Citizen’s climate assemblies
A Westminster Forum conference held in January was entitled “Priorities for UK climate policy following COP28”. Topics included financial markets, legal commitments, the Climate & Ecology Bill, a just transition, buildings and energy, and the Global Cooling Pledge. The introductory session addressed broader issues such as public attitudes to greenhouse gas reduction; arguments against climate action; climate and the social contract; and the role of citizens’ climate assemblies.
Following
the UK Parliament’s decision in 2019 to set in law a commitment to reach net
zero carbon emissions by 2050, a citizens’ assembly on climate change was set
up to consider how this target should be reached. The issues which it addressed
included how we travel; what we eat and buy; how we heat our homes and generate
our electricity; how we use the land; and the trade-offs involved in reaching
decisions on these issues. The Climate Assembly UK
Report, The path to net zero, is the outcome of this assembly (Climate
Assembly, 2020). It claims to show how a sample of people from all walks of
life “believe the UK should meet its net zero emissions commitments” in areas like
those on the Westminster Forum agenda and makes many policy recommendations. Assembly members identified seven recurrent themes in their
discussions, which may indicate persistent views in the UK. The themes are education
and information; fairness; freedom and choice; co-benefits; nature; leadership
from government; and a joined-up approach across society.
Education and information about climate change and how to
tackle it are seen as necessary for individuals, businesses and government to
ensure buy-in to the required changes. The solutions to climate change “are
neither easy nor free, but they need to be fair”. Fairness must acknowledge
differences in work, income, travel preferences, housing arrangements and
location within the UK. Freedom and choice should allow both individuals and local areas to choose the
solutions that work best for them provided this does not rule out “taking the
steps necessary to ensure a safe and healthy environment for future generations.”
The co-benefits from tackling climate change are seen as boosts to local
communities, high streets and businesses, the UK economy and innovation,
including technology, and improvements to health and reduction of pollution. Nature
was seen as in need of protection and restoration, and access to the natural
environment was viewed as important, as were “measures that have a positive
impact on biodiversity and wildlife”. Leadership from government produced some
of the strongest views, with a desire for “a cross-party consensus that allows
for certainty, long-term planning and a phased transition.” A joined-up
approach across society implies that everyone plays a part, and the
recommendations of the report “seek to provide individuals, communities and
organisations with the information, incentives and conditions to make change
possible.”
The Assembly seemed to regard climate change as a challenging problem,
both soluble and very much worth solving, but felt that lack of education and
information, together with weak leadership from government were the main
obstacles to finding a solution. The following paper focusses on the uses of
information and misinformation on climate change and gives a darker view.
Discourses
of climate delay is
the title of a study of those discourses which “accept the existence of climate
change, but justify inaction or inadequate efforts” (Lamb et al., 2020). The
authors describe four types of delay discourse: those that redirect
responsibility; those that push non-transformative solutions; those that emphasize
the downsides of climate policies; and those that surrender to climate change. They
are seen as “distinct from climate denialism, climate-impact scepticism and ad
hominem attacks”, but can “erode public and political support for climate
policies.”
The
discourses that redirect responsibility may argue that it is individuals and
consumers who should act, rather than organisations or governments; or that our
carbon footprint is trivial compared to that of some other group or country which
should therefore act first; or that since others have no real intention of
reducing their emissions, we would be foolish to act first. Discourses that push
non-transformative solutions may focus on developing current and future
technologies; or establish a legal framework and declare a climate emergency
then do nothing; or view continued fossil fuel use as a bridge to a zero-carbon
future; or avoid restrictions on fossil fuel use as they will fail. Discourses
that emphasis the downsides may argue that we should only adopt solutions that
are perfect for everyone; or that fossil fuels are necessary to allow poor
economies to develop; or that climate action will harm the vulnerable. Discourses
that advocate surrender may argue that change is impossible in a democratic
society; or that it is already too late to prevent climate change.
The authors
do not identify the motives behind discourses of delay, but note that the
arguments can be compelling, building on “legitimate concerns and fears as
societies move closer to addressing climate change”. Their sophistication
should not be understated, and “new strategies are developing all the time” but
“pre-emptively warning the public about misinformation can help build
resistance and ‘inoculate’ against climate denial”. It will also be necessary
to strengthen “public deliberation processes that highlight responsibility,
identify appropriate solutions, address social justice and ultimately show that
it is both possible and desirable to mitigate dangerous climate change.”
Rebecca
Willis relates climate change to the social contract, Covid and the work of Climate
Assembly UK (Willis, 2020). She describes the social contract as the deal
between citizens and the state in which the citizens agree to be ruled in
return for protection by their rulers: “surrendering some of our liberty to a
ruler benefits each person and society as a whole”.
The Covid
pandemic created a situation in which the UK population “agreed to the state
reaching far into their lives, dictating when they could leave their home and
who they could meet”. This could be seen as a rapid renegotiation of the social
contract showing that people are willing to “accept stringent measures, if they
see the need for them, and if they are given full information.”
This situation
can be compared to the climate change crisis. Willis reports that in the UK “politicians
have been reluctant to speak out about climate change, for fear of being
branded a ‘freak’ or a ‘zealot’ … There's a cost attached to speaking the
truth.” When climate experts are asked about the role of the state in relation
to climate change, they “go straight to the policy detail, without standing
back to consider the most fundamental point: the state is here to keep us safe.”
While climate action requires radical changes, these do not involve such
personal hardships as those endured during the pandemic. However, “without the
immediacy of the Covid-19 threat, kickstarting the radical climate action that
is required is difficult.” Prevarication and delay are easier for politicians
than action. A renegotiation of the social contract requires unflinching honesty about climate
change and for democracy to be seen as “part of the solution, not an
inconvenience to be bypassed.” Politicians hesitate to speak about the need for
urgent climate action, feeling a lack of public support, and public support is
undermined by lack of political leadership. “Climate politics has become a
silent stand-off, with neither citizens nor representatives willing to make the
first move.” Willis sees “processes like the Climate Assembly as a way of
making our democracy work better, giving politicians and citizens alike the
chance to contribute their expertise to a joint endeavour”.
The three
papers cited above all had connections with the Westminster Forum conference on
UK climate policy. The following publication takes a wider view, reporting on Climate
Assemblies across Europe and asking whether they improve policy and lead to
wider acceptance amongst the public (Smith, 2023). There have been over a dozen
recent European national assemblies, and interest in them “reflects a growing
recognition that such transitions need to engage the public directly, both to
ensure better policy-making and to improve acceptance of decisions which will
have significant effects on people’s day-to-day lives.” While they have
provided evidence that citizens can engage with difficult aspects of climate
policy, “too many expectations have been put on a novel democratic institution”
and Smith asks how climate assemblies can make more robust and sustained
impacts on climate governance.
Public
participation is understood as “direct engagement of everyday people in
political decision making” and its value can lie in bringing new ways of
approaching problems and articulating solutions; helping to break political
deadlocks; increasing public acceptance of social action on climate; and promoting
greater public climate awareness and political confidence. Recruitment methods should
ensure that “the assembly is not dominated by powerful and entrenched interests
or politicians worried about re-election.”
Smith gives
examples of the impacts of specific climate assemblies and describes areas for
improvement. These include ensuring that the mandate of the assembly is not too
broad but also not excluding “politically salient climate policy challenges”;
ensuring transparency about their recruitment, governance, and evidence base;
and preparing to follow up the assembly’s recommendations. The scepticism
towards climate assemblies of many within the climate community can be a
difficulty.
The Knowledge
Network On Climate Assemblies which published the report sees the assemblies as
“a promising development in climate governance” and aims “to improve the
commissioning, design, implementation, follow-up and evaluation of climate
assemblies to secure more robust and legitimate climate policy and governance.”
References
Climate
Assembly, 2020, The Path to Net Zero, Executive Summary, online, accessed 7 Feb 2024
https://www.climateassembly.uk/report/
Lamb, W.F.
et al., 2020, Discourses of climate delay, Global
Sustainability, July 2020, online, accessed 7 Feb 2024
Smith, G.,
2023, Climate assemblies: emerging trends, challenges and opportunities, Knowledge
Network on Climate Assemblies, online, accessed 7 Feb 2024
Willis, R., 2020,
A social contract for the climate crisis, Progressive Review vol. 27,
issue 2, online, accessed 7 Feb 2024
Comments
Post a Comment