; and devolution of climate responsibilities to local areas.</p>","PeriodicalId":75271,"journal":{"name":"UCL open environment","volume":"6 ","pages":"e068"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10851706/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of evidence and expertise in UK climate governance: the case of the Cumbrian Coal Mine.\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca Willis\",\"doi\":\"10.14324/111.444/ucloe.000068\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>There is an overall scientific consensus that no new coal mines can be developed, if the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rises is to be met. Yet in December 2022, following a lengthy Public Inquiry, the UK Government approved the development of Woodhouse Colliery in Cumbria. In doing so, it accepted the claim that the coal mine would be 'zero carbon' and could even result in lower global emissions overall. As this paper demonstrates, there is no independent evidence to support these claims, whilst a large body of independent evidence comes to the opposite conclusion. This paper uses the example of Woodhouse Colliery to examine the use of evidence and expertise in climate governance processes. It finds that the nature of expertise and evidence is not properly considered, and that there is ambiguity and confusion surrounding the implementation of the UK's climate legislation, particularly the Climate Change Act. It also finds that the ways in which the decision-making process solicited and assessed evidence was flawed, promoting a 'false balance'. This ambiguity and false balance provide scope for developers to argue the case for destructive developments, even while claiming adherence to climate ambitions. The paper concludes by suggesting reforms to governance processes, to provide a more transparent and credible implementation of policies to achieve the UK's net zero target. Suggested reforms include clearer rules governing fossil fuel phase-out; greater transparency and better handling of conflicts of interest in decision-making; and devolution of climate responsibilities to local areas.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"UCL open environment\",\"volume\":\"6 \",\"pages\":\"e068\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10851706/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"UCL open environment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444/ucloe.000068\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"UCL open environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444/ucloe.000068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

科学界普遍认为,要想实现《巴黎协定》限制全球气温上升的目标,就不能再开发新的煤矿。然而,2022 年 12 月,在经过漫长的公众调查之后,英国政府批准了坎布里亚伍德豪斯煤矿的开发项目。在此过程中,政府接受了该煤矿将实现 "零碳 "的说法,甚至可以降低全球总体排放量。正如本文所述,没有独立证据支持这些说法,而大量独立证据却得出了相反的结论。本文以伍德豪斯煤矿为例,探讨了气候治理过程中证据和专业知识的使用。本文发现,专业知识和证据的性质没有得到适当考虑,英国气候立法(尤其是《气候变化法》)的实施存在模糊性和混乱性。报告还发现,决策过程中收集和评估证据的方式存在缺陷,造成了 "虚假平衡"。这种模棱两可和虚假的平衡为开发商提供了为破坏性开发辩护的空间,即使他们声称遵守气候目标。本文最后建议改革治理程序,以更透明、更可信的方式实施政策,实现英国的净零目标。建议的改革包括:制定更明确的化石燃料淘汰规则;提高决策透明度,更好地处理决策中的利益冲突;将气候责任下放到地方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Use of evidence and expertise in UK climate governance: the case of the Cumbrian Coal Mine.

There is an overall scientific consensus that no new coal mines can be developed, if the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rises is to be met. Yet in December 2022, following a lengthy Public Inquiry, the UK Government approved the development of Woodhouse Colliery in Cumbria. In doing so, it accepted the claim that the coal mine would be 'zero carbon' and could even result in lower global emissions overall. As this paper demonstrates, there is no independent evidence to support these claims, whilst a large body of independent evidence comes to the opposite conclusion. This paper uses the example of Woodhouse Colliery to examine the use of evidence and expertise in climate governance processes. It finds that the nature of expertise and evidence is not properly considered, and that there is ambiguity and confusion surrounding the implementation of the UK's climate legislation, particularly the Climate Change Act. It also finds that the ways in which the decision-making process solicited and assessed evidence was flawed, promoting a 'false balance'. This ambiguity and false balance provide scope for developers to argue the case for destructive developments, even while claiming adherence to climate ambitions. The paper concludes by suggesting reforms to governance processes, to provide a more transparent and credible implementation of policies to achieve the UK's net zero target. Suggested reforms include clearer rules governing fossil fuel phase-out; greater transparency and better handling of conflicts of interest in decision-making; and devolution of climate responsibilities to local areas.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
Procedural justice and (in)equitable participation in climate negotiations. Miniaturisation of the Daphnia magna immobilisation assay for the reliable testing of low volume samples. A virtual global carbon price is essential to drive rapid decarbonisation. Urinary arsenic species and birth outcomes in Tacna, Peru, 2019: a prospective cohort study. Hydrophobic treatments and their application with internal wall insulation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1