17 March 2026
Challenging the way climate policy and climate programmes think about realising Net Zero
With the first of seven earth system tipping points crossed, a need for immediate reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has never been more acute. Yet the fastest way to achieve emissions reductions may (in some cases) be to shift our focus away from carbon.
Our work on the co-benefits of climate action seeks to challenge the way climate policy and climate programs think about realising Net Zero. Bikes lanes, heat pumps, electric cars, solar panels - the ‘technologies’ of the Net Zero transition - are rarely installed with climate change front of mind for the consumers, businesses and governments that pay for them. Instead, it is energy savings, warmer homes, mobility and public health that more commonly drive climate action.
In this thought leadership piece, we present our work on the UK Co-Benefits Atlas, an interactive website that explores the co-benefits of climate action across 46,000 communities in the UK. We start by exploring what the co-benefits of climate action mean for achieving Net Zero here in the UK. Following this we explore how local governments in the UK can use co-benefits to accelerate climate delivery.
How co-benefits reframe climate action in the UK
Built by the Edinburgh Climate Change Institute in partnership with a team from the School of Informatics and funding from Scotland Beyond Net Zero, the UK Co-Benefits Atlas models social and economic impacts of climate action across more than 46,000 local areas in the UK. Combining climate interventions recommended by the UK Climate Change Committee with place-based data on demographics, air quality, transport connections, and the built environment, the Atlas shows how air quality, noise, congestion, levels of physical activity, and indoor air temperatures (among other factors) are likely to change as a result of climate actions.
Five key findings come from this work:
1. The social impacts of climate action are substantial
Putting together the recommendations from the UK Climate Change Committee (CCC), the statutory body tasked with providing recommendations to the UK government on how to reach Net Zero, we find £160 billion in benefits to the UK public from actions in the domestic and transport sectors, or almost £2400 per person. This means that the social benefits of realising Net Zero from actions in the domestic and transport sector alone will be almost 50% larger than what the CCC thinks the net cost of reaching Net Zero will be (approximately £110 billion (Climate Change Committee, 2025)).
2. No single co-benefit of climate action dominates
Across the 11 co-benefits of climate action assessed, no single co-benefit dominates. Physical activity (which leads to improvements in public health) are the largest source of co-benefits in the UK, but reductions in noise, and improvements in air quality are also substantial sources of indirect benefits from climate action. Hassle costs, the cost of time from longer travel journeys, are a substantial cost of our current climate plans and the cost of increases in congestion is significant as well.
3. Not all ‘co-benefits’ are benefits
Despite their name, the ‘co-benefits’ of climate action can be positive, negative or neutral. In our modelling of the CCC recommendations for climate action, a shift to electric cars is found to increase traffic congestion. Negative co-benefits also arise from ‘hassle costs’, the extra time it takes to travel when cycling or walking (which is often a part of journeys on public transport). These ‘time costs’ are almost always significantly smaller than the benefits from physical activity, reduced noise, reduced road repair, reduced congestion, and improved air quality that come from increased non-motorised and public transport travel.
4. The benefits are today – if we choose to realise them
The Stern Report (2008), an assessment of the economics of climate action in the UK, established that the costs of climate inaction are much greater than the costs of climate action. More recent research, written as technologies have improved and fallen in cost, has found that climate actions very frequently provide strong financial returns, making climate action cost effective even without considering the costs and climate inaction (IEA 2023).
Putting the co-benefits at the heart of climate action changes the story again. The non-financial case for climate action is not only larger than the financial case – 6 times larger based on our work assessing climate action plans in the UK (Sudmant et al 2025) – but the social benefits arrive much more quickly. Missed days at school and work, avoided trips to the hospital, and even reduce premature mortality arrive before the financial returns of climate actions.
5. Different places will see different co-benefits
The financial case for specific climate actions varies only modestly across the UK. The cost of a heat pump or the amount of energy (and therefore expenditure) saved by travelling by bus instead of car, is similar whether you live in London or the Outer Hebrides. The co-benefits of those actions, however, may be dramatically different. In urban contexts, improved air quality provides a strong component of the co-benefits case for climate action. By contrast, in more rural areas warmer homes, increased physical activity (realised by the walking and cycling trips on either end of bus trips), and improved connectivity, are larger co-benefits of climate actions.
Co-benefits and accelerating climate delivery
A stronger case for climate action is only meaningful insofar as it helps realise real progress towards Net Zero. But for local government’s strained by austerity, the legacy of Covid-19, and the energy bills crisis, how can the case for climate action made by co-benefits be turned into action? Below we suggest three ways local governments can put co-benefits to work.
1. Co-benefits for political mobilisation
Public support for climate delivery is fragile when policies are presented as distant targets or as costs without visible gains. Conversely, policy packages gain acceptance when they are designed around everyday improvements in health, affordability, safety, and mobility rather than carbon metrics alone (Dasandi et al 2023).
Turning co-benefits into political mobilisation rests on disciplined narrative work and credible evidence. Councils should quantify local co benefits alongside emissions for every major decision, drawing on Green Book aligned valuation guidance for energy, air quality, travel time, and distributional impacts, and then standardising their presentation across cabinet papers, consultations, and scrutiny. Adopting consistent metrics for wider benefits and embedding them into corporate reporting and devolution deals, gives communications teams a common language that resonates beyond climate constituencies (UK100, 2025).
Bradford framed its Clean Air Zone around child health and clinical demand, and early evaluations report reduced nitrogen dioxide and fewer GP visits for respiratory conditions, with measurable savings to health budgets that reinforced public support (Bradford Teaching Hospitals, 2024; National Institute for Health and Care Research, 2025).
2. Co-benefits for coordination within and between local authorities
Delivery stalls when responsibilities are fragmented, funding arrives in short term pots, and partners work to different indicators. Councils hold many statutory duties but no single statutory climate duty, so projects default to single service briefs that generate avoidable disruption and thin results.
Co-benefits can support coordination within Councils and between Councils and national government. A cross council co-benefits map can trace how priority programmes advance the corporate plan and partner mandates. Programme management offices should require benefit registers with named data owners across housing, transport, public health, education, and skills. Institutionalisation follows through governance. A standing co-benefits board chaired by a senior executive can convene the integrated care system, transport authority, housing providers, and anchor institutions to agree shared indicators, pooled evaluation, and joint commissioning where justified.
In London, the Mini Holland programme linked transport, health, and regeneration teams behind shared indicators for physical activity and access that have helped sustain cross departmental commitment (Aldred, 2024).
3. Co-benefits for structuring the financial challenge of climate delivery
Local governments face binding fiscal constraints and rising statutory pressures which narrow headroom for preventive investment and make climate delivery vulnerable to short budget cycles. Translating diffuse social value into identifiable savings and avoided costs can play a part in addressing these challenges in two ways.
Innovative financing approaches can leverage co‑benefits to attract new investors and partners, and lower the cost of borrowing. Local Climate Bonds (community municipal investments) let residents invest directly in council climate projects. West Berkshire Council, for instance, raised £1 million from 643 local investors to install solar panels on public buildings and fund tree planting, while Islington and Camden Boroughs have issued bonds for electric vehicle chargers and fleet electrification (Green Finance Institute, 2024; West Berkshire Council, 2020; Camden Council, 2022; Islington Council, 2025). Core to the case for Local Climate Bonds are the social benefits for communities in the form of lower energy bills, green jobs, and cleaner air. Councils are also pioneering blended finance models that monetize co‑benefits. Devon’s “Connecting the Culm” flood resilience project expects ~75% of capital from government grants and the remainder from an innovative mix of sources by quantifying avoided flood damages, insurance savings, and developer contributions in its business case (Connecting the Culm Working Group & Green Finance Institute, 2024). Councils are also finding innovative ways monetise co-benefits. Nottingham’s Workplace Parking Levy hypothecates local revenue from employer parking to fund public transport and active travel, turning a congestion and air quality co benefit into an investable and predictable income stream that underwrites climate delivery (Dale, 2023).
Co‑benefits are also key to unlocking existing funding streams by strengthening the social value case. Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) finance, a mainstay of Council capital programs, has historically seen limited use for climate investments due to the challenge of demonstrating public value beyond emissions reductions (HM Treasury, 2023). Quantified co-benefits framed through Green Book methods recast retrofits, clean heat and active travel as health, housing and transport services, which makes Public Works Loan Board borrowing both eligible and defensible under the service delivery and regeneration categories.
Documented co-benefits can also help justify using health or housing funds for climate action. The same documentation and mapping of co-benefits that secure PWLB eligibility or funding from a national government program justify Councils directing climate spend through existing housing, public health, and regeneration programs. The “Warm Home Prescription” pilot for example covered vulnerable patients’ heating bills and basic home upgrades as a prescription, because keeping people warm and healthy was cheaper than treating cold-related illnesses (Energy Systems Catapult, 2023). Similarly, clean air initiatives have secured more support by quantifying co‑benefits. Birmingham’s Clean Air Zone showed major drops in asthma and heart-related GP visits, and the council is using these health savings data to lobby for additional funding and stricter air-quality rules (Birmingham City Council, 2024)
Conclusion: translating abstract budgets into real-world benefits
Reframing climate action through co-benefits turns a carbon target into a lived programme of public value. When councils and national agencies lead with cleaner air, warmer homes, safer streets, and lower bills, they translate abstract budgets into near term gains that residents and businesses can feel.
References
Aldred, R. (2024). How Low Traffic Neighbourhoods can reduce motor traffic and improve health. Active Travel Academy, University of Westminster.
Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. (2024, November 7). Bradford’s clean air initiative reduces demand on overstretched GPs: New research reveals.
Camden Council. (2022, March 2). Camden Council Community Municipal Investment proposal: Camden Climate Investment.
Climate Change Committee. (2025, February 26). The Seventh Carbon Budget.
Climate Change Committee. (2025, February 26). The Seventh Carbon Budget [Statutory advice report].
Dale, S., Calter, T., Barnfield, M., ElErian, A. F., Shilliday, A., & Corcoran, P. (2023). Workplace parking levies: Drivers of change for a clean growth future? A mixed methods case study of policy learning and cobenefits in Nottingham UK. Evaluation and Program Planning, 97, 102277.
Dasandi, N., Graham, H., Hudson, D., Jankin, S., van HeerdeHudson, J., & Watts, N. (2022). Positive, global, and health or environment framing bolsters public support for climate policies. Communications Earth & Environment, 3(1), 239.
Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. (2023, November 30). Valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal. UK Government.
Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. (2023, November 30). Valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal.
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. (2023, January 9). Air quality damage cost update 2023. UK Air.
Department for Transport. (2024, November). TAG data book. UK Government.
Green Finance Institute. (2024, December). Local Climate Bonds: Overview and case studies.
HM Treasury. (2022). The Green Book: Central government guidance on appraisal and evaluation. UK Government.
HM Treasury Debt Management Office. (2023, June 15). Public Works Loan Board: Lending guidance for councils.
International Energy Agency. (2023). Net zero roadmap: A global pathway to keep the 1.5 °C goal in reach. IEA.
Islington Council. (2025). Electric vehicle charging points.
National Institute for Health and Care Research. (2025, January 14). Bradford breathes easier as pollution levels fall.
Stern, N. (2008). The economics of climate change. American Economic Review, 98(2), 1–37.
Sudmant, A., & HigginsLavery, R. (2025). The cobenefits of reaching net zero in the UK, 2024–2025 [Dataset]. Edinburgh Climate Change Institute, University of Edinburgh.
UK100. (2025). Beyond targets: The wider benefits of climate action. UK100.
West Berkshire Council. (2020, October). West Berkshire Community Municipal Investment achieved £1,000,000.
Connecting the Culm Working Group & Green Finance Institute. (2024). Financing natural flood management: Connecting the Culm.
Find out more about our work
If this work captures your interest, please reach out.
Email cobens@ed.ac.uk
Andrew Sudmant
Data Programme Manager at the Edinburgh Climate Change Institute and member of the Centre of Business, Climate Change and Sustainability