Building thepolitical mandate
for climate action

Building the political mandate for climate action
by Dr Rebecca Willis
Green AllianceGreen Alliance is a charity and independent think tank, focused on
ambitious leadership for the environment. With a track record ofover 35 years, Green Alliance has worked with the most influential
leaders from the NGO and business communities. Green Alliance’s
work generates new thinking and dialogue, and has increased
political action and support for environmental solutions in the UK.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council(grant number ES/J500094/1). The MPs’ stories were firstpublished in a paper for the Sociological Review (see box on page16) and are used under a Creative Commons licence. Thanks to
Lancaster University, particularly Professor Nigel Clark and Dr Vicky
Singleton, for their support of the project, and to all those who
participated in the research.
About the author
Dr Rebecca Willis is a research associate at Lancaster University
and an associate of Green Alliance. www.rebeccawillis.co.uk

With thanks to Lancaster University and the Economic and Social
Research Council for supporting this work.

Green Alliance
11 Belgrave Road
London SW1V 1RB
020 7233 7433
ga@green-alliance.org.uk
www.green-alliance.org.uk
blog: greenallianceblog.org.uk
twitter: @GreenAllianceUKThe Green Alliance Trust
Registered charity no. 1045395
Company limited by guarantee(England and Wales) no. 3037633
Registered at the above address
Published by Green Alliance
November 2018
ISBN: 978-1-912393-15-2
Designed by Howdy© Green Alliance 2018
Green Alliance’s work is licensed
under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-No
derivative works 3.0 unported
licence. This does not replace
copyright but gives certain rights
without having to ask Green
Alliance for permission.
Under this licence, our work may beshared freely. This provides the
freedom to copy, distribute andtransmit this work on to others,
provided Green Alliance is credited
as the author and text is unaltered.
This work must not be resold
or used for commercial purposes.
These conditions can be waived
under certain circumstances withthe written permission of Green
Alliance. For more information
about this licence go to http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/3.0/

Please note: our Creative Commonslicence does not cover the use of any
photographic images featured in thisreport which are subject to separate
copyright and must not be shared or
copied without permission.

Executive summary“Politicians understandthe need for action on
climate change, but it
is not straightforward
for them to make thecase for it.”This insight summarises the findings from a researchcollaboration between Green Alliance and Lancaster
University, investigating how members of the UK parliament
understand and respond to climate change. It included
analysis of parliamentary speeches, a focus group withNGO representatives and interviews with 23 current andformer MPs. We feature the anonymised stories of four MPs,
based on the interviews offering a glimpse into how climatechange looks from a politician’s point of view.
The study found that politicians understand the need foraction on climate change, but it is not straightforward for themto make the case for it. There are three main reasons for this.
First, climate change is seen as an ‘outsider’ issue, ie notsomething discussed as part of the political mainstream.
This means MPs may be reluctant to champion it.
Second, politicians feel under very little pressure to act on
climate change. They report limited interest from theirconstituents, and indicate that they need to find ways tomake climate action relevant to the daily lives and concernsof the electorate.
Third, there are practical, procedural and even psychologicaldifficulties in responding to climate change, as large scale,long term challenges do not fit well with the daily practiceof politics.
We offer recommendations for developing a renewed
political mandate for climate action in the UK. We suggestthat there needs to be more clarity about where responsibilitylies for meeting the targets enshrined in the Climate Change
Act and that this should be shared between government
departments and local areas.

1Greater use of deliberative processes, such as citizens’
assemblies, could allow politicians, the public and experts
to meet on equal terms, assess evidence and agree how
targets could be met in ways that improve social andeconomic outcomes.
There is a need for policies that build engagement andpublic support, rather than assume passive consent from theelectorate.
Institutional changes, such as those now adopted in Wales,
could allow greater consideration of the future in politicaldecision making.

2

Introduction“The science is clear
and the solutions are
there. The missing
ingredient, it is said,
is political will.”

Since the introduction of the 2008 Climate Change Act, the world’s first comprehensive,
legally binding national climate strategy, the UK has been acknowledged as a world leader on
climate. National carbon emissions have reduced by 42 per cent since 1990.1
In the run up to the 2015 Paris Agreement, the UK invested heavily in climate
diplomacy and was instrumental in raising global ambition. Since then, the government has
pledged to revise its national target in line with the global commitment and is considering agoal of net zero carbon by 2050.
It is not at all clear, though, how the UK will meet its carbon budgets in the future. The
Committee on Climate Change has warned that progress is not on track.2 So far, acombination of structural change to the economy and power sector policy has been relied
on to achieve the necessary carbon reductions. The government’s Clean Growth Strategy,
which outlines policies to meet the 4th and 5th carbon budgets (setting targets for 2023-32),
also relies largely on cutting emissions from the power sector. But the UK is unlikely to meetthese future targets unless it enables carbon savings right across the economy, throughchanges to transport, housing, land use, resource use and industry. This, in turn, will require
new policy, to support and encourage climate action by businesses, communities andindividuals.3
Deciding how to achieve this transition raises some big questions. What kind ofpolitical leadership do we need to drive through the transformation to a zero carbon
economy and society? And crucially, what will motivate politicians to act?
This insight attempts to address these questions, summarising the findings of a major
research collaboration between Green Alliance and Lancaster University. As part of theresearch, we analysed parliamentary speeches, held a focus group of environmental
advocates and conducted 23 detailed interviews with current and former MPs (see page seven).

Why can’t politicians just get on with it?
In a recent interview, the artist Antony Gormley said that he despaired of politicians’ inability
to act on climate change. “They are just not capable of long term thinking”, he said. “We are
sleepwalking into a massive human disaster.”4 Gormley is not alone in expressing thesefrustrations. Groups as diverse as Friends of the Earth, the OECD and the World Economic
Forum have been similarly critical of politicians’ timidity.5,6
It is clear that urgent action on climate change is needed.7,8 World leaders have agreed
the goal of stabilising temperatures at ‘well below’ two degrees. The UK has clear targets foremissions reduction, enshrined in the Climate Change Act, however, it does not yet have thepolicies in place to achieve them.9 Climate change rarely features in parliamentary debate. In
this light, the criticisms seem well founded.
This frustration is compounded by mounting evidence from academics, community
leaders, businesses and many others, demonstrating pathways, models, trials and case studiesof low carbon solutions. The science is clear and the solutions are there. The missing
ingredient, it is said, is political will.
Having signed the Paris Agreement on climate change, politicians have a duty torespond. And yet, as elected representatives, their legitimacy comes from the people who
voted for them and from the party they represent. However compelling the science, theycannot act without support. The role of the politician is to act on the best available evidence,and to make proposals which reflect and develop support from voters and other interests.
This is not to absolve MPs of responsibility. It is, rather, to describe the way in which
they can exercise leadership. They cannot lead without followers. Their job is to develop amandate. This point is often overlooked by those advocating more radical action on climatechange, whether scientists, NGOs or business leaders. Hence Antony Gormley’s frustration,
shared by many.
3

What politicians think“Climate change isstill an ‘outsider’
issue, not something
discussed as part ofthe mainstream ofpolitics.”

We have looked at the dilemma from the politician’s viewpoint. A key finding is that most do
understand the need to act on climate change and to reach the carbon targets set out in the
Climate Change Act. Whilst levels of understanding vary, the vast majority of them accept thescientific consensus.
The process of converting that understanding into vocal support and action, however,is not straightforward. It is clear that politicians do not respond to scientific evidence in a
simple or linear way, and neither should we expect them to. The way in which all people
understand and interact with scientific evidence is complex.10,11,12,13 However, an assumption
persists, particularly among the scientific and policy making communities, that scientificevidence will inevitably translate into political action.
Our research addressed three linked considerations that MPs bear in mind when
deciding their course of action. First, how does climate action fit within their conception of
their role as an MP, including the culture, assumptions and working practices of parliament?
Second, to what extent is there a mandate from the electorate for action? Is there pressure or
support for action? Third, and most fundamental, how can an issue as significant, complex
and long term as climate change be acknowledged and addressed within the day to day
realities of life as a politician at Westminster?

Outsiders and obsessives“You can’t just go steamrollering in…. you’ve got to tread
really carefully”
The way in which politicians might take forward proposals on climate change needs to be
seen in the light of the wider question of how MPs understand their role and their working
environment. This study, like others before it, shows clearly that there are strong, yet implicit,
norms governing the working life of politicians.14,15,16 Each MP in our study had a clear senseof how their statements and actions would be judged by others, both inside and outside
parliament. As one said, “you have to create this persona of who and what you are, and thenyou have to try to publicly live up to it.” This matters because MPs need support fromcolleagues and other interests (business leaders, professional bodies, unions, NGOs and soon) to have influence. MPs cannot act alone and, more specifically, will only be promoted toministerial office if they have the backing of party leaders.
It is clear from the evidence we gathered that climate change is still an ‘outsider’ issue,
not something discussed as part of the mainstream of politics. One, who campaigns actively
on the issue, said he was seen as a “freak”; another described the group of MPs who
campaigned for the climate change act as “the obsessives”, adding “I know it’s offensive to
use the term obsessives.”
Given the status of climate change as an outsider issue, politicians think carefully about
how they handle it. Some champion the issue at every opportunity, not wanting to censor
what they say. They accept that they will, as a result, be seen as an outsider or an obsessive,
and that this might limit their career prospects. Others take a more tactical approach, talking
about climate change in a way that they think will be perceived as less extreme: “it’simportant not to be a climate change zealot”, said one of our interviewees.
In particular, analysis of political speeches shows the dominance of economic andtechnical language to describe climate actions.17 As another said, “I’m happy to use an
economic argument if that means that more people will come on side.”
Some politicians make a deliberate choice not to talk about climate at all, even if they
understand and are concerned about it. One MP, who works on energy issues, does so
without mentioning climate change or carbon, saying “Climate change in my own party is
toxic. There’s no need to talk about it.”4

Are there votes in it?
“I’ve knocked on hundreds, literally thousands of doors, and hadtens of thousands of conversations with voters… and I just don’t have
conversations about climate change”“Climate change is of
low importance tovoters compared toother issues.”

A stark message emerging from our research was that politicians feel under very little
pressure on climate change. Voters are not asking their representatives to act. As one said,“I can’t remember the last time I was asked about climate change. It’s very rare to be asked
about it.”
There is a small exception to this: many MPs identified a particular group of voters,
mostly affluent, educated city dwellers, who are vocal advocates of climate action. But for the
overwhelming majority of people, climate change is a non-issue. This finding is backed up
by other research, which suggests that climate change is of low importance to voterscompared to other issues.18
If politicians saw their job as simply responding to issues raised by their constituents,
they would not focus on climate change. But they do not see themselves as mere aggregatorsof voters’ views. They are influenced, but not controlled, by what the electorate tells them.
They are representatives, not delegates. Exactly what ‘representation’ means has been debatedfiercely by political theorists.19
A useful explanation put forward by political theorist Michael Saward is the idea of a’representative claim’.20 Representation should not just be seen as a static fact, that an MP
represents a constituency just by virtue of being elected. Winning an election is necessary
but not sufficient. Instead, representation should be seen as a process of claims-making, inwhich the politician makes claims which are then accepted, rejected or ignored by theelectorate. In short, representation is a dialogue. When an MP campaigns against a hospital
closure, they are, in effect, saying “I am campaigning for local health services and this makes
me a worthy representative of this area”.
Whilst it is easy to see how politicians can make a case for supporting local hospitals,
how might this work for climate change? We uncovered four different sorts of representative
claim on climate.
Cosmopolitan claim: this puts forward a global problem to which a global solution is

proposed. Politicians argue that it is in the interests of the global community to take action.
As one interviewee told me, “a lot of the impacts of climate change are going to hit otherplaces before they hit here. [My constituency] is not likely to be one of the first places to be
hit particularly badly. So what? I just happen to be here.”This claim has the advantage of acknowledging the global dimensions of the problem.
Yet it has limited appeal, as another explained, given that many people “fundamentally careabout themselves, their environment, their friends, their local space… We have these sort ofmassive big things about what will happen in other parts of the world… and they’re like,‘yeah, ok, whatever.’” In short, this claim is often ignored.
Local prevention claim: another strategy is to tailor the claim explicitly to a local setting,saying that action is necessary to prevent local impacts like flooding. One MP, representing aflood prone area, told us that he used floods as a way of talking about wider climate impacts.
This claim has the advantage that it links a global issue directly to the local area, and allows apolitician to talk in terms of the interests of local people. As with the cosmopolitan claim,
though, it does not link directly to a case for local action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Co-benefits claim: this was the most common strategy interviewees reported, ie linking

climate change to practical, achievable local actions, particularly economic measures, such asencouraging renewable energy generation, or improving transport infrastructure. This has
5the obvious advantage of relevance to the local area. The disadvantage is that it may reduce
the opportunity to discuss the full implications of climate change, focusing instead on small
steps at a local level.
Surrogate claim: as discussed, some MPs promote action on climate change without“Politicians
understand andaccept the scientificconsensus on
climate.”mentioning climate or carbon. This happens at constituency level as well as in national
debates. Although the politician is privately thinking of a particular strategy, such as transport
infrastructure, in terms of its climate benefits, they deliberately do not mention it, because
they think it could backfire. One judged that, if he had mentioned carbon emissions inarguing for a sustainable transport scheme, “there would have been a rolling of eyes andsaying, ‘oh here he goes again.’”
Overall, the research demonstrated clearly that it is not straightforward for a politician
to make a case for why, as an elected representative, he or she should support action on
climate change. As one interviewee memorably said, “you don’t say someone came to mysurgery with climate change coming out of their ears.”

Thinking on a planetary scale“It’s the ultimate challenge to politics, isn’t it?”With the exception of a small number of climate sceptics, politicians understand and accept
the scientific consensus on climate.Yet this acceptance is coupled with a notable reluctanceto open up discussion on the far reaching implications of climate change.
As one veteran ex-minister said, speaking about himself and his parliamentarycolleagues, “it’s almost like they don’t want to think about that. I’d say that’s even true of
people who think we need to grip it, it’s like it’s such a frightening thought that it’s easier tojust assume and believe, be optimistic.”
Instead of continuing discussion about the significance of climate change for humansociety, interviewees steered the discussion on to other linked areas, such as parliamentary
procedure, public opinion or technical policy solutions. This reluctance to integrateknowledge of climate change into everyday life or social action has been called ‘sociallyorganised denial’.21
This tendency is exacerbated by the sheer pressure of day to day life as an MP,
something which all interviewees stressed. As one said, you have to deal with “every subject
in the world, you get weighed down with the weight of subjects you have to deal with…
you have to equip yourself on education, transport, you know, contaminated blood,
anything, anyone up for murder in your constituency, whatever it is”.
Senior politicians, in particular, stressed the practical difficulties of implementing
significant reforms. Most, therefore, highlighted the practical and procedural difficulties of
responding to climate change, and the lack of ‘fit’ between large scale, earth systemchallenges and the daily practice of politics.

6

MPs’ stories

These stories are based on our interviews.
Details have been combined to preserveanonymity.

The climate champion
This story is based on three interviewees.
‘David’ is a pseudonym.

“I’m happy to use an economic

argument if that means that more
people will come on side… I change
the language to be much, much lessextreme.”As a relatively new MP, David says he needs
to focus a lot of his attention on his
constituency. He feels a responsibility to thepeople he represents, and wants to stand up
for his local area. This takes up a lot of histime. Like nearly all the MPs we interviewed,
he says that he’s never asked questions
about climate change.

David has been in parliament six years.
He is a backbencher, and sits on a selectcommittee. He is forthright and a championof climate issues. He points out that where
we are sitting, in the House of Commons
beside the River Thames, may well be underwater in a few years’ time. He calls climatechange “catastrophic”, and thinks thatmight be why some of his colleagues don’t
want to talk about it:“I think the majority of MPs recognisethat climate change is manmade, ishappening and is going to havecatastrophic consequences, but it’sso scary in some ways, maybe they
don’t want to think about it. It’s justsuch a big issue.”He tries to speak about climate change atevery opportunity, both in parliament and in
his constituency. He asks questions aboutclimate issues in debates, puts forward
amendments which alter legislation in
support of climate action and goes tomeetings hosted by environmental groups.
David feels that his commitment has come ata price. Like every MP we interviewed, he saysthat climate change is not discussed muchin the Commons. He thinks his colleagues
see him as a “freak”, and that speaking out
on climate is a “career limiting move.”
Although he doesn’t set out to be difficult,and would like to be promoted, it isimportant to him to speak up for what hebelieves in. However, he thinks about how
to present issues in ways that might appeal:“I’ve knocked on thousands of doors,and had thousands of conversations
with voters, and I just don’t have
conversations on climate change.”
Nevertheless, he says “I do feel I have amandate to act”, and finds ways to talkabout it. He uses speeches in his
constituency to “highlight the things I careabout”, including climate change. He works
with local environment groups, like Friendsof the Earth and Greenpeace, though he iscritical about how strident they are. They arelike the Englishman abroad, he says; “If you
don’t understand me, I’ll shout louder.”He thinks discussion of climate change is
too abstract and distant from voters:“They’ve never been to Bangladesh, they’venever met a polar bear… they’re like, ‘yeah,
ok, whatever.’” Instead, he tries to make acase for low carbon jobs, preventing floods
and so on, building climate change into thediscussions as he goes.
Despite his commitment, he says it isimportant to be realistic:“Politicians like to have campaigns

that they can win…you can’t say ‘I’ve
campaigned to stop climate change.
And now climate change is fixed, andI’ve delivered for you.’ It’s never going
to be a press release that anyone’s
going to put out.”

7

The newcomer
This story is based on three interviewees.
‘Jonathan’ is a pseudonym.

Jonathan has not spoken much aboutclimate change, in parliament or in his
constituency. He says “my priority is to
stand up for my constituency.” He seesclimate change as an abstract, long termissue, which makes it hard to talk about.

“Telling people about the long term isa hard sell, you know it’s not going to
get in the local paper above [a story
about how] one village has
broadband and the other doesn’t.”

Jonathan is new to parliament. Elected in2017 to a marginal seat, he feels his
position is precarious. He is just starting tofind his way around the Commons, sayingthat “there isn’t really any training in being
an MP.” He comments that the working
ethos is “totally individualistic, notcollegiate”, with each MP having to steer
their own way through their working life.
Jonathan is cautious about being
pigeonholed. For example, he has spoken
several times in parliament about aparticular health condition, but worries thatcolleagues will see him as the person who“keeps banging on about [the condition].
Whereas you want people to think of you as,
oh you can go to him with anything.” He is
critical of strategies used by MPs like David,
who speak stridently about the causes they
believe in.

“You can’t just go steamrollering in,although some people have done
that, and they’ve made themselves
very unpopular…. So you have to
tread really carefully.”8

In every decision he makes, hisconstituency comes first. He tells me this isbecause of the UK’s electoral system.
Jonathan compares his marginal
constituency with colleagues who have safeseats:“There’s a sort of a luxury that comeswith a safer seat, you can say ‘Well ok
I care about, whatever issue,’ andmake that your mission in life tochange the world on one particularissue. Whereas when you’re in a moremarginal seat… you feel like you haveto be doing a little bit of everything.”
Jonathan describes a particular groupwithin his constituency as “retired,intelligent and affluent.” Such people like tomake their views known to their local MP, hesays, yet there is a danger in just listening
to the loudest voices.
He tries to make contact with people who
would not think of approaching him. Of
course, he wants their votes; but he also
wants to make sure he is representing theinterests of all his constituents, not just the
campaigners and letter writers.

The realist
This story is based on four interviewees inthe study. ‘Paul’ is a pseudonym.

Paul worries that too much focus on climatechange risks alienating people, both local
people in the constituency and fellow MPs.
He says “I think it is important not to be a
climate change zealot.” He recently argued
for better public transport in his local area,
alongside a proposed road scheme. When
asked whether he had talked about the
carbon emissions from transport, he said

“I think if I had mentioned carbon

emissions, there would have been arolling of eyes and saying, ‘Oh here
he goes again.’”Paul has served two terms as an MP, andhas a frontbench role. When asked why heran for parliament, he says, “it sounds
rather trite, but coming into politics was an
exercise in wanting to make a difference.
My previous work [in the public sector] hadtaught me that there was plenty wrong insociety.”Paul says that he sees climate change as a“gut” issue. He has thought a lot about it,
but worries that it does not motivate hiscolleagues. He says they are generally “notnaturally inclined to be so interested in thispolicy area” and that there is no pressure
from party leaders to get involved. He sees
limited value in trying to persuadecolleagues, and tries to find other ways tomake progress.
He gives his ideas for reforming transportand energy policy, but is adamant that suchpolicies should be justified solely on
economic and social grounds, and that
reducing carbon emissions, or tacklingclimate change, should not be given as areason for action. In short, he advocatesclimate policy by stealth.

“I don’t use climate change as the word
because I think it’s just toxic now inpolitics…As is the way in these issues
which are contentious, you won’t takepeople with you politically.”

So he made his case in other ways. He is very
deliberate in his choice of strategy and in thewords he uses.
He is pessimistic about the ability ofparliamentary processes and mechanisms
to bring about change. He said he worried
about this before he was elected, but “I
underestimated... The frustrations are muchgreater… it’s a bunfight, nothing everchanges, you can become deeply cynical.”He says that how policy is designed “endsup really mattering” and is more important
than bold public statements. He mentions
Bismarck’s phrase: “politics is the art of thepossible.”Paul has a different attitude to his
constituents than David or Jonathan. He is
not so strongly motivated by constituency
work, he says:“I enjoy the constituency stuff; itgives me a hell of a lot of informationand knowledge which is of benefit
to me here for the national stage.
But ultimately, my job is here [inparliament], it isn’t there.”Though this attitude gives him more
freedom to focus on the things that he sees
as important, he is keen to point out that heis not dismissive of local views. He sees his
constituency as a barometer of public
opinion.

9

He talks about the possibility of profoundchange over time, using the example ofequal marriage legislation to argue thatchange is possible through a combinationof opinion shifts and careful policy. He
worries, though, about moving too far, toofast. He says,

The ex-minister
This story is based on four interviewees inthe study. ‘Stephanie’ is a pseudonym.

“However much it might look like theleaders are making decisions, in a
democracy they are polling public
opinion, they are asking people
about their priorities, they’re
experiencing, just in the courseof doing their job, where public
opinion is.”This complex balancing act, he says, is thecore of democratic process. So no matter
how urgent the issue, “the idea that you
can somehow ignore the electoral result
when setting your expectations of what
government might do is, I think, profoundly
undemocratic.”

Stephanie has been in the Commons forthree terms, and has served as a minister.
She expresses her views readily, andspeaks with the relaxed confidence ofsomeone who has proven their worth.
Though she talks about her constituency,
it is clear that it doesn’t have the same
pervasive influence on her as for younger
or less experienced MPs. Neither is she as
worried about what people think of her.
When told that other MPs are worried about
being seen as outsiders if they make thecase for action on climate change, she issurprised and even dismissive:“There’s no argument for staying

quiet on any of this. You’ve got tospeak out.”
Stephanie sees herself as a pragmatist, andsays that others’ expectations are
unrealistic.

“The punters, the populace, think thatthe politician, the prime minister for
example, is all powerful. Actually,
they absolutely are not. I’m notsaying they have no power, but they
can’t just do it.”This isn’t an excuse for doing nothing, shesays, but is instead a plea to focus on thepractical steps necessary to achievechange.

10This view is central to her argument about
how to tackle climate change. It’s notenough, she says, for politicians to beconvinced of the science:

For the same reason, she criticises
environmental organisations:“Even if all the cabinet today were

beliefs, it’s about an ability to
implement… this is a criticism I’dmake of many of the green
organisations, you just say it’s allvery worthy but what the fuck can
you do?”completely persuaded, the question
then of what you do about it,
becomes a difficult and problematic
issue.”She was in parliament when the 2008
Climate Change Act was passed, and likethe vast majority of MPs, voted for thelegislation. She doesn’t remember it being
discussed much, though: “The big issues
were more around terrorism, anti-terrorism
legislation, tax rates and smoking in public
places… I remember it going on in the
background.”She thinks that the fact that there was astrong consensus might have meant that it
was discussed less, saying that:“If you take it out of the day to day ofpolitical conflict, you shouldn’t be
surprised that people aren’t talking
about it.”
Stephanie describes the group of politicians
who worked directly on the bill as “theobsessives…. I know it’s offensive to use theterm obsessives.” For her, she says, climatechange “probably falls into the basket ofgeneral progressive issues that sound goodto ensure.”
When asked more about this, talking about
the likely impacts of climate change, shesays that just stating the problem, without
regard to practical steps that can be taken,
is counterproductive.

“Motivation isn’t about just a set ofInstead, she wants to focus on tangible
objectives, promoting measures that
improve local areas, like encouraging
walking and cycling, creating jobs in the
renewables industry, and so on.
Although Stephanie is less focused thanother interviewees on the views of her
constituents and public opinion, she does
also ask how realistic it is to expect
significant change on an issue that barely
features in public or media debate.
Following the recession, she says, it has“died” as an issue. Neither is it discussed
much within her party:“If either your party membership or
the public are not flagging it up
consistently as one of their top
concerns or priorities, that is theissue.”She is keen to explore changes to thepractice of politics that could enable a moreconstructive debate between parties on
climate change:“It’s the ultimate challenge to politics,
isn’t it?”

“The argument that we’re in aqualitatively different situation than
we’ve ever been in history, in myopinion doesn’t help the argument
at all.”11

A political agenda forclimate action“Reorientating policy
and resources toward
local action would
allow cities, towns
and rural areas tocontribute fully
to the low carbon
transition.”

Much advocacy on climate change has focused on policy prescriptions, couched in terms ofnecessity, efficiency and efficacy. But our research shows that it is not enough just to showthat a policy is necessary, efficient and effective. There is another important question to ask:
does the proposal build and extend the political mandate for climate action?
This is not to argue that efficiency and efficacy should not be criteria for climate action.
Rather, that any proposals should be examined in terms of their contribution to developing
the political mandate, as well as their effectiveness. On the basis of these insights, we outline
below the elements of a renewed mandate for climate action in the UK.

Widening the political base for action
There is a campaign, supported by MPs, NGOs and business groups alike, to strengthen the
Climate Change Act, setting a more ambitious target for net zero emissions by 2050. One
hundred and thirty one MPs wrote to the prime minister asking for this target to beenshrined in law, representing the UK’s commitment to the goal agreed in Paris, to limit
warming to 1.5°C.22 This stronger target is certainly necessary. But the debate masks a more
fundamental question about how long term, top down targets are realised.
Currently, although government as a whole is responsible for the target,
implementation lies with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Other
departments, including those that have considerable influence over emissions of greenhousegases from agriculture, land use and transport, like the Department for Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport, do
not give it the same attention. Placing clear responsibilities on, and setting carbon targets for,each of these departments would help to engage a wider political base in climate action.
Nor is the act explicit about the role of local areas in carbon reduction. Some local areas
have taken the initiative, pledging local targets and developing action plans. Manchester, forexample, has pledged to become a zero carbon city by 2038; and the Lake District National
Park has developed a local carbon budget, modelled on the national budgets enshrined in theact. There are many such examples. But local authorities are neither required to contributetoward national carbon targets, nor resourced to do so. Much local action is in spite of, notbecause of, national policy.
Setting targets for local areas, and reorientating policy and resources toward local
action would allow cities, towns and rural areas to contribute fully to the low carbon
transition. Members of parliament, with their dual role in the constituency and at national
level, would be well placed to steer such initiatives.

Involving people
One practical way in which politicians could explore the public mandate for action, anddevelop meaningful policy solutions, is through greater use of deliberative processes, such as
citizens’ assemblies. These allow citizens and experts to meet on equal terms, to assess
evidence, debate and agree solutions.23 They are not a substitute for electoral politics, butthey provide a more nuanced and detailed understanding of voters’ viewpoints than
traditional political polling or focus groups. Recently, two select committees in parliament
commissioned a citizens’ assembly to investigate policies for social care, another complex,
long term issue. Research has shown that politicians value these opportunities to engage
directly with people.24
The Republic of Ireland recently held a citizens’ assembly on climate change. A
representative group spent two weekends hearing from, and debating with, climate scientists
and experts on issues including transport, agriculture and energy; and they deliberated as agroup on how Ireland as a nation should respond to climate change. Given the time andspace to learn, think and discuss, citizens offered up a surprisingly radical and confident set
12

“It is both legitimate
and necessary to
ask of every climate
policy, ‘Will thisengage people?’”of answers to a tricky question. Eighty per cent of them, for example, said they would be
willing to pay higher taxes on carbon intensive activities.25
Such processes could be used in the development of future carbon budgets. Politicians
and citizens could debate, together, how they should be met, and prioritise policies toachieve them. It would allow politicians and policy makers to test and discuss a range ofapproaches to climate action, rather than second guessing which policies might besupported.
Doing politics in this way would not just be good for climate action, but for politics
too. Similar prescriptions for change have been put forward by those searching for a lessdivisive and more productive post-Brexit politics, to counter the distrust of ‘experts’ and‘elites’.26,27 A more inclusive form of government would involve a constant interplay
between the views and values of the public and politicians.

Policies that grow support
In addition to greater deliberation, there is a need to design policies which build
engagement and public support. It is both legitimate and necessary to ask of every climate
policy, “Will this engage people? Will it build a mandate for further action?”
Our research did not look in detail at such strategies. Possibilities could include local,
municipal or community ownership of energy, which helps to build support for, andunderstanding of, energy infrastructure at a local level. For transport, there could be a greater
focus on travel demand locally, and involvement of citizens in the setting and managing oftransport budgets for towns and cities.
The growing divestment movement has been a useful way for people to engage in thetransition to a low carbon economy and society. It is also important to consider the effects ofsuch a shift across the economy. The new Just Transition Commission for Scotland
acknowledges that the transition needs to be carefully handled, to ensure that those currently
working in high carbon sectors do not lose out.
Focusing on young people could be effective. Research indicates that, whilst young
people are less engaged in formal politics, they look for other means to engage politicallyand demonstrate citizenship.28,29 In ten countries, including Canada, the US, India, Pakistan
and the Netherlands, young people have brought lawsuits against their governments, urging
further climate action.30

Considering the long term
An issue raised by many politicians in this study was the tension between the pressures of
day to day politics and long term challenges like climate change. Institutional changes could
allow greater consideration of the future in political decision making. Some countries,
including Wales, Hungary and Sweden, have institutions in place to represent the needs offuture generations.31 The UK’s Climate Change Act provides an element of futures thinking,by enshrining long term targets in law. The act could be supported by institutional changes
which explicitly consider future generations.

13Endnotes

	Department for Business, Energy andIndustrial Strategy, 2017, ‘2016 UK
provisional greenhouse gas emissions’,
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/604327/2016_
Provisional_emissions_statistics_one_
page_summary.pdf, (accessed 14
September 2018)2	Committee on Climate Change, 2017,2017 report to parliament - meeting carbon
budgets: closing the policy gap
3	Ibid.
4
	M Brown, 6 March 2015, ‘Gormley
climate change artwork shown for firsttime in the Guardian’, The Guardian5
	T Bawden, 5 January 2015, ‘Climatechange activists blame Government for‘colossal failure’ to make global warminga national priority’, The Independent
6	J Camberlain, 2013, ‘Climate change, lackof political will leading to ‘Global Perfect
Storm’’, Common Dreams, available at:www.commondreams.org/
news/2013/01/08/climate-change-lackpolitical-will-leading-global-perfectstorm-report, (accessed 9 December
2016)7	Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 2014, Climate change 2013: thephysical science basis:Working Group I
contribution to the Fifth assessment report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
8	Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 2018, Global Warming of 1.5° C
9	Committee on Climate Change, 2017
op cit10	D Demeritt, 2001, ‘The construction of
global warming and the politics ofscience’, Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 91, 307–337
11	M Hulme, 2009, Why we disagree aboutclimate change: understanding controversy,
inaction and opportunity, Cambridge
University Press
12	M McNeil, 2013, ‘Between a rock and ahard place: the deficit model, thediffusion model and publics in STS’,
Science as Culture 22, 589–608
114	B Wynne, 1996, ‘May the sheep safely
graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay
knowledge divide’, Risk, environment andmodernity: towards a New Ecology
14	J Lovenduski, 2012, ‘Prime Minister’squestions as political ritual’, British Politics
7, 314–340
15.
J McKay, 2011, ‘‘Having it all?’ Women
MPs and motherhood in Germany and theUK’, Parliamentary Affairs 64, 714–736
16
	N Puwar, 2004, Space invaders: race, genderand bodies out of place, Berg Publishers
17	R Willis, 2017, ‘Taming the climate?
Corpus analysis of politicians’ speech on
climate change’, Environmental Politics 26,
212–23118
	N Pidgeon, 2012, ‘Public understandingof, and attitudes to, climate change: UKand international perspectives and policy’,
Climate Policy 12, S85–S106
19
	N Urbinati and M E Warren, 2008, ‘The
concept of representation incontemporary democratic theory’, Annual
Review of Political Science 11, 387–412
20	M Saward, 2010, The representative claim,
Oxford University Press
21
	K M Norgaard, 2011, Living in denial:
climate change, emotions, and everyday life, MIT
Press22	D Blackman, 11 September 2018, ‘MPs
urge for stronger climate targets’, Utility
Week
23
	J S Dryzek and S Niemeyer, 2008,‘Discursive representation’, The American
Political Science Review 102, 481–493
24
	C M Hendriks and J Lees-Marshment,
2018, ‘Political leaders and public
engagement: the hidden world of
informal elite–citizen interaction’, Political
Studies 21
25
	The Citizens’ Assembly, 2018, Third reportand recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly:
how the state can make Ireland a leader intackling climate change
26	L Mckenzie, 2017, ‘The class politics ofprejudice: Brexit and the land of no-hopeand glory’, The British Journal of Sociology
68, S265–S280
27
	C Ainsley, 2018, The new working class: how
to win hearts, minds and votes, Policy Press
13

	B Hayward, E Selboe, and E Plew, 2015,‘Citizenship for a changing global climate:learning from New Zealand and Norway’,
Citizenship, social and economics education 14,
19–27
29	M Henn and N Foard, 2012,’Youngpeople, political participation and trust in
Britain’, Parliamentary Affairs 65, 47–67
30
	Our Children’s Trust, 2018, ‘Securing thelegal right to a stable climate’, www.
ourchildrenstrust.org, (accessed 7
September 2018)31
	J Urry, 2016, What is the future?, Polity
Press
28

15

About this researchThis briefing summarises a three year research collaboration between Lancaster University andGreen Alliance, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). The study consisted of:__ An interdisciplinary literature review, drawing on previous work from a range of perspectives,
including science and technology studies, sociology, political science and environmental
governance.
__ Analysis of parliamentary speeches on climate change, in the lead up to the 2008 Climate
Change Act, using the technique of corpus analysis.
__ A focus group with NGO representatives who work with MPs on climate change, to orientate
the research and gain insights for use in MP interviews.
__ Two sets of interviews with current and former MPs, carried out between 2016 and 2018.
Twenty three interviews were conducted in total, using a qualitative method designed to elicit
reflection and narrative. Interviewees were offered anonymity. The sample contained abalance of party background, gender, parliamentary experience and previous work on
climate issues.
Findings from the research have been published in academic journals, in the following papers,
all open access (free to read without subscription).
__ R Willis, 2017, ‘Taming the climate? Corpus analysis of politicians’ speech on climate change’,
Environmental Politics 26(2): 212–231. This presents the findings of the corpus analysis ofdebates on the 2008 Climate Change Act.
__ R Willis, September 2017, ‘How members of parliament understand and respond to climatechange’, The Sociological Review, advance online publication. This analyses findings from thefirst set of MP interviews and uses insights from sociology, political theory and science andtechnology studies to explore how MPs understand and act on climate.
__ R Willis, January 2018, ‘Constructing a ‘representative claim’ for action on climate change:
evidence from interviews with politicians’, Political Studies. This looks in detail at the issue ofpolitical representation and explores how MPs create a mandate, or ‘representative claim’, foraction on climate change.
__ R Willis, July 2018, ‘The use of composite narratives to present interview findings’, Qualitative
Research, advance online publication. This describes the ‘composite narrative’ techniquedeveloped to present findings from the MP interviews.
__ R Willis, November 2018, ‘Governing earth systems: the role of national politicians’, paper for
the Earth Systems Governance conference, Utrecht. This explores how national politicians
respond to calls by scientists and international organisations for new forms of global
governance of climate and other earth systems.

16

17

Green Alliance
11 Belgrave Road
London SW1V 1RB
T 020 7233 7433
ga@green-alliance.org.uk
www.green-alliance.org.uk
blog: www.greenallianceblog.org.uk
twitter: @GreenAllianceUKThe Green Alliance Trust
Registered charity no 1045395
Company limited by guarantee(England and Wales) no 3037633