R E S U LTS R E P O RT
ASIA

AFRICANORTH AMERICA

SOUTH AMERICAEUROPEWorld Wide Views on Climate and Energy
F R O M T H E WO R L D ’ S C I TI Z E N S TO TH E C L I M ATE A N D E N E R GY P O L I CYM A K E R S A N D STA K E H O L D E R S

1 0 0 0 0 C ITI Z E N S, 9 7 D E BATE S I N 76 CO U NTR I E SARGENTINACHINESE TAIPEI - TAINANWORLD WIDE VIEWS ON CLIMATE AND ENERGY
From the world’s citizens to the climate and energy
policymakers and stakeholders

RESULTS REPORT
Published by the Danish Board of Technology Foundation,
Missions Publiques and the French National Commission
for Public Debate, September 2015

EDITORS:
Bjørn Bedsted, Global Coordinator of WWWViews
and Head of DBT International at the Danish Board ofTechnology Foundation
Yves Mathieu, Co-coordinator of WWViews on Climate
and Energy and Director of Missions Publiques
Christian Leyrit, Co-coordinator of WWViews on Climate
and Energy and President of the French National
Commission for Public Debate (CNDP)
ISBN 978-87-91614-04-0
Photos: WWViews partners
Map: Dixen Design

ZAMBIA

WWViews on Climate and Energy has succeeded, thanks tothe exemplary efforts of the national and regional partners
in the WWViews Alliance and the support of their sponsors.
We are especially grateful to the French Ministry of Ecology,
Sustainable Development and Energy (MEDDE), the French
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development(MAEDI), the Presidency of the French National Assembly,
the French National Commission for Public Debate (CNDP),
13 French Regions through the Association des Régions deFrance (Aquitaine, Auvergne, Basse-Normandie, Centre-Valde-Loire, Franche-Comté, Guadeloupe, Haute-Normandie,
Île-de-France, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Poitou-Charentes,
Provence-Alpes-Côte-d’Azur, La Réunion, Rhône-Alpes), ENGIE(GDF Suez), the German Federal Environment Agency, theEuropean Space Agency (ESA), the Fondation de France, theSocialist and European Greens (EELV) groups of the French
Senate, the Danish KR Foundation, the Norwegian Ministryof Climate and Environment, Grenoble-Alpes Métropole andthe city of Paris. These donations made the global coverageand scope of WWViews on Climate and Energy possible. We
are especially indebted to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat, which
has taken an active part in initiating and implementing thisglobal citizen consultation. Finally, we would like to express
our sincere gratitude to all the citizens around the world who
participated in WWViews on Climate and Energy.

Illustration: niels@bobojesen.com
Design: Dixen Design
This Results Report is available for download atclimateandenergy.wwviews.org

Climate neutralized

WWViews
c/o The Danish Board of Technology Foundation

6

Preface10

About the World Wide Views on Climate and Energy

8

Toldbodgade 12
DK-1253 Copenhagen K

20

Phone: +45 33320503

40

E-mail: tekno@tekno.dk

46

R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

Executive summary
Key findings

World results graphic

List of national and regional partners

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

IRAN

BARBADOSGERMANY

This Results Report is published by the Danish Board of Technology, Missions Publiques and the French
National Commission for Public Debate. It has been prepared based on input from WWViews partners
and with special support from following experts and WWViews partners:

Alexander Saier

UNFCCC

Germany

Andreas Hastrup Clemmensen

The Danish Board of Technology

Denmark

Antoine Vergne

Missions Publiques

FranceBenjamin Jullien

European Climate Foundation

FranceBjørn Bedsted

The Danish Board of Technology

Denmark

Carmen Bouley de Santiago

Missions Publiques

FranceChristian Leyrit

CNDP

FranceEmma Bothorel

CNDP

FranceFélix Fournier

CNDP

FranceGerard Wynn

GWG Energy

Holly Borday

The Danish Board of Technology

Hortense Philipot

CNDP

Joanna RosemondSaint Lucia National TrustSaint Lucia

John Stian Haukeland

The Danish Board of Technology

Denmark

Marie Hemmingsen

The Danish Board of Technology

DenmarkNanna Finne Skovrup

The Danish Board of Technology

Denmark

Rahul Karki

ForestAction

Rick Worthington

Pomona College

Sophie Engelmann

CNDP

FranceTyphanie Scognamiglio

Missions Publiques

FranceYasushi Ikebe

Japan Science and Technology Agency/Miraikan

Japan

Yves Mathieu

Missions Publiques		

FranceUnited Kingdom
Denmark
France

Nepal
USA

3
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

26 debates in Europe
213

4

31 debates in Africa

19 debates in the Americas

10 000 CITIZENS, 97 DEBATESIN 76 COUNTRIESCOU NTRI ES PARTICI PATI NG I N WORLD WI DE
VI EWS ON CLIMATE AN D EN ERGY• AFGHAN ISTAN

•

C HAD

•

GEORGIA•

ARGENTI NA•

C H I LE•GERMANY•BAHAMAS•C H I NA

•

GHANA

•

BANGLADESH•COMOROS•GR EEC E•

BAR BADOS•COSTA R ICA•GR ENADA•BEN I N•DENMAR K•

GUATEMALA•

BOSN IA-H ERZEGOVI NA•

DOMI N ICAN R EPU BLIC•GUYANA•BRAZI L•DR CONGO

•

HAITI

•

BU R KI NA FASO•ETH IOPIA•I N DIA•BU RU N DI

•

FIJ I

•

I N DON ESIA•CAMEROON•FRANC E

•

I RAN

•

CANADA

•

GABON

•

ITALY

•

CAPE VER DE•GAMBIA•JAPAN4
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

221 debates in Asia Oceania

2

Including 13 islands

•

KENYA

•

PALESTI N IAN TER R ITOR I ES

•

TOGO

•

KUWAIT•PERU•

TU N ISIA•

MADAGASCAR•PH I LI PPI N ES•

TU R KEY•

MALAYSIA•PORTUGAL•UGAN DA

•

MALI

•

ROMAN IA•U K - SCOTLAN D•

MAU R ITAN IA•

RUSSIA•USA•

MAU R ITI US•

RWAN DA•

VI ETNAM•

MOROCCO•SAI NT LUC IA•

ZAMBIA•MOZAMBIQU E•

SEN EGAL•ZIMBABWE•

MYANMAR•

SEYC H ELLES•N EPAL•

SOUTH AFR ICA•

N IGER•

SOUTH KOR EA•

N IGER IA•

SPAI N•PAKISTAN•SR I LAN KA

5F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

PREFACE
World Wide Views on Climate and Energy (WWViews on Climate and Energy) is a global democratic
deliberation on climate change and energy transition. It gathered citizen views on international climatechange and energy policy issues and disseminated them to policymakers involved in the UNFCCC
negotiations. It is part of the ambition and ongoing efforts by partners in the World Wide Views Alliance tohelp close a widening democratic gap between citizens and policymakers as policymaking grows increasingly
global in scale.

Governments have committed to promote “public
participation in addressing climate change and its
effects and developing adequate responses”, under Article
6 (now called Action for Climate Empowerment, ACE) of
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC).
WWViews on Climate and Energy contributes to this bygiving citizens worldwide a platform for stating theirviews on how to deal politically with climate change andthe energy transition. While experts, industries, strong
interest groups and NGOs have found ways to influenceand interact with international negotiations, ordinary
citizens have practically no role in this process. By
introducing the views of citizens into the negotiation
process and surrounding debates, policymakers will havea better basis for making decisions in tune with informed
public opinion. Furthermore, by including citizens in an
informed and structured exchange of views, they are
more likely to take an interest in climate change andenergy issues, to feel more ownership of decisions, andconsequently more inclined to support theimplementation of thosedecisions.
WWViews establishes a modelfor the future inclusion of theworld’s citizens in global
policymaking. In principle,
the project design can enable

all nations on Earth to take part in producing comparable
results that can be clearly communicated to policymakers.
WWViews on Climate and Energy implemented 97
debates involving around 10,000 citizens in 76 countries
spanning five continents. The citizens gathered in theirrespective countries to deliberate about some of the core
issues at stake in the ongoing, international discussions
and negotiations about how to deal with climate change.
They received balanced information about climate change
and energy, discussed the issues with fellow citizens andvoted individually on the questions presented to them.
They did so at daylong meetings on June 6, 2015.
This report analyses their answers and presents some of
the most significant results, which can be studied ingreater detail at climateandenergy.wwviews.org. The
report is aimed at policymakers and stakeholders withprior knowledge about climate change and energy issues,
and written by the WWViews coordinators in cooperation
with 106 national and regional WWViews partners.

We hope that political decision makers will make use of
the unique insights
presented by WWViews on
Climate and Energy, andWe are very excited that World Wide Views on
carefully consider the
Climate and Energy is being organized andviews of the citizens when
happy to collaborate with such an important
formulating the climate
initiative. Bringing forward the views and thechange and energy
voices of citizens from across the globe can only
policies for the future.
contribute to a positive new universal climateagreement in Paris in December. In supporting
this unique and novel approach, we believe we arealso making an important contribution to Article
6 of the Convention as it relates to education andpublic awareness.”“

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC,
on the WWViews on Climate and Energy.

6
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

CAMEROON

INDIA

September 2015
Bjørn Bedsted, Global Coordinator of WWViews and Head of
DBT International at the Danish Board of Technology
Foundation
Yves Mathieu, Co-coordinator of WWViews on Climate andEnergy and Director of Missions Publiques
Christian Leyrit, Co-coordinator of WWViews on Climate andEnergy and President of the French National Commission for
Public Debate (CNDP)

MAURITANIAITALY - TOSCANACANADA – MONTRÉAL7
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

CHILEGEORGIABOSNIA-HERZEGOVINADENMARKEXECUTIVE SUMMARYT

he results from the global citizen consultations on
climate change and energy are clear: there is strong
public support for political action in order to agree on
reducing greenhouse gas emissions to limit the global
temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.
The WWViews results are based on well-establishedprinciples for citizen participation and offer unique anddetailed insights into lay people’s views on climate change
and energy and the question of how to implement global
policies to deal with these issues. The participating citizens
coming from 76 countries were selected to reflect thedemographic diversity of their respective countries andregions. They were provided with unbiased information
about climate change and energy and about theinternational discussions on policy measures to handle

these issues. Citizens were given time to deliberate witheach other in order to develop their opinions.
Although results differ from country to country, there are
only minor differences between continents and between
developed and developing countries. Interestingly, young
and adult participants vote quite similarly. The
participating citizens voted on 34 predefined questions.
Following the WWViews Day national and regional
partners, experts and civil society representatives gatheredin Copenhagen to analyze the results. In this report we
focus on the key findings in the participants’ responses tothese questions. These are:

“We were delighted to co-initiate this debate and citizen
consultation and bring the voice of the ordinary woman and man
into the climate negotiations. Many cities, companies and NGOs
are voicing their support for a transformational agreement in Paris.
The view of citizens is also crystal clear – they see the threats andthey see the opportunities: the vast majority wants action now,and they want action that is sustained over the long term to bend
the emissions down to zero by the end of the century along withsupport for developing countries for their efforts.”
Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

8R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

FRANCE- FRANCHE COMTÉ

1.

FIJI

BANGLADESH

BAHAMAS

CHAPTER 1: A STRONG CALL FOR ACTION
1.	Citizens worldwide want their leaders to commit to ambitious climate action
2.	Citizens want zero emissions by the end of the century
3.	The COP21 Paris Agreement needs to open a credible path to limit global warming to
no more than 2 degrees
4.	Climate change is an opportunity to improve life quality
5.	Introduce carbon taxes and invest in renewable energy

2.	CHAPTER 2: COMMON BUT DIFFERENTIATED RESPONSIBILITIES AND RESPECTIVE CAPABILITIES
6.	The ‘North-South’ gap is closing
7.	Countries should assume responsibilities based on their respective capabilities andemission levels
8.	All countries must take action to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions
3.

CHAPTER 3: FINANCING CLIMATE ACTION
9.	The private sector should contribute significantly to climate finance10.	High-income countries should scale up their climate finance commitments

4.

CHAPTER 4: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
11.	Citizens want to take an active part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
12.	Citizens expect to take part in deciding on climate policies

WWViews results can be studied in detail at climateandenergy.wwviews.org

9
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

The timeline

Early 2015 and onwards
February – April 2015
April – May 2015
May 2015 and onwards
June 6, 2015
June 6, 2015 and onwards

2014

The idea

2015

The WWViews design and selecting the partners
Questions and information material for the citizens
Selecting the participating citizens and organizers trainings
The web tool
WWViews Day
Making the citizens’ views heard

ABOUT WORLD WIDE VIEWS ON CLIMATE AND ENERGY

The idea
World Wide Views on Climate and Energy is co-initiatedby the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat, the Danish Boardof Technology Foundation (DBT), Missions Publiques(MP), and the French National Commission for Public
Debate (CNDP), with the support of the French
Government host of COP21.
The WWViews method is a unique and innovative
way of engaging citizens in climate and energy policy
discussions, thereby promoting and facilitating public
participation in addressing climate change and its
effects.
The Danish Board of Technology has developed the
WWViews method in response to the emerging
democratic gap between global policymakers andcitizens, as more issues (such as desertification,
biodiversity, climate change and energy transition), andthus decisions, become global in scale. The method was
first developed for the UN climate summit (COP15 of the
UNFCCC) in 2009 in order to involve citizens in a debate
otherwise heavily dominated by scientists, politicians

and powerful interest groups. In 2012 it was again
successfully implemented in collaboration with the UN
Secretariat to the Convention on Biological Diversity’s(CBD) as part of the negotiation process leading up to
the biodiversity COP11 in India.
Inasmuch as citizens will have to live with the decisions
made about how to address climate changes and energy
transition, we believe it only would be fair to consult
them as part of the ongoing negotiations. Furthermore,
the approval and cooperation of citizens worldwide iscritical for decisions to be implemented successfully. In
democratic and functional terms, climate and energy
policies will not work effectively if they do not enjoy
public support.

10
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

AFGHANISTANCOMOROSGREECE

The WWViews design
The WWViews design was developed in response to
the practical challenges of making global citizen
participation possible. The following criteria wereconsidered essential:●● Cheap and easy: The method had to make it

feasible for potentially all countries in the world
to participate, regardless of income and general
education level.
●● Clear link to policymaking: It had to address issues ofimmediate relevance to policymakers.
●● Both global and national: It had to pertain to bothnational and global decision-making.
●● Clear and comparable results: Results had to becomparable across countries and regions and they
had to be easy to communicate to policymakers.
●● Informed citizens: Citizens had to be provided withthe balanced information required to understand theissues debated among policymakers.
●● Deliberation: Citizens should be given theopportunity to discuss their views with each otherbefore reaching their own conclusions.

In order to meet these objectives groups of citizens(approximately 100) meet in their respective countries
or regions to deliberate on an identical set of questions,using identical meeting designs and informationmaterial and the different meetings and their results
are linked through an online web tool.
The WWViews method provides policy makers within-depth information about trends in national andinternational opinions but differs in important ways
from conventional opinion polls. Unlike opinion polls,
the WWViews method provides respondents withbalanced and scientifically based information as wellas an opportunity to deliberate for a full day with othercitizens prior to rendering their judgments. Thus,
it encourages the exploration of more substantive
questions and well-considered responses, allowing
policy makers to assess which policies will be wellreceived if people are properly informed about therationale behind them.
The method used for WWViews on Climate and Energy
has been adjusted in various ways, based on evaluations
from partners participating in WWViews on Global
Warming in 2009 and WWViews on Biodiversity in 2012and scientific observations published in the following
years.

11
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

TRAINING SEMINAR IN PARIS

Selecting the partners
The WWViews national and regional partners havebeen responsible for organizing WWViews meetings
in their respective countries or regions. To become
partners they should preferably:●● have some experience with citizen participation

methods●● be unbiased with regards to climate change andenergy transition●● be able to follow the common guidelines●● self- or co-finance their participation in WWViews

First, partners already part of the World Wide Views
Alliance were invited to join. This global networkof partners typically includes public councils,
parliamentary technology assessment institutions,non-governmental civil society organizations, anduniversities. It is a network of partners sharing theambition of making public participation an integral
part of global governance. The network was established
for WWViews on Global Warming and WWViews on
Biodiversity and has now been supplemented witha number of new partners worldwide. 106 partners

from the World Wide Views Alliance collaborated
in WWViews on Climate and Energy arranging 97
deliberations in 76 countries spanning five continents.
Some partners were self-financed but several partners,
especially from developing countries benefited greatly
from the financial support of Ségolène Royal, theFrench Minister of Ecology, Sustainable Development
and Energy, which providing financial support to 61
countries. Many of these partners were identified
thanks to Laurent Fabius, the French Minister of
Foreign Affairs and International Development, who
mobilized French Embassies and their diplomatic
network to select local organizers. This support secured
an unprecedented global coverage. Consequently,
WWViews on Climate and Energy is the largest global
citizen consultation ever.

12
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

Questions and informationmaterial for the citizens
The questions posed to the citizens worldwide wereselected so as to be of direct relevance to the ongoinginternational discussions about how to deal withclimate change and with a view to provide decision
makers with information about public opinion ondifferent policy measures to do so. WWViews partners,
industry groups, civil society representatives andclimate experts were involved in selecting the questions
in order to ensure their relevance. The questions had
to be identical in all countries in order to allow forcross-national comparisons. To ensure comparability of
results and clear communication to policymakers, thequestions and response choices were predefined. 29 of
the 34 questions chosen were clustered in 5 themes:●● Importance of tackling climate change●● Tools to tackle climate change●● UN negotiations and national commitments●● Fairness and distribution of efforts●● Making and keeping climate promises

The remaining 5 questions focused on evaluating theevent. In some countries, WWViews partners added an
additional session with questions and deliberations
on national issues and some allowed participants toformulate their own recommendations to national
policymakers.
Prior to the citizen consultations participants received
balanced information from a 32-pages booklet written
by journalist and analyst Gerard Wynn in close
collaboration with the Danish Board of Technology. The
booklet provided basic information about the science ofclimate change and different points of view on how todeal with it.
Information videos (each 4-10 minutes long) were madeby the Austrian research and science communicationcompany Biofaction for each of the five themes,
repeating the most essential information available
in the booklet and ensuring that all citizens would
participate in the meetings with the necessary
information. All WWViews information material wastranslated into local languages.

A Scientific Advisory Board was established to review
whether the information given in the booklet was
accurate, sufficient, and balanced, considering thequestions that citizens deliberated on, and bothquestions and information material were tested infour focus group interviews in Japan, The United Statesof America, France and Uganda. This design assured
the input of experts as well as ordinary citizens in thedevelopment of the questions to be discussed and theinformation informing those discussions.

MEMBERS of the Scientific Advisory Board:
Doreen Stabinsky: Professor, College of theAtlantic of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC). United States ofAmerica
Hervé Casterman: President of the AFG(Association Francaise du Gaz) Environment
Commission. France
John Akintayo Adedoyin: Professor, Universityof Botswana. Lead-author in WGI of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Botswana
Joseph Katongo Kanyanga: Assistant Director,
Zambia Meteorological Department. Leadauthor in WGI of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change. Zambia
Koko Warner: Academic officer, United
Nations University. Lead-author in WGII of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Germany
Ria Voorhaar: Head - International
Communications Coordination Climate Action
Network – International. Germany
Saleemul Huq: Director, ICCCAD. Coordinating
lead-author in WGII of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Bangladesh

13
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

GHANA

SOUTH KOREAETHIOPIA

The web tool
A special web tool was designed for the purpose of
instant collection and presentation of the results fromthe WWViews meetings. The tool allows for statisticalpresentation and easy comparison of results between
countries and various international groupings (i.e.
continents, developed and developing countries). The
web tool is easy to navigate for anyone interested andcan be explored under “Results” at climateandenergy.
wwviews.org. Also, all raw data can be downloaded for
detailed analysis.

CHAD“Citizens are concerned by poverty, land
deterioration and drought. Climate change affects
everyone, but rural inhabitants suffer from it. So
rich countries must help poor countries in orderthat all of them as far as they are concerned can
reduce their GHG emissions. Let’s raise awerness
to improve Sahelian people resiliency to theenvironmental transformations.”

14
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

CANADA - WATERLOOCAPE VERDE

Training seminar
The coordinators of WWViews on Climate andEnergy organized four training seminars to prepare
project managers in the participating countries for
the WWViews Day. Most met for the two seminars
organized in Paris, France. However, to accommodate
the global coverage of WWViews on Climate and Energy
two decentralized training seminars were organized in
the Caribbean (Guadeloupe) and the Indian Ocean (LaReunion) respectively. All project managers from the
WWViews national and regional partner institutions
also participated in 8 online training seminars focusing
on key elements of the WWViews method.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

Selecting the participating
citizens
Guidelines for selecting the participating citizens
were made in order to ensure the reliability of theresults: The citizens at each meeting should reflect thedemographic distribution in their country or region
with regards to age, gender, occupation, educationand geographical zone of residency (i.e. city andcountryside). A further criterion was that they should
not be experts on climate and energy issues, neither
as scientists nor as stakeholders. Where appropriate,
the national partners added further demographic
criteria of relevance to their national context. Finally,in countries where statistics of membership ofenvironmental organizations were available, this was
also used as selection criteria in order to avoid anoverrepresentation of participants more concerned with
global warming than the population at large.
Based on reports from the partners, the guidelines havebeen followed, albeit with some local variation due toeconomic and other practical limitations. While mostmeetings ended up with fewer than 100 citizens, some
ended up with more than 100 citizens on the WWViews
Day. The global average was 89 citizens per meeting.
Some countries or regions recruited citizens from their
entire geographical area, whereas others recruited froma smaller area in order to cut expenses.
Nevertheless, the sample of citizens consulted in
WWViews is large and diverse enough to, give a clear
sense of general trends in national and international
public opinion.

15
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

TURKEYCHAD

GUYANA

WWViews Day
TH E WORLDOn June 6, 2015 the first WWViews meeting started
at 9 am in Fiji. The last one finished 27 hours laterin Arizona, USA. Meetings were held in seventy-six
countries. As the day progressed, citizens voted onalternative answers to the predefined questions. These
results were instantly reported at climateandenergy.
wwviews.org so that anyone with Internet accesscould – and still can – compare answers to the various
questions across countries, regions, political andeconomic groupings, etc.
Photos and videos from the various meetings were
continuously uploaded to a media share server. Video
interviews with citizens were made available as well.
Most countries arranged link ups to other countries via
Skype. Others presented pictures and results from othercountries to their participants.
TH E MEETI NG

All meetings followed the same schedule: the citizens,divided into tables of 5-8 people, were led through a
program, divided into five thematic sessions, by a headfacilitator and a number of group facilitators.

Each thematic session was introduced by the headfacilitator and an information video. The participants
then engaged in moderated discussions at their tables,
the purpose of which was to give all participants time
to listen to other opinions and reflect prior to voting.
Group facilitators were trained in advance to provide
unbiased facilitation at the tables. Each thematic
session concluded with citizens casting their votes
anonymously on alternative answers to a total of 34
questions (five to eight questions in each session). Votes
were counted by the staff and immediately reported
to climateandenergy.wwviews.org thereby enabling
international, quantitative comparisons.
Most meetings were either opened or closed byministers or high-level government officials. The
citizens were apprised of the means by which
policymakers would be informed of the results. Two
short video messages from Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC
Executive Secretary and Ségolène Royal, France’s
Minister of Ecology, Sustainable Development andEnergy welcoming citizens on June 6, were screened at
the beginning of the deliberation at every site aroundthe world.

NIGER“I thought that as citizens we were only victims
while we are in part actors of this climatechange” said Boubacar, a farmer. / “Thanks
to this debate on climate and energy, I feel
more concerned than ever by the fight against
climate change” Hamsatou, a pupil. / “We are
not polluting, we are poor and vulnerable. We
suffer and live unfairly the fatal effects of thisphenomenon. Who can and hast to help us?”worries Abdou, a student.

16
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

HAITIINDONESIA

Welcome to WWViews Day

Voting after eachthematic session

MALAYSIA

Information videos

Deliberation in groups

Goodbye and thank you
for participating

17
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

UK (SCOTLAND)FRANCE - AUVERGNE

Making the citizens’
views heard
The outcomes of WWViews on Climate and Energy
are being disseminated globally. The target groups
for receiving the WWViews results are politicians,
negotiators and interest groups engaged in the ongoingclimate change negotiations. The WWViews results
are especially significant for climate and energy
policymakers and stakeholders because they represent
the informed and considered views of a broad range ofcitizens from across the world concerning the complex
issues to be addressed in the UN negotiations.
This is why the WWViews coordination team has set
up a comprehensive dissemination strategy aimed atpresenting and discussing the results of WWViews
with the relevant policy makers and stakeholders.
Dissemination began in June with a press conferenceat the UNFCCC negotiations in Bonn together with
UNFCCC’s Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres andincluded additional presentations for negotiation andstakeholder groups. Next, the results were presented
at the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (UNECE). This was then followed by a plenary
presentation at the World Summit Climate & Territories
in Lyon, France.
Several activities are planned to take place following the
publication of this report, including more presentationsat pre-COP negotiations in Bonn, a side-event at the UN
General Assembly in New York, a presentation at the
French National Assembly, and several presentations at
COP21.

From dawn in Fiji to dusk in
Arizona the many votes andrecommendations were instantly
reported on climateandenergy.
wwviews.org and available forcomparisons. They still are.

18

In addition to thepresentations made by
the global coordinators,
all national and regional
WWViews partners have
employed their own
strategies to reach key target
groups. The goal is to makethose engaged in climate andenergy policy aware of theresults and to take them into
consideration.

NIGERGAMBIAUGANDAPAKISTAN

THE RESULTS REPORTThe WWViews Results Report is one of the main instruments
for making citizens’ views heard.

The key findings in this report highlight those resultsthat the authors find to be most significant andinteresting to policy makers. We invite others to explore
the results to see what they find to be significant. The key
findings have been chosen in a process which included
input from several WWViews partners and a workshop in
Copenhagen with civil society representatives,international experts and WWViews partners. The 12 key
findings were identified in the workshop and subsequently
developed and refined by an editorial group.
The key findings are structured in the following way:
firstly, a clear message to decision makers (the key
finding); secondly factual observations from the WWViews
voting results that underpin the message (sometimes thesame observations underpin more than one key finding);
and thirdly, an assessment drawn from the observations.
The key findings are structured in four chapters:

1. A Strong Call for Action
2. Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and 		
Respective Capabilities
3. Financing Climate Action
4. Citizen Participation

ARGENTINA“Great experience! To fight against
climate change is to protect our
future! An incredible work day!
Let’s hope governments will listen
to what citizens from 76 countries
debated to curb climate change. Forus, for our children, but mostly forthe children of our children!”19
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

CHAPTER 1: A STRONG CALL FOR ACTION

1) Citizens worldwide want theirleaders to commit to ambitious
climate action
And they want those commitments to
be made now.
OBSERVATIONSASSESSMENT●● 63% of participants worldwide think that

The WWViews results show a clear worldwide support bycitizens for their politicians to take ambitious action
against climate change. Although citizens have a clear
preference for making a global agreement on climatechange, they also support action in their own countries,
irrespective of whether steps are taken globally or in othercountries. This is consistent with the view among
participants that tackling climate change is an
opportunity rather than a threat. The clear message topolicy makers is that failure to make a global agreement
will not be accepted as an excuse for inaction at thenational level.

policy makers should decide in Paris to
do whatever it takes to limit temperature
increase to less than 2 degrees Celsius by
2100. 70% of participants think climatechange is primarily a global responsibility
and 71% want the UN climate negotiations
to do more to tackle climate change.
●● 89% of participants think climate change

should be a national priority, while 79%of participants think that their country
should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions,even if other countries do not.
●● Almost all participants worldwide (97%)

are concerned about the effects of climatechange, of which 78% are “very concerned”.
The proportion of “very concerned” citizens
has increased in comparison to the 2009
results from World Wide Views on Global
Warming, where 62% of participants were“very concerned” about climate change.
●● Participants from developing countries are

more concerned (10 percentage points) thanthose from developed countries, but lesssupportive (8 percentage points) of doing
whatever it takes.

The strong support for taking action also reflects the highlevel of concern citizens have for the effects of climatechange. Based on a similar question that was asked in
2009, it is reasonable to conclude that the proportion of
citizens who are “very concerned” has increased over the
past six years.
While responses do not differ much among participantsfrom different countries, it is nonetheless interesting to
see that citizens from developing countries are moreconcerned than citizens from developed countries, butalso less supportive of doing whatever it takes to limit thetemperature increase.

20
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

NIGERIAFRANCE - LA RÉUNIONRUSSIA21
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

CHAPTER 1: A STRONG CALL FOR ACTION

2) Citizens want zero emissions by
the end of the century
And many want to stop the exploration of fossil fuels.
OBSERVATIONSASSESSMENT●● 97% of WWViews participants want a Paris

Policy makers have a clear public mandate to act towards
securing a deal in Paris that includes a long-term goal forzero emissions by 2100. The fact that a clear majority ofparticipants want this goal to be legally binding further
strengthens the mandate.

agreement to include a long-term goal forzero emissions at the end of this century.
Two-thirds of participants want this goal
to be legally binding for all countries. 17%
think it should be legally binding only fordeveloped and emerging nations.
●● 45% of participants worldwide are infavor of stopping exploration for all new
fossil fuel reserves. An additional 17%
support stopping exploration for coal only,
meaning that 62% are in favor of stopping
the exploration for coal. 23% think that
exploration of fussil fuels should continue.

It is interesting to compare the support for a long-termgoal with participants’ views on the exploration for fossil
fuels, which is one of the main keys to reaching the longterm goal. Considering the consequences of making adecision to stop the exploration for fossil fuels, the support
for doing so is significant. Although a plurality ofparticipants from some of the countries with substantial
oil, coal, and gas reserves (Russia and Iran) prefer tocontinue exploring, in other resource rich countries(China, USA, India, Indonesia, Canada, South Africa, UK(Scotland), Germany, Nigeria and Kuwait) the relative
majority favors stopping the exploration for all fossil fuels.
Nonetheless, with less than majority support for stopping
all exploration in most countries, and 15% (the highest
percentage of all questions) stating that they do not knowor do not wish to answer, more consideration of this issue
will be important in the immediate future if the path
toward the long term goal of zero emissions is to become
clearer.

COSTA RICA

PHILIPPINES

22
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

FRANCE - CENTRE-VAL DE LOIRE

5.	
  How	
  should	
  the	
  world	
  deal	  with	  explora3on	
  for	  new	
  fossil	
  fuel	  reserves?	
  5. How should the world deal with exploration for new fossil fuel reserves?

45,20%	
  a.	
  Stop	
  explora8on	
  for	  all	
  fossil	
  fuel	  reserves	
  41,78%	  17,27%	
  b.	
  Stop	  only	  the	
  explora8on	
  for	
  coal	  14,98%	
  The	
  World	  Top	
  fossil	
  fuel	  producing	
  countries	
  22,67%	
  c.	
  The	
  world	
  should	  con8nue	
  to	
  explore	
  23,59%	  14,86%	
  d.	
  Don’t	
  know	
  /	
  Do	
  not	
  wish	  to	
  answer	
  19,65%	
  2.5.	
  HOW	  SHOULD	  THE	  WORLD	
  DEAL	
  WITH	  EXPLORATION	
  FOR	  NEW	
  FOSSIL	  FUEL	
  RESERVES?	
  a.	
  Stop	
  exploraLon	
  for	  all	
  fossil	
  fuel	  reserves	
  WORLD	  b.	
  Stop	  only	  the	
  exploraLon	
  for	
  coal	  c.	
  The	
  world	
  should	  conLnue	
  to	
  explore	
  45,20%	  17,27%	
  CANADA	  22,67%	  71,59%	
  

USA	
  	
  

7,17%	
  56,00%	
  

GERMANY	  48,98%	
  

KUWAIT	
  47,83%	
  INDIA	  NIGERIA	
  

IRAN	
  

19,63%	
  

RUSSIA	  18,99%	  22,45%	  25,71%	  16,46%	  13,33%	  33,67%	  22,92%	  26,26%	  13,08%	  10,20%	  17,39%	  17,35%	  23,96%	  27,27%	
  13,00%	  15,49%	  34,78%	  10,20%	  35,42%	
  CHINA	
  11,00%	  15,24%	
  38,78%	  11,01%	  18,31%	  18,37%	
  0,00%	
  10,05%	  22,67%	  15,49%	  45,71%	
  INDONESIA	  10,12%	  20,00%	  50,70%	  SOUTH	
  AFRICA	
  14,86%	
  8,25%	
  59,15%	
  UK	
  (SCOTLAND)	
  d.	
  Don’t	
  know	
  /	
  Do	
  not	
  wish	  to	
  answer	
  11,11%	  40,19%	  17,71%	  35,35%	  27,10%	  40,51%	  24,05%	
  23
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

CHAPTER 1: A STRONG CALL FOR ACTION

3) The COP21 Paris Agreement needs
to open a credible path to limit global
warming to no more than 2 degrees
Commitments should be legallybinding, and progress should betransparent and subject to control.
OBSERVATIONASSESSMENT●● 63% of the citizens worldwide think that

Although the results show several differences between
countries, these are less significant than the general trend
worldwide: Citizens express strong support for limiting
global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius by 2100
compared to preindustrial times as agreed by theinternational community in Copenhagen in 2009.

the world should decide in Paris to do
whatever it takes to limit temperature
increase to less than 2 degrees Celsius by
2100.
●● 71% of participants worldwide think theParis Agreement should include legallybinding, national short-term goals for
all countries. Another 14% think thatsuch goals should be legally bindingfor developed nations only. Similarly,
68% think that a long-term goal of zero
emissions at the end of this century shouldbe legally binding for all countries, andanother 17% that it should be legallybinding for developed and emerging
nations only.
●● Regarding the flexibility of climate

commitments and their accountability, 92%of participants feel countries should agree
in Paris to update their climate action
commitments every 5 years, and 90% thinkthat countries should publish an annual
report on their emissions and report on
progress towards meeting their pledge forclimate actions. 61% express that a UN level
body should have the authority to makereviews that assess the sufficiency andfairness of individual countries’ climate
action, and 50% think that any country
should have the right to inspect another’sreporting of mitigation and adaptation
efforts, while another 28% think that only
donor countries should have the right toinspect receiving countries.

The strong support for both short- and long-term goals, thatare legally binding, show that citizens want to make surethat commitments made are also being met. The evenstronger support for countries to update their climate
commitments every 5 years and submit yearly progress
reports also shows that citizens want to hold theirpoliticians accountable for promises made. Although not asstrong, citizens’ support for giving countries the right toinspect each other further strengthens their demand fortransparency on countries’ implementation of climate
plans with many calling for the UN to take the lead in
making sure these plans are fair and sufficient.
Consequently, citizens are calling for the UN to have greater
authority.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that citizens broadly
support the key design features under discussion at the UN
that could help strengthen the level of ambition of theagreement and maximize its ability to steer the world
towards a 2 degrees Celsius pathway.

24
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

GUATEMALA

KENYA

USA - ARIZONA25F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

CHAPTER 1: A STRONG CALL FOR ACTION

4) Climate change is an opportunity
to improve life quality
Measures to fight climate change areseen as an opportunity rather than athreat.
OBSERVATIONS●● 66% of WWViews participants see measures

to fight climate change mostly as anopportunity to improve their quality of life.
●● 27% of citizens consider such measures tobe mostly a threat to their quality of life.
●● There is little variation in the results

between regional and income groups.

ASSESSMENT

The WWViews results reflect that the global majority of
citizens envisage measures to tackle climate change as anopportunity to improve the quality of life - whether it is topursue a trajectory of low emissions for mitigation efforts
or to enhance adaptation actions. This is a significant andsomewhat surprising finding, as tools to tackle climatechange have been framed as a burden rather than anopportunity in many media and policy discussions to date.
On the other hand, some have argued for framing suchmeasures as an opportunity. The WWViews results showthat citizens are more convinced by such arguments andsupport this way of framing discussions on how to tackle
climate change. For lower income countries, it is often
argued that mitigation action may harm economic
growth, and, therefore, slow progress on poverty
eradication, health care and other development
challenges. It is therefore noteworthy that participantsfrom low-income economies responded in the same way as
participants from the rest of the world.
This sends a strong signal to politicians regardless of theircountry’s income bracket to focus on potential synergies
between enhanced life quality and actions towards climatechange solutions.

26
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

CHAPTER 1: A STRONG CALL FOR ACTION

5) Introduce carbon taxes andinvest in renewable energy
Citizens also wish to support the
research and development of lowcarbon technology.

ASSESSMENTOBSERVATIONS●● 88% of participants globally support a

dynamic and flexible carbon tax system tosome degree whether it is according to thelevel of development or emissions.
●● When asked to pick two approaches formaking large-scale cuts in greenhouse gas
emissions, participants worldwide preferto subsidize renewable energy (56%) or to
support the development of low-carbon
technology (46%).
Since participants could choose two answer options
for this question, percentages can add up to as
much as 200.

The results show a clear and widespread support for a
carbon tax system of some sort, with most citizens favoringa system in which costs will increase gradually forcountries that do not reduce their emissions. Differences
between support from citizens from different countrygroups (such as LDC’s and OPEC countries) and from therest of the world are small and insignificant. Only 1 out of
10 participants worldwide does not support a carbon tax
system, sending an unequivocal message to policy makers
on citizens’ readiness to support a move towards carbon
taxation.
In contrast to the clear support for carbon taxation, carbon
pricing does not rank high (21%) when participants are
asked to select their preferred approaches for making
large-scale cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The fact thatcitizens prefer to subsidize renewable energy and tosupport the research and development of low-carbon
technology indicates a widespread support for the
implementation of existing and new technologies in order
to cut emissions and bring forward an energy transition.
In general, citizens prefer incentives and subsidies as amechanism for making large-scale cuts in greenhouse gas
emissions. In spite of this, the results still show that they
acknowledge, and are aware of, the wide array of solutions
needed, including mechanisms such as taxation andcarbon pricing, if large-scale cuts are to be made feasible.

FRANCE - BASSE-NORMANDIE

USA - BOSTON

NEPAL

27
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

CHAPTER 1: A STRONG CALL FOR ACTION

28
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

CHAPTER 2: COMMON BUT DIFFERENTIATED RESPONSIBILITIESAND RESPECTIVE CAPABILITIES

6) The ‘North-South’ gap is closing
Citizens from developed anddeveloping countries mostly agree on
how to deal with climate change.  
OBSERVATIONSASSESSMENT●● The differences between responses fromThe high degree of convergence between the views of
citizens in developed and developing countries is quite
remarkable. Citizens from North and South generally
share their assessment of the nature of the challenge
posed by climate change and their views on how to deal
with it. This sends a strong signal to policy makers andnegotiators to focus more on shared interests and less onwhat is perceived to be special and national interests.

participants from developed and developing
countries are generally small (an averageof 4,2 percentage points). They are mostprominent in questions concerning
finance and the level of efforts put into
mitigation actions, where citizens fromdeveloping countries are approximately
10 percentage points more supportive ofpolicies placing a greater responsibility on
developed countries. The same pattern canbe seen when comparing responses fromEU participants with African ones, andresponses from citizens of high-income
economies with those of low-income
economies.

Despite the strong convergence, attention should be paid
to the small differences when it comes to the level of
responsibility, which is a key issue in the negotiations.
While citizens agree that responsibilities should be
differentiated, they diverge on the degree to which these
responsibilities should be differentiated. This indicates asmall but real difference in opinion between North andSouth in what is fair and what is not. Considering thedifferences in living conditions, what may be mostremarkable is the small magnitude of these differences.

TOP	
  10	
  DIVERGENCES	
  BETWEEN	  DEVELOPED	
  VS.	
  DEVELOPING	
  COUNTRIES	
  
81%	
  

81%	
  
68%	
  

68%	
  

61%	
  

59%	
  

The	
  eﬀorts	
  of	
  developing	
  countries	
  should	  depend	
  on	
  funding	
  from	  developed	
  countries.	
  Annex	
  1	
  

16%	
  

Any	
  country	
  should	
  have	  a	
  right	
  to	
  inspect	
  others	
  

10%	
  

ACer	
  2020,	
  high-­‐income	  countries	
  should	  pay	  more	  than	  already	
  agreed	
  on	
  for	
  mi:ga:on	
  and	
  adapta:on	
  in	
  low-­‐income	  countries	
  ($100	
  billion	  in	
  2020)	
  

9%	
  

Climate	  change	
  is	
  not	  a	
  na:onal	
  priority	
  but	  it	
  should	
  be	
  

7%	
  

Climate	  change	
  is	
  a	
  na:onal	
  priority	
  and	  it	
  should	
  be	
  

22%	
  

The	
  outcomes	
  of	
  the	  UN	  climate	
  nego:a:ons	
  since	  1992	
  have	  not	  done	
  enough	  to	
  tackle	
  climate	
  change.	
  

21%	
  

All	
  developing	
  countries	
  should	  be	
  treated	  the	
  same	  way	
  

31%	
  

20%	
  

The	
  outcomes	
  of	
  the	  UN	  climate	
  nego:a:ons	
  since	  1992	
  have	  done	  enough	  to	
  tackle	
  climate	
  change.	
  I'm	
  moderately	
  concerned	
  about	  the	
  impacts	
  of	
  climate	
  change	
  

17%	
  

43%	
  

31%	
  

29%	
  

Only	
  donor	
  countries	
  should	  be	
  allowed	  to	
  inspect	  receiving	
  countries	
  

46%	
  

48%	
  

Non-­‐Annex	
  1	
  

29
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

CHAPTER 2: COMMON BUT DIFFERENTIATED RESPONSIBILITIESAND RESPECTIVE CAPABILITIES7) Countries should assume
responsibilities based on their respective
capabilities and emission levels
Distinguishing between Annex-1 (developed) and non-Annex
1 (developing) countries is seen as less relevant.
OBSERVATIONS●● 55% of participants worldwide think that richer

developing countries ‘should be treated as a thirdgroup, with bigger responsibilities than the poorest,
least developed countries, but smaller responsibilities
than developed nations’. 23% even call for
richer developing countries to assume the same
responsibilities as developed nations. Interestingly,
participants from countries that are classified as nonAnnex 1 in the climate change convention but arealso high-income or upper-middle-income economies
are generally in agreement with participants fromthe rest of the world.
●● 71% of participants worldwide see current or future

emissions and economic capabilities as the bestbasis for setting such ambitions. Citizens fromdeveloped and developing countries almost agree on
this, with developing countries favoring economic
capabilities at a slightly higher rate than developed
country citizens. Globally, only 21% of citizens favorusing historical emissions as the basis for setting
the ambition of national climate contributions witha few countries such as Uganda, Iran, Brazil, Cape
Verde and Mozambique ranking historical emissions
as the top choice.
ASSESSMENT

Overall, there is little citizen support for treating all
developing countries in the same way. This reflects thegeneral trend seen in recent climate negotiations to deemphasize defined groupings and instead consider thecapabilities of individual nations. WWViews results showthat citizens no longer see the defined lines between Northand South; developed and developing countries as relevant
country categorizations. They wish to see countries step up
efforts gradually as they become more wealthy andcapable, rather than being stagnant in the Annex-1 andnon-Annex 1 categories. The fact that citizens fromcountries most likely to be affected by such a change inpolicy support it equally as much as the global average,
sends a strong signal to policy makers from thosecountries in particular. It also echoes results from
WWViews on Global Warming in 2009, where participantsfrom growing economies voted in favor of introducing
targets for emission reductions for their countries, eventhough such targets were not on the negotiation table.
The overall strong support worldwide for letting current
or future emissions and economic capabilities set theambition of national climate contributions also confirms
the call for moving away from defined groupings towards
a more diversified approach. One of the key discussions
underlying both former and current negotiations is thequestion of whether or not it is fair for developed
countries to ask emerging economies to reduce emissions,considering that burning fossil fuels has historically been
key to reaching current living standards. It is therefore
interesting that citizens see historical emissions as theleast relevant basis for setting the ambition of national
climate contributions, compared to using current or
future emissions and economic capabilities as the basis forsetting such ambitions. Although differences of opinion
exist among developed and developing countries, they are
not as big, nor as significant as the overall majority
support for current and future emissions and capabilities
as the basis for determining the fairness of national
climate commitments being set.
These results send a strong signal to decision makers fromall nations when considering the relevant basis for setting
the ambition for their respective national climate
contribution under a new, global agreement.

30
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

4.	
  Should	
  all	
  developing	
  countries	
  be	
  treated	
  as	
  one	
  group,	
  as	
  presently,	
  or	
  
4.	
  Should	
  
all	
  
developing	
  countries	
  
be	
  
treated	  one	
  group,	  as	
  should	  richer	  developing	
  countries	
  
have	
  
to	
  do	
  ams	
  ore?	
  4. Should all developing countries be treated as one group, as presently, or should richer developing countries have to do more?

presently,	
  or	
  should	
  richer	
  developing	
  countries	
  have	  to	
  do	
  more?	
  a.	
  All	
  developing	
  should	  be	
  treated	  the	
   be	  a.	
  All	
  cdountries	
  eveloping	
  countries	
  should	  same	
  way	
  

18,89%	  18,89%	  treated	  the	
  same	  way	
  18,20%	  18,20%	
  b.	
  Richer	
  developing	
  countries	
  should	
  have	  the	  the	
  same	  responsibiliEes	
  as	
  developed	  same	
  responsibiliEes	
  as	
  developed	
  naEons	
  18,26%	  18,26%	
  4.	
  Should	
  all	
  developing	
  countries	
  be	
  treated	
  as	
  one	
  group,	  as	
  Richer developing countries
presently,	
  or	
  should	
  richer	
  developing	
  countries	
  have	
  to	
  do	
  
more?	  (countries
participating inb.	
  Richer	
  developing	
  countries	
  should	
  have	  naEons	  18,89%	  22,99%	  22,99%	
  a.	
  All	
  developing	
  countries	
  should	  be	
  treated	  same	
  way	
  18,20%	  c.	
  Richer	
  the	
  developing	
  countries	
  should	
  be	
  
c.	
  Richer	
  developing	
  ountries	  be	
  reated	  treated	
  acs	  a	
  third	  sghould	
  roup,	  wtith	
  bigger	  as	  a	  third	
  group,	
  with	  bigger	  responsibiliEes	
  than	  responsibiliEes	
  
t
han	
  
t
he	
  
p
oorest,	  least	
  poorest,	  sleast	
  developed	
  countries,	
  but	  b.	
  Richer	
  developing	
  the	
  countries	
  hould	  have	
  developed	
  countries,	
  
bnut	
  
smaller	  22,99%	  smaller	
  responsibiliEes	
  
than	
  
developed	
  aEons	  the	
  same	  responsibiliEes	
  as	
  developed	
  18,26%	
  naEons	
  2,79%	  d.	
  Don’t	
  know	
  /	
  Do	
  not	
  wish	  to	
  answer	
  2,79%	
  3,46%	
  Don’t	
  know	
  /	
  Do	
  nbot	  c.	
  Richer	
  developing	
  cd.	
  ountries	
  should	  e	
   wish	  to	
  answer	
  3,46%	  treated	  as	
  a	
  third	
  group,	
  with	  bigger	  responsibiliEes	
  than	
  the	
  poorest,	
  least	  developed	
  countries,	
  but	
  smaller	
  d.	
  Don’t	
  know	
  /	
  Do	
  not	
  wish	  to	
  answer	
  55,34%	  55,34%	  60,08%	
  WWViews that are classified
as non-Annex 1 in the climateThe	
  World	  The	  World	
  but are alsochange convention
Richer	  developing	
  countries	
  high-incomeorupper-middleRicher	
  developing	
  countries	
  income economies)

60,08%	
  The	
  World	  55,34%	  Richer	  developing	
  countries	
  60,08%	
  2,79%	
  

3,46%	  RICHER DEVELOPING COUNTRIESIN WWVIEWS ON CLIMATE AND ENERGYUPPER-MIDDLE-INCOME ECONOMIESHIGH-INCOME ECONOMIES

Argentina
Bosnia and Herzegovina
BrazilChina
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Fiji
Gabon
GrenadaIranMalaysia
MauritiusSaint Lucia
Seychelles
South Africa
Tunisia

BahamasBarbados
Chile
KuwaitSouth Korea

31
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

CHAPTER 2: COMMON BUT DIFFERENTIATED RESPONSIBILITIESAND RESPECTIVE CAPABILITIES8) All countries must take action to
reduce their greenhouse gas emissions
Even if others do not.
OBSERVATIONS●● 79% of participants want their countries to takemeasures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,even if others do not. 17% want their countries to do
so only if many other countries take measures.
●● Participants from Least Developed Countries (LDCs)

are less supportive (68%) than the global averagefor taking independent action irrespective of othercountries, whereas participants from Small Islands
Developing States (SIDS) are more supportive (86%)
than the global average.

participants from SIDS are more supportive of acting
regardless of others may well be explained by the fact thatclimate change has disproportionately greater impact on
the security, environment and socio-economic
development of SIDS. The smaller support fromparticipants from LDCs for acting regardless of othercountries may be explained by a lack of financial andtechnical resources to curb the GHG emissions.
Nevertheless, 68% want their countries take action even if
other do not.

ASSESSMENT

This strong support worldwide for taking action regardlessof others’ actions corresponds well with the high level ofconcern citizens have about the effects of climate change,
the urgency with which they think it should be addressed,
and with their view that tackling climate change is an
opportunity rather than a threat. Although they do wish tosee a global agreement, they nonetheless want theircountries to act regardless of commitments made byothers. It can be implied that citizens are less concernedwith making others take actions and more concerned withdoing so themselves.

Overall there is a strong support worldwide for taking
national measures to cut GHG emissions in each country
regardless of the action from other countries. The fact that

Negotiators and politicians would be ill advised to put too
much emphasis on letting their own commitments dependon others’ as citizens are likely to judge them by their own.

●● Participants from most of the countries with thehighest emissions were more in favor of seeing theircountries take action regardless of others than the
global average, such as United States (95%), India(84), Russia (80%), Brazil (95%), Japan (85%), Germany(87%), South Korea (81%), and Canada (94%); with the
exception of China (57%).

4.	
  Stakehould	  your	
  tocreduce
ountry	  ake	
  measure	
  to	
  reduce	
  its	
  4. Should your country
measureitstgreenhousegas emissions?		
greenhouse	
  gas	
  emissions?	
  a.	
  Yes,	
  even	
  if	
  many	  other	
  countries	
  do	
  not	
  take	  measures	  b.	
  Yes,	
  but	
  only	
  if	
  many	  other	
  countries	
  take	  measures	
  68,01%	  17,01%	  26,54%	
  9,26%	  c.	
  No,	  we	
  should	  not	
  intervene	
  in	
  this	
  maEer	
  1,79%	
  
2,41%	
  
1,16%	  d.	
  Don’t	
  know	
  /	
  Do	
  not	
  wish	  to	
  answer	
  2,21%	
  
3,04%	
  
4,06%	  32
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

78,99%	  85,53%	
  The	
  World	
  
LDCs	
  
SIDS	
  

CHAPTER 3: FINANCING CLIMATE ACTION

9) The private sector should contributesignificantly to climate financeBut citizens may prefer to see other societal actors in charge of deciding on how totackle climate change
OBSERVATIONS●● 54% of participants worldwide would liketo see half or more of climate finance offersfrom developed countries covered by theprivate sector. 32% think that private sector
contributions should only count for a smallpart of such offers.
●● Only 11% of WWViews participants thinkthat businesses and the private sector
should be the primary actor responsible
for tackling climate change. Instead,citizens think that climate change ismainly a global responsibility and/or the
responsibility of citizens and civil society
initiatives and of national governments.

Although the results indicate that citizens do not expect
the private sector to be the primary party responsible fortackling climate change, they still wish to see the private
sector play a prominent role.
Another interpretation may be that although citizens want
the private sector to help finance solutions needed, they do
not think they should be much involved in making
decisions on what those solutions might be.
Thus, it is worthwhile to consider whether public
perception is at odds with that of many policy makers andbusiness leaders who wish to see the private sector play amuch more active role in developing and implementing
solutions for tackling climate change.

ASSESSMENT

Although the WWViews information material
explained the risks that allowing the private
sector to play a greater role in contributing toclimate finance could reduce the contribution
from public expenditures and leadership, mostcitizens still favor letting private sector
contributions account for at least half or more of
the total contribution. There may be several

FRANCE - GUADELOUPE

explanations for this, but it seems fair to interpret thisresult as a clear indication that citizens wish to see theprivate sector contribute substantially to climate finance.

Regardless, there seems to be a need for a continued
dialogue among policy makers, business leaders andcitizens in order to clarify the kind of role the private
sector should have in future efforts for tackling climatechange.

ZIMBABWEFRANCE - POITOU-CHARENTES33
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

CHAPTER 3: FINANCING CLIMATE ACTIONSENEGALSAINT LUCIA34
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

TOGO

CHAPTER 3: FINANCING CLIMATE ACTION

10) High-income countries should scale up
their climate finance commitments
And pay more for mitigation and adaptation in low-income countries than the already agreed$100 billion annually from 2020.
OBSERVATIONS●● 79% of all WWViews participants call for high-income

countries to scale up climate financial commitments.
69% of participants from high-income countries
agree while 15% do not.
●● 82% of participants worldwide think that developing

countries’ efforts should depend on funding
from developed countries, either partly (63%) orcompletely (19%). Participants from low-income
economies support this view more strongly with 27%
saying that their efforts should depend completelyon such funding.
ASSESSMENT

The clear majority of the citizens around the world saythat high-income countries should pay more than alreadyagreed on for mitigation and adaptation in low-income
countries ($100 billion per year from 2020). Althoughsmaller than the world average, support from citizens
from high income countries is remarkably high. Combinedwith the fact that the majority of citizens worldwide thinkthat efforts of developing countries should depend partly
on funding from developed countries, it is clear thatcitizens find it highly important that high-income
countries pay more than already agreed on.
Citizens want greater commitments from the COP21
negotiations, which are more concerned with clarifying
how to honor the promises made in Copenhagen (COP 15)
and Cancun (COP 16), than with making new and scaled up
promises. It is clear that citizens worldwide will expectthat a Paris Agreement should at least clarify how
promises already made will be met. It is also clear, thatsuch promises are no longer sufficient and that new ones
are expected.

35
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

CHAPTER 4: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

11) Citizens want to take an active part in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions
They see their own role as critical
OBSERVATIONS●● 48% of WWViews participants worldwide

think that it is primarily the responsibilityof citizens and civil society initiatives totackle climate change. They rate the global
responsibility (through an international
climate agreement or treaty) highest at
70%, and national and local authority
responsibility lower at 32% and 7%
respectively.
Since participants could choose two answer options
for this question, percentages can add up to as muchas 200.
●● 71% think that the outcomes of UN climate

negotiations since 1992 have not done
enough to tackle climate change.
●● 78% of WWViews participants consider

education programs on climate change forthe broader public to be one of the most
relevant instruments to aid in reducing thelevel of greenhouse gas emissions.
Since participants could choose two answer options
for this question, percentages can add up to as muchas 200.

DR CONGOASSESSMENT

While clearly recognizing the tackling of climate change asa predominantly global responsibility, it is quite
interesting to see that citizens rate the responsibility of
citizens and civil society initiatives second – ahead ofnational and local authorities. Thus, citizens show a strong
preference for taking action themselves, whichcorresponds with the high concern shown on climatechange and their view that the outcomes of UN
negotiations since 1992 have not done enough to tackle
climate change. This reaffirms the same sentiment
expressed in World Wide Views on Global Warming (2009),
when citizens were asked at the end of the deliberation tosubmit a recommendation to policy makers, and nearly
40% focused their recommendations on actions that would
help citizens reduce their carbon footprint.
The strong support for education programs is a clear signalthat citizens want to be part of an informed and active
citizenry, which can play an active role in tackling climatechange and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The citizens’ views challenge policy makers to design
policies and governance processes that include citizens as
actors in the energy transition they are calling for.

GABON

36
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

GRENADACHAPTER 4: CITIZEN PARTICIPATIONJAPANBURUNDIKUWAIT37
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

CHAPTER 4: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

12) Citizens expect to take part in deciding
on climate policies
They believe they have a role to play in the UN climate negotiations and they havegreat confidence in the WWViews method  OBSERVATIONSASSESSMENT●● 83% of participants believe that WWViews

The strong support for arranging deliberative processes
like WWViews in the future and the belief that it has ameaningful role to play in the COP21 decision making
process, clearly indicates that citizens want to take partin deciding what policies should be put in place in orderto address climate change. They want their views to beheard and see themselves as participants in the decision
making process, rather than subjects of decisions madeby others. This is consistent with results from WWViews
on Global Warming (2009) and WWViews on Biodiversity(2012), in which the WWViews method was also clearlyseen as an important tool for including citizens in the
UN negotiations.

results will be used in a meaningful way
for political decision making in relation to
COP21 and 97% think that similar processes
should be arranged in the future.

“June 6 was a great day for taking
democratic action on climate. It was nota day without a future impact; it was not
an end but a beginning (…). This major
citizen consultation is therefore a directcontribution to the mobilization that will
help us take decisions at the end of the year,that are commensurate with the climate
emergency but also with the incredible
opportunities that the decarbonization of
our economies and our societies provides”.
Ms. Ségolène Royal, French Minister of
Ecology, Sustainable Development andEnergy (MEDDE).

FRANCE - PROVENCE-ALPES-CÔTE D’AZUR

Politicians and other decision makers would be welladvised to take this into consideration in future climate
negotiations and to pay due attention to Article 6 (nowcalled Action for Climate Empowerment, ACE) of the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change. With this
Article, parties to the convention commit themselves topromoting “public participation in addressing climatechange and its effects and developing adequate
responses”. Citizens clearly expect such participation totake place.

PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES38
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

USA - MINNESOTA

CHAPTER 4: CITIZEN PARTICIPATIONPORTUGALFRANCE - ILE-DE-FRANCE

MOZAMBIQUE39
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

ANNEXWorld results
The percentages given here and on the results page at climateandenergy.wwviews.org are calculated in the following way:
Where more than one meeting has taken place in a country, equal weight is given to the results from each meeting,regardless of the number of participants when calculating the country percentages. The same principle applies to groupcategories, such as regions, developed/developing countries and the world total: the votes from each country are given
equal weight when calculating the average percentages. At the online results page, comparisons can be made between
different WWViews meetings, countries, regions and other groupings. The total number of votes is listed for eachanswering option. In total, there were 9378 participants (4724 female and 4654 male).

40
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

SRI LANKASPAIN

FRANCE - RHÔNE-ALPES41
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

RWANDAVIETNAM42
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

MYANMARSEYCHELLES

MAURITIUS

BRAZIL43
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

FRANCE – GRENOBLEFRANCE - NORD-PAS DE CALAIS

44
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

CHINESE TAIPEI - TAIPEI45
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

NATIONAL AND REGIONAL WWVIEWS PARTNERS
WWViews is structured as a global alliance of institutions, including public councils, parliamentary technology assessment
institutions, civil society organizations and universities. The 106 national and regional Partners from the WWViews
Alliance in 76 countries facilitated 97 deliberations June 6, 2015.

Afghanistan
Groupe Énergies Renouvelables,
Environnement et Solidarités GERES

Cape Verde
Association pour la Défensede l´Environnement et leDéveloppement

Argentina
Red Argentina de Municipios frente
al Cambio Climático

Chad
Université de N’Djamena

BahamasCaribbean Youth Environment
Network - CYEN Bahamas
Bangladesh
University of Dhaka
Barbados
Caribbean Youth Environment
Network - CYEN Barbados
Benin
Jeunes Volontaires pourl’Environnement

Chile
ONG Adapt-Chile
China
Global Village of Beijing; Friendsof Nature
Comoros
French School Henri Matisse
Costa Rica
Costa Rica Limpia
Denmark
The Danish Board of Technology
Dominican RepublicFundación Global Democracia yDesarollo (Funglode)Bosnia-Herzegovina
Social Innovation Incubator”Munja” (OIA)
BrazilInstituto Brasileiro da Diversidade- IBD
Burkina Faso
CoradeBurundiAction Volontaire pour laLutte Contre les Changements
Climatiques et les Effets
Negatifs du Soufre du Diesel AVOCHACLISD
Cameroon
Action pour un Développement
Équitable, Intégré et Durable ADEID
Canada, Toronto
University of Waterloo and Balsillie
School of International Affairs
Canada, Montréal
Office de consultation publique deMontréal

DR Congo
CODED; Jeunes Volontaires
pour l’Environnement; Actions
Communautaires pour leDéveloppement Intégral, RCPNetwork
Ethiopia
Ethiopian Youth Climate Coalition(EYCC)Fiji

The University of FijiFrance(French regions and 1 metropole)
Aquitaine
Auvergne
Basse-Normandie
Centre-Val de Loire
Franche-Comté
Grenoble Métropole
Guadeloupe
Haute-Normandie
Ile-de-France

La Réunion
Nord-Pas de Calais
Poitou-Charentes
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur
Rhône-Alpes
Gabon
AGNU
GambiaYoung Volunteers for theEnvironment-The Gambia
Georgia
Geo-Eco Alliance
Germany
Nexus
Ghana
Community and Family Aid
Foundation
GreeceMedical School of National andKapodistrian University of Athens
GrenadaCaribbean Youth Environment
Network - CYEN Grenada
GuatemalaCentro Mesoamericano de Estudios
sobre Tecnología Apropiada Cemat
GuyanaCaribbean Youth Environment
Network - CYEN Guyana
Haiti
Caribbean Youth Environment
Network - CYEN Haiti
India
The Energy and Resources Institute- TERI
Indonesia
Peduli Konservasi Alam Indonesia PEKA Indonesia Foundation
Iran
Eghtesad Online News Agency

46
R E S U LT S R E P O R T·

W O R L D W I D E V I E W S O N C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y

NATIONAL AND REGIONAL WWVIEWS PARTNERS

Italy
RegionAbruzzo
Region Toscana

Pakistan
Sustainable Development Policy
Institute

Chinese Taipei
National Taiwan University
organized 3 debates

Japan
Japan Science and Technology
AgencyPalestinian Territory
The Applied Research InstituteJerusalem (ARIJ)

Togo
Jeunes Volontaires pourl’Environnement

Kenya
National Environment Trust Fund

Peru
Pontificia Universidad Católica delPerú

Tunisia
Monastir Regional Council

KuwaitKuwait Scientific Center
Madagascar
Région Vakinankaratra
Région Atsinanana
Malaysia
Malaysian Nature Society
Mali
Association Malienne d’Eveil au
Développement Durable - AMEDD
Mauritania
ONG BiodiverCités; Association
des Maires et parlementaires duGorgol - AMPG
Mauritius
Plateforme Citoyenne
MoroccoAssociation des Enseignants desSciences de la Vie et de la Terre AESVT MAROC
Mozambique
Arquitectos Sin Fronteras España-  Grupo Mozambique
Myanmar
Green Lotus
Nepal
ForestAction Nepal
Niger
Réseau de la Jeunesse Nigérienne
sur les Changements Climatiques
Nigeria
Obafemi Awolowo University
CampusPhilippines
SeameoInnotech
Portugal
Instituto de Ciências Sociais da
Universidade de Lisboa
Romania
Colectiva Reciproca
RussiaRussian Socio Ecological Union
Climate Secretariat
RwandaNile Basin Discourse ForumSaint Lucia
Saint Lucia National Trust
Senegal
Université Gaston Berger
Seychelles
Environment Education Section,
Ministry of Environment, Energy &Climate ChangeSouth Africa
OneWorld Sustainable Investments
South Korea
The Catholic University of Korea
Spain”la Caixa” Foundation; Asociación
Española de Comunicación
Científica

TurkeyTurkish Foundation for Combating
Soil Erosion  - TEMA
UgandaChoice Africa
UK - Scotland
Keep Scotland Beautiful -EcoSchools Scotland
USA, Saint-Paul, Minnesota
Jefferson Center
USA, Fort Collins, Colorado
Colorado State University
USA, Boston, Massachusetts
Museum of Science Boston
USA, Phoenix, Arizona
Arizona State University
USA, Research Partners
Expert and Citizen Assessment of
Science and Technology (ECAST)
The Loka InstituteVietnamUrban-Rural Solutions Co
ZambiaTalent Africa
Zimbabwe
Young Volunteers for theEnvironment – Zimbabwe

Sri Lanka
Munasinghe Institute forDevelopment

47
F R O M T H E W O R L D ’ S C I T I Z E N S TO T H E C L I M AT E A N D E N E R G Y P O L I C YM A K E R S A N D S TA K E H O L D E R S

ASIAAFRICANORTH AMERICA

SOUTH AMERICAEUROPEWorld Wide Views on Climate and Energy involved 10,000 citizens coming from 76 countries spanning five continents. The citizens gatheredin their respective nations to deliberate about the core issues at stake in the December, 2015 UN negotiations on climate change and energy
transition. They received balanced information about climate change and energy transition, discussed with fellow citizens, and expressed theirown views. They did so in daylong meetings on June 6, 2015.

V I S IT C L I M ATE A N D E N E R GY.W W V I E WS.O R G F O R :• Contact information for partners• Information about the coordinators• Information videos for citizens• Information booklet for citizens• Media packages• Photos and videos from WWViews meetings• Results in full
• Synthesis of the WWViews Results• Additional information about WWViews

WORLD WIDE VIEWS ON CLIMATE AND ENERGY WAS MADE POSSIBLE THANKS TO THE GENEROUS CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING INSTITUTIONS:

WWViews • c/o The Danish Board of Technology Foundation • Toldbodgade 12 • DK-1253 Copenhagen K  • Phone: +45 33320503 • E-mail: tekno@tekno.dk