Credit CC By 2.0

Dr Josh Lait, Prof Tim Foxon,  Dr Andrew Sudmant, and Mr Ruaidhri Higgins-Lavery. 

This has previously been published on the EDRC site: https://www.edrc.ac.uk/news-blog/climate-action-is-undervalued-how-can-we-fix-that/

A backlash against the United Kingdom’s net-zero commitments is growing. It tends to rest on two simple claims:

1. Reaching net zero is expensive. 
2. This cost will unfairly impact the most vulnerable in society.

As the most effective misleading claims usually do, each has a kernel of truth. The annual net cost of reaching net zero is expected to peak at £33 billion in 2029, before falling as technology improves and operational savings kick in, eventually leading to net savings by 2041. The ‘front-loaded’ cost is a real challenge, especially for a government seeking re-election in 2029. And energy bills are a real and legitimate concern for households, businesses and local government.

But this narrow focus on costs misses a much bigger picture.

Climate action is undervalued. This is a problem

Today, energy and climate policies are mostly judged on their direct monetary costs and benefits, like the price of installing heat pumps or the savings on energy bills.

Our joint research with the Edinburgh Climate Change Institute (ECCI) shows that this approach systematically undervalues climate action, especially measures that reduce energy demand.  

Based on direct monetary costs and benefits, demand-side solutions, such as promoting active travel, dietary changes, and warmer homes, can appear less attractive to elected officials than large-scale energy supply-side projects. This form of assessment can make energy demand solutions appear less aligned with the UK Government’s aim to promote economic growth. 

This is misleading.

Valuing climate action more effectively

Many climate actions deliver a wide range of social, economic, and environmental benefits – often called ‘co-benefits’.

For example, investing in walking, cycling, and wheeling doesn’t just cut emissions it also:

• improves physical and mental health;
• reduces air and noise pollution;
• eases congestion.

These benefits are real and are valuable. Yet they are often overlooked or treated as secondary in local authority climate decision-making.

Implementing measures to meet the UK’s 2033-2037 climate targets for six city regions across Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England suggest that they could yield up to £164 billion in net benefits. 79% of these benefits are social benefits that come from demand-side solutions which improve health outcomes, reduce congestion, and create warmer homes.

Why this matters

Highlighting this ‘hidden value’ can shift the current debate on reaching net zero. If climate action is seen only as a cost, the recent backlash will grow. However, if its full benefits are recognised, especially for health, fairness, and quality of life, it becomes easier to build political and public support for local climate action.

Encouragingly, local authorities are starting to move in this direction.

New tools assess the multiple benefits of climate action

Our new policy brief shows that local authorities are beginning to use new tools to both identify and communicate the ‘hidden value’ of climate action to elected officials and the communities they serve. This can help build support for local climate initiatives, like promoting active travel or green home renovations.

These tools also show who benefits from climate action, who pays, and where burdens fall. They do this using maps, neighbourhood breakdowns, analysis of impacts on protected characteristics or types of household, and expert judgement. Examples include the UK Co-benefits Data Atlas, the Carbon and Co-benefits Decision Support Tool, and Cornwall Development and Decision Wheel.

They help local authority decision-makers design policies that more fairly distribute the costs, benefits, and risks of low-carbon actions – for example, prioritising active travel in deprived areas with poor air quality and road safety.

What policy experts are saying

At a recent webinar on our joint EDRC-ECCI policy brief, Dr Sean Field, a lead analyst seconded at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, said:

“What’s really exciting is that the UK Co-benefits Atlas itself takes a slightly different approach, looking at whole areas and a wide range of benefits, and putting a monetary value on those. I think this is one of the areas of deep interest in policy circles in Whitehall…. The next step is to translate these benefits into business cases that local authorities can pick up and incorporate into their proposals.”

Jamie Brogan, Strategy Director at the Scottish Climate Intelligence Service added:

“We know that attracting investment is challenging, and that most local authority climate projects do not stack up under a traditional return-on-investment model. Co-benefits help to address this by making a broader case for action. We also know that local authorities are tackling a highly complex challenge and will only make progress if they can demonstrate benefits across multiple policy priorities. In turn, this helps local climate policy teams engage other policy teams and organisations.”

What needs to happen next

We argue in our new policy brief that national guidance is needed to help local authorities:

• maximise the wider benefits of climate action;
• minimise adverse impacts on the most vulnerable in our local communities.

One practical step would be to issue supplementary guidance to the Treasury’s Green Book for local authorities on multiple benefit assessments. The Green Book is national guidance on the process of assessing the costs, benefits, and risks of different policies for achieving government objectives.

Currently, new tools are being implemented without public consultation. This is a problem.

Our research shows decision-makers and communities think about benefits and risks differently. Local authority decision-makers focus on longer-term, area-wide impacts. Where possible, they monetise these impacts to align a local business case for action with national guidance.

For example, multiple benefit assessments for Derry City and Strabane suggest potential health benefits from active travel valued at £165 million, alongside air quality improvements valued at £110 million and noise reductions valued at £134 million over 2025 to 2050. This evidence is not as persuasive to local communities, who understand benefits and risks of climate action through their lived experiences of local neighbourhoods and public services.

We argue how communities understand benefits and risks should also inform the criteria for multiple benefit assessments. For example, real-world stories about the immediate benefits and fairness of local authority climate decisions and initiatives could help counter the view that costs and burdens fall unfairly on the most vulnerable in the UK.

In the longer term, regulation could require local authorities to assess the multiple benefits of climate action.

Climate action isn’t just a cost. It’s an investment in our local communities, where the returns are currently being overlooked.

Related papers

Lait, J., Foxon, T. J., Higgins-Lavery, R. & Sudmant, A. (2026). Valuing the multiple benefits of local authority climate action in the UK – Energy Demand Research Centre. Energy Demand Research Centre (EDRC), Policy Brief 5. https://www.edrc.ac.uk/publications/valuing-the-multiple-benefits-of-local-authority-climate-action-in-the-uk/.

Lait, J., Foxon, T.J., McLachlan, C. and Sudmant, A. (2026). Valuing the wider benefits of net zero: Conceptual foundations of new assessment frameworks in the United Kingdom. Energy Research & Social Science, 131:104516. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2025.104516.

Lait, J. and Foxon, T.J. (2026). Decision-support tools for the assessment of co-benefits: Insights from UK energy and climate policy. Energy Policy, 211: 115174. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2026.115174.

Follow Sussex Energy Group