Material efficiency is indispensable to reaching agreed targets for industry's energy and carbon emissions. Yet, in the EU, the energy-and emissions-saving potentials of this strategy continue to be framed as secondary outcomes of resource-related policies. Understanding why material efficiency has been overlooked as an energy/climate solution is a prerequisite for proposing ways of changing its framing, but existing studies have failed to do so. This paper fills this gap by triangulating interviews, policy documents and three policy theories: namely, historical and rational choice institutionalism, and multiple streams framework. Factors discouraging material efficiency as an energy and climate strategy include: difficulties in reframing the prevailing rationale to pursue it; the inadequacy of monitored indicators; the lack of high-level political buy-in from DG Energy and Clima; the ETS policy lock-in; uncoordinated policy management across Directorates; the lack of a designated industry lobby. Policy solutions are proposed. Before 2030, these are limited to minor amendments, e.g. guidance on embodied energy calculations or industry standards. Post-2030, more radical interventions are possible, such as introducing new fiscal drivers, redesigning the ETS emissions cap or benchmarks for allowances. This evidence suggests that the transition to a low-carbon industry will require Member State-and industry-level action.

The Multiple Streams Framework is applied to investigate why material efficiency solutions are a limited part of the climate policy agenda. The case study under investigation is the UK agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emission from cars. Evidence from 14 semi-structured interviews, document analysis and academic studies is used to develop and substantiate the arguments made. In the UK, inefficient material use is only perceived as a problem in so far as it increases in-use vehicle emissions, which disadvantages some material efficiency solutions. The appeal of material efficiency solutions is further limited by a lack of real-world and modelling evidence, creating uncertainty around the anticipated costs and impacts of any policy intervention. Recent political developments are unlikely to make the UK government more receptive to the problem of greenhouse gases arising from inefficient material use in the future. This is further compounded by policy lockin. Although a small community of policy entrepreneurs are promoting material efficiency solutions, they have disparate priorities, which impacts their effectiveness. The insights from this paper can inform future research and policy entrepreneurship to increase the likelihood of material efficiency solutions becoming a larger part of the climate policy agenda. The problem of climate change is too significant for any potential solutions to remain underexplored by policy-makers in the UK and the rest of the world.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract