65
At the same time, the question of what all this targeting and goalsetting means for actual climate policy may also generate a different set of
answers. What if target-setting is more important and substantive than it
looks? Even if not all the rhetoric is translated into substantive policy,
could there be ways in which target-setting actually percolates into substantive policy-making practices?
This chapter reflects on the nature of target-setting, focusing in particular on climate and energy policy in cities. I recognise that target-setting
is a political-rhetorical practice, and therefore not necessarily representative of actual processes of transformation—we should expect a lot of hot
air. But I aim to go beyond the readily-at-hand analysis that suggests targets are simply vanity exercises without practical implications, and to look
deeper at the ways in which target-setting may in fact “trickle” up and
down in governance systems and—in a gradual way—facilitate transitions.
6.2 clImate Governance as PolItIcal-rhetorIcal
PractIce
Scholars have often taken a sceptical view of official climate discourses,
including their ambitious targets. It is common to see this discourse as
evading or purposely obfuscating the conflicts of interest and difficult
choices involved in meeting the climate challenge. Swyngedouw (2010),
for example, holds that the policy discourse on climate change is characteristic of the “post-political condition.” He has argued that reduction of
CO 2 emissions is inserted into a vast techno-managerial apparatus, “ranging from new eco-technologies of a variety of kinds to unruly complex
managerial and institutional configurations, with a view to producing a
socio-ecological fix to make sure nothing really changes” (p. 220,
italics mine).
In other words, instead of addressing the underlying substantive political challenges, conflicts of interests and difficult trade-offs of climatefriendly transformation, official climate discourse manages to produce a
set of interventions that harmonise with economic growth, the fossil economy, and so on, thus perpetuating business-as-usual practices. This is why
climate governance is, in the words of Methmann, an “empty signifier”—
it serves to integrate climate protection into the global hegemonic order
“without changing the basic social structures of the world economy”
(Methmann 2010: 348). Hegemonic governmental agents have been able
6 DO CLIMATE TARGETS MATTER? THE ACCOUNTABILITY…
At the same time, the question of what all this targeting and goalsetting means for actual climate policy may also generate a different set of
answers. What if target-setting is more important and substantive than it
looks? Even if not all the rhetoric is translated into substantive policy,
could there be ways in which target-setting actually percolates into substantive policy-making practices?
This chapter reflects on the nature of target-setting, focusing in particular on climate and energy policy in cities. I recognise that target-setting
is a political-rhetorical practice, and therefore not necessarily representative of actual processes of transformation—we should expect a lot of hot
air. But I aim to go beyond the readily-at-hand analysis that suggests targets are simply vanity exercises without practical implications, and to look
deeper at the ways in which target-setting may in fact “trickle” up and
down in governance systems and—in a gradual way—facilitate transitions.
6.2 clImate Governance as PolItIcal-rhetorIcal
PractIce
Scholars have often taken a sceptical view of official climate discourses,
including their ambitious targets. It is common to see this discourse as
evading or purposely obfuscating the conflicts of interest and difficult
choices involved in meeting the climate challenge. Swyngedouw (2010),
for example, holds that the policy discourse on climate change is characteristic of the “post-political condition.” He has argued that reduction of
CO 2 emissions is inserted into a vast techno-managerial apparatus, “ranging from new eco-technologies of a variety of kinds to unruly complex
managerial and institutional configurations, with a view to producing a
socio-ecological fix to make sure nothing really changes” (p. 220,
italics mine).
In other words, instead of addressing the underlying substantive political challenges, conflicts of interests and difficult trade-offs of climatefriendly transformation, official climate discourse manages to produce a
set of interventions that harmonise with economic growth, the fossil economy, and so on, thus perpetuating business-as-usual practices. This is why
climate governance is, in the words of Methmann, an “empty signifier”—
it serves to integrate climate protection into the global hegemonic order
“without changing the basic social structures of the world economy”
(Methmann 2010: 348). Hegemonic governmental agents have been able
6 DO CLIMATE TARGETS MATTER? THE ACCOUNTABILITY…