Amid political turbulence, support for Britain’s climate policies continues

“HOWEVER we choose to leave the European Union, let me be clear, we remain committed to dealing with climate change,” declared Amber Rudd, Britain’s secretary of state for energy and climate change, on June 29th. A day later her words were seemingly supported, as the latest “carbon budget” was put before Parliament. Such budgets are a requirement of the Climate Change Act of 2008, which decreed that by 2050 Britain’s net emissions of greenhouse gases should be 80% lower than in 1990. The punctual publication of the latest one has reassured greens that climate policies need not be a casualty of the country’s current turmoil.

The latest carbon budget sets a cap on emissions between 2028 and 2032; four previous such budgets have specified caps for earlier five-year periods. The latest requires a 57% reduction in emissions by 2030 as measured against levels in 1990. Success has already been achieved through such mechanisms: pollution of this type has fallen by 38%. The Committee on Climate Change, an independent advisory body, recommended how the latest cap should be set in November 2015—back when many thought Britain voting to leave the EU was about as likely as the queen renouncing tea.

The plan to cut back by 57% exceeds the pledge Britain made jointly with the EU during the Paris climate talks last December. EU members offered at least a 40% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2030 (again compared with 1990 levels); they also proposed that the pledge be “fulfilled jointly”—countries would work out how to share the burden of cuts. Such an arrangement may need “recalibration” if Britain withdraws from the EU, according to Christiana Figueres, the outgoing UN climate boss. She remains optimistic, nonetheless, believing that the global shift to clean sources of energy and production methods is “unstoppable”. A looming Brexit may even speed up ratification of the Paris deal to keep warming to less than 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures; optimists hope proceedings can be wrapped up early next year.

Such bullishness may seem misplaced in Britain. Even before the EU referendum, policies appeared confused. The Department for Energy and Climate Change was already planning to slash subsidies for renewable energy over the coming decade, all the while touting its international leadership at climate negotiations. And despite repeated calls for affordable energy, the government supported plans to install a nuclear-power plant costing £18 billion ($24 billion) at Hinkley Point C in Somerset.

Ms Rudd says she does not believe this plan “will be impacted at all” by the current political turbulence. Given that Britain’s fate in the single European energy market is undecided, this may be over-optimistic. And whether or not Hinkley goes ahead, Britain still needs lots of power; Ms Rudd insists that coal-fired power stations will close by 2025.

Another problem is that Britain’s next prime minister may not support green initiatives. Some could even be rolled back (although the Climate Change Act received cross-party support when it passed eight years ago). David Cameron, the outgoing prime minister, used to cycle to work in a bid to be more environmentally friendly (his briefcase was less committed and travelled by car instead). One candidate to succeed him, Michael Gove, tried to have climate change removed from geography courses at schools when he was education secretary. Theresa May, his main rival and the bookies’ favourite, has said little on environmental policies.

Some support for leaving the EU came from those concerned for industry: failing British steel producers, for example, have faced high energy costs partly because of national levies exacted for climate policies. The new prime minister will have to contend with such gripes. Ms Rudd has said that an understanding of global warming is “absolutely central” to securing her support in a leadership contest. The uncertainty over Britain’s place in Europe will make it harder to entice investors into the British energy sector in the short term. But in the longer run, the new carbon budget offers some welcome clarity.