Climate Change and Democracy
Recent research indicates that modern western democracies have problems addressing an existential threat – climate change. Although progress has been made more is needed to meet the Paris agreement target of a maximum 1.5 degree Celsius rise in temperature (above pre-industrial levels) and thus avoid catastrophic climate change. Democracy-related problems that make it harder to fight climate change include the presence of a short term outlook due to a periodic (typically 4 year) election cycle. Representatives do not wish to address long term issues whose impacts will be mostly felt by future generations since their goal is short-term political gain to achieve re-election. Second, impacts of climate change are felt around the world and not just within a single country. As such representatives must address problems felt by those who do not have a vote in their re-election – such as the poorest members of the international community who are in many cases most vulnerable to climate change. Third, the presence of focused well-funded interest groups such as the fossil-fuel lobby block progress on climate change in order to maintain or improve the financial outcomes of their clients. Fourth, international institutions are weak and have failed to create binding, enforceable mechanisms for climate change mitigation. Fifth, climate change has become a highly polarized topic and legislative assembly debate on this subject has become adversarial in nature making progress difficult. Sixth, climate change involves complex phenomena making it hard for the public to understand and act upon. Climate change is thus pushing the limits of our democratic system. Given these problems how can we improve our current democratic system to deal with this existential threat?
The Solution – Deliberative Democracy
A solution to the above problems – as presented in academic research – is Deliberative Democracy. Deliberative Democracy is an approach where political decisions are the product of fair and reasonable discussion and debate among citizens. This approach goes beyond voting by citizens and decision making by representatives. A Deliberative Democracy approach consists of 3 properties. The first is its deliberative nature whereby debate involves the exchange of ideas by citizens who are open to competing arguments. This property requires conditions of fairness and equality among citizens. The second property is its inclusive nature whereby all those affected by a decision get a chance to deliberate and provide feedback when it comes to the decision making process. The third property is its consequential nature whereby deliberations by citizens are reflected in the final policy outcomes.
A deliberative democracy approach which recent research shows helps address climate change – described by Yale University professor of political scientist Helene Landemore in her book “Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century” – is an “open mini-public”. This is a “randomly selected body open to the input of the larger public” with the goal of empowering “ordinary citizens in a way that renders deliberation feasible while maximizing wider access”. This random selection (referred to as a “lottocratic” approach) is democratic because it’s based, according to Landemore, on the “principle of impartiality between citizens” with everyone having “exactly the same chance of being chosen” to participate in a mini-public. Mini-publics can also be based on rotation (to make it more likely that all citizens get a chance to participate in a mini-public over time). This approach conforms to Aristotle’s view of democracy being “ruling and being ruled in turn”. Modern mini-publics benefit from a quota sampling of the public which ensures representativeness of different groups such as different age groups, gender groups, professions, ethnic or religious groups, etc. With this approach we have greater engagement amongst ordinary citizens turning them from spectators into powerful voices for change. Recommendations from a mini-public can be reviewed by the general public and legislative bodies providing decisions makers with a feeling of where citizens stand after careful reflection on an issue. Policy proposals made by ordinary citizens participating in mini-publics might thus become accepted policy.
The Advantages
By putting climate change policy determination into the hands of randomly selected citizens there is less chance of short term decision making since these individuals do not need to face a 4 year election cycle. The mini-public approach reduces polarization usually existing when dealing with a controversial subject such as climate change through face-to-face discussions after being provided with the science. Mini-publics also avoid interest groups since the participants in the panels are not career politicians but rather ordinary citizens (with a different set of citizens for each mini-public) and can directly be provided expert opinions which are based only on the science and not on the wishes of lobby groups. The science can be made to be easily understood by members of the public through the use of resources prepared by teachers of the subject. If mini-public participants include individuals from around the world it could bring greater understanding and awareness of the challenges people face in dealing with climate change. The recommendations from the global mini-public climate deliberations can be presented to the general public in countries around the world as well as policy makers for debate and approval. Greater understanding by ordinary citizens (outside of the mini-public group) of the results of international mini-public deliberations can strengthen international institutions seeking to reach binding agreements on climate change as a result of bringing about greater understanding of what others face around the world.
Research from the United States
Recent research published in 2021 in the journal Frontiers in Political Science shows how US citizens are able to change their minds on climate change after engaging with others in a mini-public deliberative democracy approach. The research used US data from 4 locations collected during a global climate consultation (known as the World Wide Views on Climate and Energy) 1 day event held on June 6, 2015. With this event, mini-public deliberations were held in 76 countries involving 10,000 citizens. Participants were chosen to represent the diversity of their location and were not climate change scientists, experts, or stakeholders. In the US participants were asked to submit a survey before the event as well as after the event to determine changes in opinions on various questions related to climate change. Participants were also provided with an information booklet to read prior to the event itself. The event itself consisted of short informational videos on climate change followed by deliberation and discussion in a group of six to eight people. The discussions were mediated by trained facilitators. Statistical analysis of the pre-event and post-event US data showed that deliberation resulted in a significant increase in the recognition of the problem of climate change as well as greater confidence in international agreements to address the challenge. According to the research “participants in the United States increased their confidence in international agreements, experts, and science” of climate change after the deliberations as a result of having an open mind to different arguments. In addition, a significant change of opinion towards recognizing climate change as well as the ability of new technologies and international agreements to address the issue was registered for those who generally are considered skeptical of climate change. After arriving at the data indicating a significant change of opinion, the researchers stated that “deliberation by citizens of the United States is possible even regarding the polarized subject of climate change”. The research paper summarizes the mini-public deliberative approach using 5 points: 1) demographic representation and diversity of viewpoints, 2) informed citizenry with an ability to impact policy outcomes, 3) improved understanding of complex issues through deliberation, 4) overcoming differences in viewpoints through face to face discussions, 5) conscious decision to avoid special interest groups in public policy.
Research from Canada
Another example – this time from Alberta, Canada – the epicentre of the Canadian fossil fuel industry – is the deliberative democracy approach taken by the City of Edmonton to address climate change as described in a 2016 research report published by the Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development. A mini-public was used to arrive at recommendations on how the city should deal with climate change – deciding between business-as-usual, reduced-carbon, and low-carbon. A polling firm was used to recruit 66 demographically representative residents – including some who were climate change skeptics and some who had jobs or had family members with jobs in the energy sector. The deliberations included discussions on an energy transition policy for Edmonton, how to achieve carbon reductions, how to increase building energy efficiency, greater use of renewable energy, and transit-centred development. In the end, 92% of participants agreed to make Edmonton a low-carbon city by 2050 and also came up with a range of recommendations in order to achieve this objective. An Energy Transition Strategy was subsequently created (based in part by the mini-public recommendations) and the approach was unanimously adopted by the City Council in 2015. This is an example of how deliberative democracy can result in publicly approved policy. The report, however, makes suggestions about how to improve the deliberative mini-public approach taken by including the need for participants to consider the bigger picture when addressing complex topics such as climate change. This includes moving beyond the knowledge held by the group as a result of interactions with experts, understanding the different ways issues and solutions are framed, determining the diverse values motivating participants, and talking to others outside the mini-public group to see how they respond to the approach taken by the group. Ultimately, mini-publics were determined to be an important part of determining climate change solutions but only when the deliberative approach addresses the “complexity of social, economic, cultural, and ecological systems” related to climate change.
Research from the Australia
A 2013 research article published in the Australian Journal of Politics and History describes an Australian mini-public experiment to address climate change. With this experiment, 3 climate change scenarios were established: baseline, medium emissions, and high emissions. The medium and high scenarios were based on different emissions trajectories while the baseline scenario maintained the current climate. The scenarios consisted of variables such as temperature, rainfall, and growing range for key species. Interviews were subsequently conducted with 103 individuals who were presented with the 3 scenarios in order to ascertain their response to these different climate conditions. Surveys were conducted to determine if the individual was willing (under these scenarios) to pay to reduce climate emissions and what policy response they would adopt. Finally, a subset of the individuals were asked to participate in a 3 day intensive deliberation forum while another subset of individuals were kept as a control group and not asked to participate in the deliberations. This second group was interviewed 3 months after the initial scenario interviews to determine their long term response and if their views changed. The deliberation group made use of careful facilitation to ensure that the discussions proceeded with the intent of considering the merits of different ideas.
For the participants who only took part in the interviews, a significant increase in WTP (Willingness to Pay) numbers were recorded when comparing baseline and high emissions scenarios (but this feeling mostly did not last beyond the interview process as determined by the 3 month interviews). Those who took part in the deliberation, however, had more enduring preferences – the deliberation had a more long term impact.
The underlying perspectives of those who only participated in the interviews along with those who also took part in the deliberations were also examined. Deliberations changed the nature of the climate change debate by changing these underlying perspectives. Specifically, deliberations reduced the number of participants who were climate change skeptics and tended to make these participants more accommodating of the possibility of climate change. Deliberation also tended to change those who initially wanted strong centralized government action alone into a perspective which included decentralized community action to fight climate change. This change also included a change towards individual responsibility. According to the author, this change reflected the notion that “deliberative engagement increased the desire for more deliberative engagement.”
The deliberation showed that ordinary Australian citizens can deal with a complex subject such as climate change. The author also states that mini-public participants can be trusted because they are ordinary people and not “products of political party machinery or journalists responding to the logic of mass media”.
The article also addressed how a deliberative approach might be scaled up to include a large population and not just a small group of individuals. This requires, according to the author, a long term outlook, leadership from elected representatives, as well as the use of important moments such as natural disasters to encourage greater deliberation on climate change.
According to the author deliberation “engenders deeper forms of cognition on complex issues in ways that produce outcomes” such as that needed to address climate change.
The author concludes by stating that “Deliberative democracy is difficult to achieve, but brings considerable benefits in transforming the public response to climate change and, potentially, the nature of politics itself.”
Conclusion
These examples illustrate the potential for understanding, agreement, and action using the mini-public approach. In addition, the examples also illustrate that the problems inherent in our democratic system can be overcome through greater engagement by ordinary citizens. Deliberative democracy through mini-publics improves our chances of addressing climate change and should be adopted.
