Members of Carbon Co-op working on electronic equipment. Carbon Co-op helps its members achieve major energy and CO2 savings through retrofitting their homes. Ashden/Carbon Co-op on flickr.
When I first wrote this post (20th September), we were waiting for Rishi Sunak to make his speech widely trailed as watering down or delaying UK action on reducing climate-changing emissions. As I repurpose it for this blog, his speech about limiting local authorities’ powers to make streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists is being anticipated. Progress towards net zero is being seen by some in the Conservative Party as a 'wedge' issue in the run up to the next general election, despite polling showing solid cross-party support. But there is something going on: an understandable fear of unfairness or incompetence in policies to reduce emissions, fuelled by deliberate, cynical misinformation. How can governments (whether supra-national, national, regional or local) engage the public better on this issue?
Two new reports on engaging the public on tackling climate change look at how governments can best engage the public, and at what a national engagement strategy should be like. The reports were researched and produced by the UPPER coalition (Unlocking the Potential of Public Engagement to Reach net zero) which includes Climate Outreach, Ashden, Involve and the Climate Citizens Research Group at Lancaster University.
Why is public engagement hard?
There are a few reasons why engaging the public on climate issues is hard. There's the psychology of climate change as an existential issue - most people would rather not engage, because of the anxiety it causes. Then there's the low trust in the motives and competence of politicians. Add to this the fact that some of the 'hardest to decarbonise' areas of our lives, like travel and what we eat, are 'culturally loaded', as the report puts it. And there's the intersection with injustice and power: the people who are hit the hardest are those with the least ability to have their voice heard: 'disengaged people become fearful and frustrated'.
What should be in a national engagement strategy?
The UK government committed to producing a national engagement strategy at COP26, two years ago. Since they haven't done this yet, there's still a chance to get it right. The UPPER coalition suggests that the national strategy needs to:
be owned by the Secretary of State at DESNZ (the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero), co-designed with stakeholders including those with engagement and social science expertise;
be well-resourced, including ensuring all tiers of government have resources to implement it;
have specific strategies for 'hard to decarbonise' aspects of our lives including travel, diet, consumption and heating;
include measuring its impact, including by longitudinal surveys into public attitudes and understanding;
provide funding for multiple innovative approaches which can be implemented rapidly and their lessons about good practice shared fast.
The engagement goals should be:
"A manifest, widespread ‘common sense’ concern about climate change as a phenomenon that the government should act upon.
A widely held view that ‘I want to and feel able to do my bit’ in the key areas where both behaviour and systemic change are needed, such as transport, diet and energy use.
A widespread feeling, including amongst marginalised groups, that ‘I can influence decisions about tackling climate change in my local area’ and that ‘I have a say in what government does about climate change.’ "
How can people best be engaged?
‘What role for government? A practical guide to the types, roles and spaces of public engagement on climate’ is the twin report. It sets out some useful frameworks to help bring clarity to the why and how of public engagement.
Why?
It identified four purposes of engagement:
to raise awareness and understanding
to explicitly ask for action, such as changes to habits and lifestyles
to invite members of the public to shape decisions
to advocate for something
The report says that this fourth one is unlikely, although not impossible, for governments. I'm not sure that politicians would agree - given how frequently these days it's hard to tell the difference between a government announcement and political advocacy - although civil servants might.
What role for government?
In engagement, the report says, governments can drive, collaborate, facilitate, influence (the engagement), multiply and receive. It's my experience that this final one (listening to what people say, responding to it and being changed by it) is the area decision-makers like government usually find the hardest.
Of course government can play other roles in helping society move towards net zero and prepare us for climate impacts. Engagement is not its only role, and the report touches on other ways government can act including legislation, guidance, resourcing and so on.
Power
The report also has useful things to say about who is inviting whom to engage, and what the boundaries are.
Closed spaces - where a small group of decision-makers are acting behind closed doors, without engaging the wider public.
Invited spaces - where the decision-makers invite (certain) members of the public in to inform and influence its decisions. This might be through formal consultations, surveys, citizens assemblies or co-design.
Claimed spaces - where members of the public make their voice heard, without an invitation. This includes demonstrations, petitions and so on.
This is a very insightful way of thinking about power, who has it and how people generate their own when they feel excluded and have the ability to self-organise.
There are also some links to interesting examples in both reports. Let's hope our current Prime Minister and his cabinet pay attention.