The Effect of Geographic Agglomeration on the Efficacy and Welfare Consequences of Climate Action

If national climate plans match the priorities of the average community, to what extent does it matter that many communities are very different from the average? Using a dataset of c.33,000 community GHG footprints from Lower Level Super Output Areas in England made-up of 12 emissions sources, this analysis assesses the consequences of priority areas for climate action being set at different geographic levels. Results show that setting priorities at a local level could modestly increase the share of all emissions covered by a climate action plan. This suggests that the efficacy of a climate action plan may also be modestly improved by local prioritisation of climate actions. More significantly, the share of emissions covered by climate action is found to be dramatically less variable between communities when local priorities for action are used in place of national priorities. This suggests that the welfare consequences of action may also be shared more equally when local priorities guide action. These results show that the geographic lens applied to understanding the climate challenge – independent of governance approaches or policies for action – is a meaningful consideration for the efficacy and the welfare consequences of climate action. More generally, engaging with the effect of geographic agglomeration can help to inform the roles of national and local actors around prioritising and leading climate action. Further analysis is needed to understand how wider factors important to climate action, including capacity, are affected by agglomeration, whether these results hold in other nations, and how a dynamic assessment of climate action prioritisation over time might affect these results.