Climate policy lags behind public demand. Environmental psychology research shows how we can mitigate and adapt when governments aren’t taking sufficient action.
It’s an unseasonably (or unclimatically) warm November, and nationwide, people are heading to the polls. As the election night results roll in, an unexpected outcome takes shape: a party leader that says climate change is a hoax has emerged victorious.
This was the scene in The Netherlands in 2023. The Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) was the big winner in the Dutch elections, with 23 percent of the vote.
After six months of tense deliberations, they published their ruling platform together with their coalition partners, the conservative liberal VVD, agrarian BBB, and Christian Democratic NSC. That platform includes ending an offset scheme for solar panels, building new nuclear power plants, and overturning bans on diesel-powered buses in cities and turning back the requirement to replace central heating with heat pumps by 2026.
Notably, the new cabinet has also changed the name of the previous environmental ministry – Economic Affairs and Climate – to Climate and Green Growth. The minister of that department, Sophie Hermans (VVD), was appointed in July, and recently acknowledged that too little action is being taken to achieve the Dutch climate goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 49% compared to levels in 1990.
“The low hanging fruit has already been picked”, Hermans told the Dutch newspaper NRC. “That means that there are irrevocable, difficult choices ahead.”
Not good news for climate policy
This November, it was America’s turn. And to put it bluntly, Donald Trump’s re-election is not good news for climate policy.
He’s an avowed climate change denier who reversed 98 environmental rules in his first administration. He has made no secret of his fervent desire to roll back many EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) policies in order to intensify gas and oil production America in his second term, further even than the record-high levels under the Biden administration.
Trump has announced his plan to appoint Lee Zeldin as the administrator of the EPA. Although Zeldin is not a known climate change denier, his voting record speaks for itself: he opposed the Inflation Reduction Act and has repeatedly voted against legislation to protect clean air and clean water.
Trump has also selected Chris Wright, an oil and gas industry CEO, to be the next energy secretary. Wright has denied the existence of the climate crisis and claims that there is no such thing as the energy transition.
Such appointments likely mean that the transition to green energy may be slowed in America. But that does not mean it can – or will – be stopped.
What now?
So, what can we do on both sides of the Atlantic, and around the world?
It’s important to understand that a win for climate skeptical parties globally does not mean a loss for climate policy. A new paper from environmental psychology researchers associate professor Thijs Bouman and professor Linda Steg, among others, reveals that even if it’s not their top voting issue, people who vote for parties with limited climate change policy do still care about the climate.
Conservative members of the electorate may oppose specific policies they perceive as unfair, or plans that they worry could negatively impact their quality of life. Yet a majority of voters worldwide favor stronger climate policy from their governments:
“For instance, a recent study among 73,765 citizens from 77 countries concluded that around 80% of the global population ‘called for their country to strengthen its commitments to address climate change’. Similarly, a study among 130,000 respondents from 125 countries estimated that 89% of the world population agrees that national governments should take more climate action.”
Climate action is very much in line with people’s values and concerns. Most of us are worried about the consequences of climate change, not only in the future, but right here, right now. Yet politicians – and citizens – of all stripes seem to underestimate how much bipartisan support there is from the electorate for pursuing ambitious climate policy.
Inflation Reduction Act
It should go without saying that federal climate policy can play an outsized role. And it is: during the Biden administration, The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) – has translated into massive investments in green jobs and infrastructure in districts across America.
Across the Atlantic, the European Green Deal was signed in 2019, with the intention of transforming the EU into “the first climate-neutral bloc in the world by 2050”.
Such federal level climate action may be harder to come by in the near future with parties and coalitions in power that at best don’t prioritise climate action or at worst question the reality of climate change.
But climate actions don’t only result from federal policy. They are also developed locally – through new laws, amendments, incentives, and bottom-up initiatives from citizens themselves, including lawsuits.
Acting locally
In response to Trump’s first term, American states and cities redoubled their local efforts and made their own environmental laws: 24 states have adopted specific greenhouse gas reduction targets, and 33 states have released a climate action plan or are in the process of revising or developing one, according to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
And strong climate action is increasingly synonymous with a strong economy. A recent story by Grist summed up why the energy transition will charge ahead, Trump or no Trump: “The cost of renewables is plummeting, heat pumps are selling like crazy, and red states are raking in cash from the IRA.” In other words, it’s financially attractive to get on board because so many people are already adopting these technologies.
Two big economic sticking points for the IRA are connected to “red” (majority republican-voting) states in America. Texas – where Trump won 56% of the vote – produces the most sustainable energy in the country (even though Texas also produces the most crude oil and natural gas in America), and 75% of the investments in the Inflation Reduction Act are going to republican majority districts (161 billion versus 42 billion).
Suing fossil fuel companies and other climate-aligned lawsuits demanding that governments and companies reduce their emissions in keeping with the law is an increasingly popular movement, which looks likely to proceed regardless of who is in the Oval Office: 230 such suits have been filed since 2015.
And changing state constitutions in America is also a strategy to enshrine climate action in the law. Three American states – Montana, New York and Pennsylvania – have added the right to a healthy environment as amendments.
Action on all levels
Research insights from environmental psychology provide guidance for how societal actors on all levels can be more empowered to act pro-environmentally (beyond federal policy):
Local policy makers can make it easier to act greener by removing obstacles that stand in the way. They can also facilitate pro-environmental behavior by creating infrastructure, like better bike paths and more comprehensive recycling options, and providing subsidies to take the sting out of higher prices. City, county and state elected officials can equip people to create their own community energy initiatives, and support them for the long haul.
Organisations, including their C-suite, can be more vocal about their company’s pro-environmental values by adopting mission statements to reduce environmental impact and – crucially – implement policies to live up to them. Employees are likely internalize their company’s goals, which motivates them to act accordingly in the workplace.
Citizen assemblies – national or local – can get people involved in decision-making about green energy projects, and put their values front and center. Citizen assemblies that use the “four D’s” – dialogue, decision-making power, diversity, and deliberation – can increase acceptance of and trust in energy policy, because participants feel their concerns directly contribute to solutions that match their values.
Public communicators can make people aware that their personal mitigation and adaptation efforts can result in positive change, both of which are urgently needed because climate change is happening now. People need to be made to feel that their decisions play a big role in creating a world that could be even better than it was before, and to know that there are plenty of adaptation actions they can take to reduce their own climate risks.
Private citizens can shout from the rooftops to make each other aware that more people believe in climate change than we think, and that so many of us want to do more to protect the climate. All of us can also normalise greener behaviour by being honest and open with our friends, family and colleagues about our own actions – do good out loud.
Hope is agency
Governments can – and should – recognize that preventing the worst case scenarios of climate change is in line with the will of the people. As United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres put it: “Together, we can win. But it’s time for leaders to decide whose side they’re on.”
Having hope that we can make positive change, and seeing other people take action to that end, is what gives us agency, individually and collectively. Opportunities to take action to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change exist on so many other levels for federal leadership: we can do so much ourselves, and momentum is on our side.
