What is the role of democracy in the fight against climate change?

Hans Kundnani

Good evening, good morning, good afternoon, depending on where in the world you’re joining us from, and welcome to this panel discussion on democracy and climate change. My name’s Hans Kundnani. I’m the Head of the Europe Programme at Chatham House and the reason that I’m moderating this event is because I’ve been leading a project on democracy at Chatham House. This is an event that we are doing together with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. In fact, it’s the first in a series of discussions that we’ll be doing, together with WFD, on various aspects of democracy, over the next few months.

This event is on the record. It’s also being livestreamed at the panel that Environment – the Chatham House Environment and Society has at COP in Glasgow. So welcome to everyone who is watching from there. And we have three fantastic panellists: Rafael Jimenez Aybar, who is Environmental Democracy Advisor at the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, who is joining us also from Glasgow, so maybe he can give us an update on what’s been going on there today. Then, Dale Jamieson, who is the Founding Director of Environmental Studies and Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy at NYU, and he joins us from New York. And Emily Gray, who’s the Managing Director at Ipsos MORI Scotland, and she joins us from Edinburgh.

As I say, I’ve been leading this project on democracy and it sometimes strikes me that, you know, when – in a lot of the discussion around climate change, that we don’t really connect these two issues as much as we should. We talk a lot about democracy, we talk a lot about climate change, but often, sort of, slightly separately from each other, and so, what we’re going to try to do in the next hour is to join the dots a bit and, sort of, imag – and, sort of, you know, interrogate the intersection between climate and democracy.

It seems to me, again, this is my particular perspective, and the panellists can feel free to contradict me on this, but it seems to me that, sometimes, when we talk about tackling climate change, we do so in quite a, sort of, technocratic way. I think that’s partly because of the role that science plays, and targets, and so on, but I think, you know, it’s also because, you know, the argument is obviously made that preventing climate change is in everybody’s interests, you know, the whole of humanity. And so, I think what that sometimes does is it slightly, sort of, obscures some of the real clashes that – between different interests, that actually, climate change could lead to.

That’s one of the things I’d like to explore in the discussion. In particular, one of the things I’ve been thinking about quite a lot, and I’m hoping that Emily, in particular, can shed some light on this, is you know, whether the, sort of, fault lines in our democracies, that we’re all very familiar with, in terms of generational divides, urban-rural divides, divides to do with the educational – to the educational levels, whether the way that climate change is, sort of, rising up the political agenda is going to deepen those fault lines, or alternatively, whether it’s going to create a new kind of consensus that has the potential to overcome those fault lines. And it could be – ‘cause I think, you know, in terms of thinking about the consequences for democracy, that’s going to be quite important.

And it strikes me, also, that you know, as we increasingly talk about a climate emergency, it does also, you know, raise a bunch of other questions about democracy and climate change. I mean, obviously, that term ‘emergency’ has a certain kind of meaning in, you know, in discussions of – in political science, essentially, states of emergency, which you know, are when you suspend normal politics and, in particular, normal democratic proced – processes and institutions in a democracy. So, I’d love to explore that, too. And then, I guess, ultimately, the very, sort of, big question in the background here is whether, in the end, democracies can deliver what they need to, in order to prevent climate change, or whether democracy is somehow a problem in that respect. I guess, to put it another way, whether we can actually get people to vote for the things which Scientists tell us need to be done.

So, we’re going to – each of the speakers is going to speak for about seven minutes and then we’re going to open it up for questions and comments as quickly as we can, and I’ll explain how exactly we’re going to do that after we’ve had those first interventions from the speakers. But we’ll start with Rafael, tell us how you think about this question and, as I say, maybe you can tell us what’s been happening in Glasgow today.

Rafael Jimenez Aybar

Thank you very much, Hans, and I’d rather get cracking with the topic, and if there is any time left, and I’ll move onto what is happening, but we don’t have a lot of time. But I’m really honoured to be – contribute to this conversation. I’m doing it not as political science experts, which I’m not, but rather as an environmental democracy practitioner. So, my experience is as a foot soldier, with some years spent slogging away, trying to get Parliamentarians, governments and civil society organisations to somehow work together and make some actual progress in tackling the global environmental crisis, because there is more than one, even though climate is the one that we are talking about today.

But the question that this panel is addressing, it’s not new. Democracies have a long history of struggling to address weaker problems, particularly those where the reward is thought to be far in the future, and that require difficult, politically inpopular [means unpopular] changes across society, and changes that face well organised, highly motivated and extremely wealthy opposition. Yet, I believe that we are finally on the verge of a tipping point. The evidence is increasingly clear of the irreparable damage that we are doing to our planet and no longer, this is a problem just for future generations. This is harming us now and people are increasingly involved, investing, consuming, protesting and critically, also, voting for change. That political parties across the UK, at least, are vying to be the most environmentally friendly, is a sign and that is something that would have been unthinkable just ten years ago.

So, yes, it’s a positive sign that most democratic countries have started their zero carbon transitions, except for Australia, which is ranked 60 out of 60 countries in the most recent Climate Change Performance Index. And yes, it’s true that many democracies have made substantial climate pledges and there are dates NDCs this past few days at COP26, while autocracies like China and Russia, have been sitting on the sidelines. It is also true that there is unprecedented demand for people across the world, for more ambitious climate action, and climate strikes and protests appear to be increasing each year. But it is true that the signs are a bit mixed, so, the number of environmental defenders assassinated every year, for example, continues to grow, including in democratic countries like Brazil or the Philippines.

There is also very understandable cynicism that all the promises made at COP26 are going to go unmet, once that this high-flying ambition meets the cold, hard, political reality at home. Yesterday, a report by a carbon tracker poured some cold water on earlier COP26 optimism that with these new commitments, coming from the Leaders’ Summit at the start of COP, that we would be – already be below 2° Celsius. Because the reality is that in the short-term, the commitments that we have in the books now, the commitments in the NDCs, are in fact, setting us still for 2.4°, which is well into the disaster zone. And it is also a fact that people who are calling for more climate action now from governments, may not be willing to listen to what this will imply for them if it happens.

So – and there is nothing in democracy, as a system, that prevents it from being well suited to deliver climate action. Democracy can listen to the voices of people that are going to be affected by this climate action and it can do so in a way that reflects and really responds to their values and preferences when taking action, and it’s also capable of delivering on long-term objectives. So, in principle, this is all that it takes. This is what you need to advance climate action, and in this regard, democracy can do it better than autocracy, which can mostly ignores the wishes of people. So, this is good news, because few citizens of democratic countries would agree to give up our own freedoms and rights to the – on the outside chance that there is going to come an autocratic ruler that is going to end up being a climate champion. And, also, quite frankly, we don’t have the time to become autocracies, because we need to sort out cutting emissions deeper right now and regime change would surely be a major disruption for a few years.

I’m being a bit flippant, because I believe that we need to leave behind the democracy versus autocracy argument. Democracy comes in a range of grades. A high-quality democracy can deliver the climate action better than a low grade democracy. Unfortunately, over the past few years, we have seen a regression of the quality of democracy all over the world, and this is bad news because we need democracies to be really fit to face the stiff challenges of global warming, natural resource emission, climate migration and so on. It’s really important to realise that the transformations required to stay below 1.5 or 2 Celsius are going to be highly disruptive, whereas until now, our democratic climate action has been incremental.

So, can disruption be delivered with a business as usual approach? I’m sure it cannot. We are not going to be able to address climate change effectively, nor any other environmental threat, if we do not improve the quality of our democracies and if we do not improve our environmental rule of law globally. This is going to require democratic innovation, believe. Democracies have rarely been asked to make big changes in advance, changes that disrupt routines and lifestyles and ask for big sacrifices to prevent future disasters. Usually, it’s only war, famine or disease or some other horrific circumstance, some disaster that generates this type of response. So, I believe that there is a huge task, in terms of creating the type of political space that is necessary for the – our climate action that we need, and this has barely begun. This issue of political space scarcity is going to hit us very, very soon, because the pledges in the current NDCs already require a level of disruption and this can only go worse if the ratchet mechanism of the Paris Agreement is implemented and respected.

So, our governments and political parties and opinion makers, they need to take the lead and is it going to work? If you ask me, I wouldn’t know. But if we assume that democracy can only be reactive, that is that the amount of political space for climate action is finite, until some major disaster strikes, then we have every reason to worry, because the technological fixes are not ready yet. And this is a terrible reality that the global environmental crisis had reached this point, but in this horror, there is also the challenge and the opportunity.

There is a clear link between enhancing the quality and the strength of our democracies, on the one hand, and address this environmental crisis on the other, addressing climates on the other. And I do not see how you can do the latter without the former, how the NDCs – I mean, the – my earlier question – comment that it’s all going to be about whether these commitments are delivered. Well, you need a democracy to monitor the delivery. You need – I mean, in the Paris Agreement, there is no language on monitoring and reporting and verification.

The MRV function of the Paris Agreement needs to be provided by national parliaments. There is no other way, but we don’t hear so much about this. So, I don’t see how we can proceed without a stronger democracy, and we are going to need democratic innovation and democratic renewable, not just for the sake of climate, but for the sake of democracy itself. So, strong democracy and protecting our planet are mutually dependent goals. This is the analysis that informs WFD’s environmental democracy approach and our theory of change, to strengthen democracy and address climate and environmental challenges at the same time, in some of our programmes.

So, what is the environmental democratic approach? Well, it’s a vision based on Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992, and this approach rests on three pillars, three procedural access rights: access to information, access to decision-making and access to justice. That is the thing to which this all boils down. These are the three fronts on which we need to see exponential progress if we want to save the planet and if we want to preserve democracy. Right, so, we are still good for time, right? So, I had…

Hans Kundnani

We – are you, sort of, nearly done, ‘cause we’re over…

Rafael Jimenez Aybar

Yeah.

Hans Kundnani

Slightly over your…

Rafael Jimenez Aybar

That’s fine.

Hans Kundnani

…the minutes. We’ll…

Rafael Jimenez Aybar

Yeah, we can revisit.

Hans Kundnani

I’m sure we’ll come back to…

Rafael Jimenez Aybar

Yeah, we can come back.

Hans Kundnani

I’m sure we’ll come back to lots of these questions. So, yeah, a very optimistic take, that basically, democracy and tackling climate change go together and, you know, a high-quality democracy is more likely to deliver on climate change than a low-quality democracy. I’d love to come back to that. I’d love, also, to come back to your point about democratic renewal and what actually would need to change in our democracies.

I guess the sort of, question, though, would be, because you know, you talked about how attitudes – you know, that voters have become more supportive of taking measures to prevent climate change. I guess the question, though, would be whether that’s happening quickly enough. But again, maybe we can come back to that. But before that, Dale, do you share Rafael’s optimism about the relationship between democracy and climate change?

Dale Jamieson

Well, in some respects, I share many of Rafael’s ideas. I don’t think I share his optimism and, honestly, I think I don’t really accept the framing of the question as democracy – this autocracy. In 2014, I published a book called “Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle to Stop Climate Change Failed and What it Means for Our Future,” and the challenge that we face now is in understanding this failure and in mitigating it, to the extent possible, so that humanity and other forms of life may have a future on this planet over the next few centuries. And this is the context in which I hear this discussion about democracy and its intersection with climate change. And the question is often posed as, “Is democracy part of the problem or is it part of the solution?” And I think that this framing can actually distract us from what are really the most important challenges, both about climate change and, also, about governance.

Democracy, in these discussions, I think all too often, tends to be a rhetorical device that, sort of, echoes the Cold War and is, in fact, a premonition of the emerging Cold War between China and the countries of North America and the European Union. Whatever democracy is, and again, it’s often not a well-defined concept, does, I think, as Rafael noted, come in degrees, and just to say something a bit provocative to both exaggerate and echo Plato, in my opinion, dividing the world into democracies and non-democracies is about as useful and sensible as dividing animals into cranes and non-cranes. Instead, I think we should focus on what really matters in systems of governance, and what matters, in my opinion, are at least the following three features.

First of all, a system of governance should listen to and acknowledge the voices of all those who are affected by a government’s action, even including those that – who are non-citizens of a state and those who are, so to speak, offshore from the state, but who are affected by the actions of a particular government. And indeed, I will go further and say that a good system of governance should also hear and acknowledge the voices of animals and the rest of nature, as well. The system of governance that we should want is one that responds to the reflective values, the core interests and the settled preferences of its citizens, which is not the same as enacting everything that is presented, or portrayed, as a value, an interest or a preference. And finally, an adequate system of governance also needs the capacity to carry out long-term commitments.

Now, in my opinion, there is no existing current system of governance, which goes very far in satisfying all of these conditions. To some extent, the problem is one of institutional design. So, in the United States, for example, it – you could imagine some baby steps, such as campaign finance reform, reforming some institutions, such as the Supreme Court, the Senate, restricting – redistricting procedures in the House of Representatives that would help, but there is a deeper challenge here. Listening, acknowledging and responding, those first two features that I was talking about, are really key to the importance of flexibility in a system of good governance, but the capacity to carry out long-term commitments is keyed not to flexibility, but to rigidity.

And the problem is that while we can give examples of what kinds of issues require flexibility, for example budgets, and we can give good examples of the kinds of issues that require rigidity, for example, commitments to reducing commissions – emissions in a climate change theory, there really is no mechanical way of determining which issues fall into which category, and even worse, they overlap. So, budgets, for example, for which we want some flexibility, are important mechanisms in addressing climate change, an issue which requires sustained commitment.

So, wisdom, as really has been noted by political theorists throughout the centuries, is in fact, ineliminable from addressing these problems, both on the part of leaders and citizens. So, in summary, then, what I’ve been saying is that arguments about democracy tend to obscure the challenges of governance that we face with problems such as climate change. Second, that smart institutional design is required to create systems that are appropriately both flexible and rigid. But finally, and perhaps most importantly, no political system, however well designed, can save us from ourselves.

Hans Kundnani

Fantastic, thank you, Dale, and thank you for being brief. It’s really fascinating, this, sort of, idea that perhaps it doesn’t matter so much, you know, whether you’re a democracy, an authoritarian state. It reminded me a little bit of an essay that Frank Fukuyama wrote after the pandemic started, saying that “Actually, good governance, rather than a democracy-authoritarian state fault line, was the key, in terms of which countries responded best to the pandemic.” But I just want to – before I turn to Emily, I just want to push you a bit further on how – ‘cause this is – potentially, this could be misunderstood, what you’re saying. And so, I, you know, I guess I want to ask you, are you saying that, you know, the difference between democracies and authoritarian states doesn’t make – isn’t the crucial factor in determining how effective they are going to be in tackling climate change, or are you going further than that and saying you actually don’t think it matters whether you live in a democracy or an authoritarian state?

Dale Jamieson

Well, I think I’m saying neither. I think part of the problem is that the concept of democracy, as its employed in many of these discussions, is really not well defined in the first place, and in particular, it’s often confused with liberalism. So, I think that, for example, we can have a regime which actually respects human rights, but doesn’t satisfy the usual conditions of democracy that we think of in the United States or the United Kingdom.

Hans Kundnani

So, then, you’re saying you believe in liberalism, but not really in democracy?

Dale Jamieson

Well, I wouldn’t put it quite that baldly, but let’s just say, I think we can have what’s important about the liberal tradition, without this being expressed in what we have come to call democracy in societies that are actually quite politically troubled, like those of the United States and the UK.

Hans Kundnani

Yeah, yeah, this is a fascinating discussion that we probably need a whole other session, you know, separate from the climate change issue, to talk about. I want to bring in Emily, but before I do that, do start to prepare questions and comments. If you’re watching this on Zoom, the way to do that is by typing a question, a brief version of your question, in the Q&A box, and then we will invite you to ask the question live. We will unmute you and invite you to ask the question live. If you don’t want to ask the question live and just want me to read it out, then indicate that in your question in the Q&A box. You’re free to use the chat box, you know, for side discussions, but I’m not going to be looking at that and we’re not using the raised hand function. Now, if you’re in Glasgow and you’re watching this at the Pavilion, there’s a whole different process, which I think has been explained to you, and those questions will be – will – I will have to read out. They’ll be fed through to me.

Okay, Emily, over to you. What’s your take on this? You know, you’re actually – you work for a polling organisation, so I’d love to hear from you, in particular, about public attitudes. You know, Rafael touched on this at the beginning. And then, as I also mentioned at the beginning, this question of the sort of, existing fault lines in our politics, you know, which actually Dale was just alluding to, as well, with Brexit and Trump, and how the climate change issue intersects with those. Is it deepening them or is it overcoming them?

Emily Gray

Alright, thanks, Hans, for the welcome, and a real privilege to be here with you all this evening. So, there are three recent trends in how the public see climate change and how they engage with it that I’d like to pick out in my seven minutes this evening. The first of those is that climate concern is now mainstream among the public in democracies. So, at Ipsos MORI, we’re very fortunate to have a lot of long-term and frequent data about how the public see climate change and on other issues, and here in the UK, when we look at what the public see as the most important issues facing the country, the trend we see is that environment and climate change have moved up the ranking over the past few years, to be seen as one of the top five issues the country is facing, alongside the pandemic, the economy, the NHS and Brexit. So, we are seeing really high awareness across the board of climate change as an issue and, also, a real sense of urgency that we should be doing something about it. So, over half of us in the UK, for example, feel that, actually, the government should be trying to achieve net-zero sooner than the 2050 target. So, there is that real sense of concern and urgency among the public.

And another interesting trend to note is that when we were looking at this a few years ago, it seemed to be a very young, metropolitan, left-wing view, but that has now become much more mainstream. We don’t see as many differences when it comes to the level of climate concern, by age, gender, even party support, as we did. Although things like region of the UK and socioeconomic status still do make a big difference. So, you sometimes hear the lazy assumption that, “Oh, it’s the youn – it’s young people who are most concerned about climate change.” That’s no longer the case. This is a mainstream concern for the public.

Second point, though, is that when we look at the scale of the transition that is required, then from a democratic standpoint, I think there are some signs that should concern us all. So, yes, people are concerned about the issue of climate change, but they have, overall, fairly low levels of knowledge about what, either they personally, or governments and corporations, should do about it, and there are also fairly low levels of awareness about the extent of the transformation that’s going to be needed in society if democracies are going to reach net-zero. So, I think what I would say is that there’s a real need for transparency with the public about what needs to be done, by when and what the impacts might be.

And while, as I say, the importance of tackling climate change is now a mainstream issue, where we see more division is on how you tackle it and what should be done about it. So, for example, we recent – Ipsos MORI recently carried out some research in partnership with the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations here in the UK, looking at public support or opposition to a range of net-zero policies that cover a range of areas, so how we tra – how we get around, how we heat our homes, the, you know, the – our diets and our food system. And what we found is that people who live in the most deprived areas of the UK are generally less likely to support a range of – that range of net-zero policies than people who live in the least deprived, or most affluent, areas of the UK, and political party support and age also play a role in shaping support for net-zero policies, and very happy to say more of that – more about that in the discussion afterwards, if it’s of interest. So, I would say that these are risky signs. So, if these trends continue, then actually, the move to net-zero does have the potential to exacerbate the existing divisions we see in our society.

The third point I want to make is that, I think, a central question for governments and, actually, all of us working on this issue, is how do we ensure that people’s voices, and particularly the voices of people who are likely to be most severely impacted by climate change, are included in our democratic processes? So, you know, of course, people are on the frontline of climate change and arguably, are best placed to tell decisionmakers, actually, what solutions will help, whether – in, you know, in their communities and their areas. And one way which is – one way of placing people at the heart of democratic decision-making is a citizens’ assembly, which enables citizens to develop and to help advise on policies, and in a nutshell, citizens’ assemblies bring together a representative group of citizens, anywhere from 50, up to 250 citizens, to learn, deliberate and make recommendations on issues. And as many of you will know, COP26 has seen the first Global Assembly on Climate Change and there are lots of examples of these now in established democracies, from the French Convention on Climate, through to Climate Assembly UK and Scotland’s Climate Assembly.

And here, in Scotland, I was recently lucky enough to lead the Glasgow Climate Assembly on the cli – big Glasgow Citizens’ Assembly on the Climate Emergency. That all had to be conducted online because of the pandemic, but last Saturday night, in Glasgow City Chambers, I had the pleasure of meeting our Assembly members in person for the first time, after all that time spent on Zoom. Elected representatives from the council were also there to meet them and what I heard in conversations, time and time again, was – that night, was, you know, “Well, we’ve made our recommendations and now it’s over to you. You need to act.” And I think one thing that this illustrates to me is that Citizens’ Assemblies can act as an important – a way of people holding their elected representatives to accounts, and one thing that really matters to people is the follow-up.

So, how will the recommendations that we, as citizens, have decided on, then be used? And I’m glad to see that we’re starting – we’re seeing a lot of emphasis on that now, in terms of how Citizens’ Assemblies are designed. But – and democratic processes can also have lots of value, of course, for decisionmakers themselves and for national parliaments, because you know, it means that policies can have greater political legitimacy, because you have evidence that their view – face on the views of a representative and a diverse group of – a group of residents.

So, to sum up, climate change is a mainstream public concern, but there are still some signs that should worry us in democracies, given the scale of the transition that’s needed. And I think Climate Assemblies are one way of putting people at the heart of decision-making. I think they’re likely to be a trend that’s here to stay, rather than a fleeting fashion. Thank you.

Hans Kundnani

Wonderful, thank you, Emily, and again, thank you for being on time, and then, thank you, also, for bringing up the issue of Citizens’ Assemblies, which goes to the point that Rafael was making about democratic innovation. I’d love to discuss that a bit more, though, because I thought it was really interesting how you, you know, you were, sort of, differentiating between the generational divides, which seem to be narrowing on the issue of climate change, but the divides around region and socioeconomic status, you know, are still there. And, you know, for those of us that work on issues around democracy in Europe, the emergence of the gilets jaune was, kind of, a really interesting moment, right, because it really did get to this issue.

And then to, sort of, bring that back to the issue of Citizens’ Assemblies and there’s one – you know, one of the questions that we’ve been asked here by someone in the audience is precisely around this, do you think recent democratic innovations, such as Climate Assemblies, make a real difference? I slightly worry about this as a solution to the climate issue for two reasons. I mean, the first is that, you know, my impression, from looking at debates around Citizens’ Assemblies in general, is that it’s centrists who love Citizens’ Assemblies, right? In other words, it’s not as if this cuts across those socioeconomic and educational, in particular, fault lines. You know, it’s – you know, people on the extremes of the political spectrum tend to prefer direct democracy, rather than deliberated democracy. But the second reason that I’m, kind of, a little more sceptical of it is that, you know, it seems to me that these kinds of things are not what you do in an emergency. This is what you do in normal times. You can talk about deepening democracy and innovating, but in an emergency, as I suggested at the beginning, this is precisely when you suspend normal – you know, these types of democratic processes and institutions. Do you want to say anything more on that now, Emily, or do you want to come back to it later on?

Emily Gray

Happy to say a little bit on it now. Of course, yeah, a mechanism like a Citizens’ Assemblies, that’s – it’s one tool in the, you know, in the democratic armoury, if you like. But that they are really good for is exactly tackling complex and critical issues, you know, and there is no more critical an issue than is facing the world today. So, I think, obviously, they can be used in different ways. Some focus more on policy development, others more on, kind of, appraising pre-determined policies, but I think as a tool, I don’t think they’re going away any time soon.

Hans Kundnani

Great. Okay, let’s take some questions from the audience. Anthony Smith, would you like to ask your question live? And I should say, Anthony is the Chief Executive of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Can we unmute Anthony, so that he can ask his question [pause]? Or can we ask Jonathan Fowler to ask his question?

Jonathan Fowler

[Pause] Hi, can you hear me okay?

Hans Kundnani

Yes.

Jonathan Fowler

Good, great. So, yeah, the fact…

Hans Kundnani

Could you introduce yourself, Jonathan?

Jonathan Fowler

I’m unmuted, yeah?

Hans Kundnani

Can you introduce yourself?

Jonathan Fowler

Oh, I’m sorry, I thought – I couldn’t hear what you said. Yes, so, my name’s Jonathan Fowler. I’m from the United Nations Development Co-ordination Office, but I’m asking the question in a personal capacity, you know, the usual. I’m just curious as to the speakers’ thoughts on the potential to actually exploit democratic processes to hamper climate action, you know, I mean, to, sort of, stoke opposition, say, you know, “The just transition is unjust,” etc. I mean, Hans mentioned the gilets jaunes as an example, but I’m just wondering about activ – you know, potential manipulation of that kind of concern. Thank you.

Hans Kundnani

Yes, that’s a great question, why do we think it’s only on one side of the debate? And this is going to – there’s going to be activism and engagement by citizens. And let’s maybe take another two. John Sergeant, would you like to ask your question live, or Anthony Smith, whichever one we can get unmuted the fastest?

John Sergeant

Hi, have I unmuted?

Hans Kundnani

Yes, hi, John.

John Sergeant

Brilliant.

Hans Kundnani

Please introduce yourself.

John Sergeant

Yes. Well, yes, I was very modestly asking you to ask this for me, but I’ll go right ahead, and saying, given the lack of understanding of what will be required to achieve these hairy climate goals, isn’t there a need to get governments to say more about what needs to be done in the near-term, rather than start – stating these really far off goals? Everyone can feel warm and fuzzy about 2050, but it’s almost giving people an early dose of what this really means, so that they can face up to what the challenge is.

Hans Kundnani

Great, thank you very much. I think Anthony is struggling to unmute himself, so I’m going to ask his question for him. Sorry, Anthony, but I’ll read it out in full. “As I understood it, Dale’s governance formula left society, as opposed to government, as a passive actor. Democracy is crucial in preventing the abuse of power, but doesn’t have an in-built political system that guarantees good decision-making. So, we need an active society that continually presses political leaders to act on climate and holds them to account, perhaps the innovation that democracy needs in addressing an issue that, in many senses, should be cross-party, rather than divide on party lines.”

So, we’ve got, you know, can democratic processes be used to hamper tackling climate change, the short-term and the long-term, and then this question of society. Dale, do you want to go first on some of these?

Dale Jamieson

Sure, the first two questions, which I think were both put forward by people named John, if I have this correct, could just, as far as I’m concerned, be turned into statements of assertions that would be true. That process – that democracy, at least as many people think of it, is a process and like all processes, it can lead to the places you actually don’t want to wind up. I think that’s absolutely right. And John Sergeant is certainly correct that a lot of the fuzziness, sorry, the warm fuzziness, begins to dissipate around climate change when you actually talk about what has to be done in the near-term, and you only get to the long-term by get – by doing things in the near-term. Now…

Hans Kundnani

Can I – on that, Dale, can I just then clarify, so, then, in other words, you’re disagreeing with what Rafael said about democracy and tackling climate change going, sort of, seamlessly together? You don’t think that’s the case?

Dale Jamieson

Marching gloriously into the future, necessarily so, yes. If that – insofar as that’s Rafael’s actual view, yes, I don’t agree with that. I don’t think there’s anything about democracy in particular, as least as its commonly understood, that is going to lead to wisdom with respect to problems like climate change. Do you want me to go to the act – passive question, or do you want to give the…?

Hans Kundnani

Yes, please, yeah.

Dale Jamieson

Okay.

Hans Kundnani

If you want to. If you’ve got time to…

Dale Jamieson

Great.

Hans Kundnani

…spend on it.

Dale Jamieson

Sure. So, here – the thing is, so first of all, I did talk about the importance of voice and voice is important and, in fact, I think neglected. And I think this active passive distinction, in terms of how citizens behave, is one that has come to be distorted, and to some extent, because of the way that we, again, think of Western democracy, where voting is, sort of, the paradigm democratic act. When, in fact, there are all kinds of other ways that citizens have of expressing their preferences, you know, ranging from things like simply withholding commitment, withholding labour, to demonstrations, to you know, to speech, to all kinds of things. So, yes, I think anything that you want to talk about as a system of good governance requires activity, both on the part of citizens and non-citizens, but I think we’ve often been wrong to privilege certain kinds of activity as being necessary to the idea of consultation between people and those who govern them.

Hans Kundnani

It slightly takes us back to the democracy and liberalism question, I think, a bit, doesn’t it? And you know, I think it’s clearly true that there are some minimal versions of democracy that just revolve around having elections every four or five years, but there are also clearly other versions of that idea that involve, you know, a very active society that’s engaging, you know, ac – with activists and, you know, campaigns and so on. Rafael, did you have any thoughts on that, or perhaps you want to respond to Dale’s rejection of your idea that democracy and climate change – tackling climate change go together?

Rafael Jimenez Aybar

Yes, as I was listening to his feedback, I was wondering whether – I must have made my point – I mean, my point hasn’t come across, because I did say we don’t know if democracy is going to be able to tackle climate change, I did say that. What I did – also said is that this is the only way that have – this is the system of government that we have for the time being and that we need to make it work. So, what I was saying is that democracy in itself, I mean, it’s not intrinsic. It’s not bound to deliver the solution, but it can deliver the solution, provided that a number of conditions are met. And that’s what I was talking about, that we need democratic innovation to make sure that the solution is tipped, and that democracy can deliver.

At the same time, I said that many of the issues of – ultimately, every environmental problem has had a governance component. So, you will not be able to deliver a climate action if you don’t fix your governance. So, if you need implementation and you don’t have institutions that can deliver this implementation, you do not have parliaments that enact – that are able to hold the government’s feet to the fire if they don’t deliver on their NDCs, for instance, but your courts are not independent, and when you try to exert your right to access to justice or environmental wrongdoing, well, you – even if you are right, if you don’t win, then you have the problem there.

Hans Kundnani

That would be…

Rafael Jimenez Aybar

So, that I do believe…

Hans Kundnani

That would be liberalism, though, rather than democracy.

Rafael Jimenez Aybar

Well, democracy, democratic innovation, I don’t see the tension here. I mean, we need to know how to do a number of things and if we do them within our democracy, in a liberal democracy, if you want, but other systems could deliver it, possibly, but this is what we have and that’s what I was talking about. So, we – when I talk about democratic innovation, I mean a number of things. I mean that we need to help our Politicians, so that they can put in place the laws and the policies that are necessary to deliver this mitigation or this adaptation, and so that they can act as guardians of their reinforcement, not on paper, but in reality, so that they can do it. Because they are not – they are generalists. They haven’t spent 20 years studying environmental science, nor energy economies, nor UNFCCC processes. They need help to understand this alphabet soup of acronyms and technical jargon that make it very hard for them to engage seriously in these issues, let alone to exert lib – democratic leadership.

And it also means to help NGOs and activists to understand what makes democratically elected Politicians tick, what drives them, what motivates them and wanting to support them when they make the right choices, so that they get re-elected instead of being punished at the ballot box. And indeed, it also means placing ordinary citizens at the core of climate policymaking and rolling out participatory democracy exercises to ensure that climate policies are just and inclusive and they are backed by world public consent. And it means working with political parties to develop thoughtful, ambitious environmental policies and platforms and helping them to figure out how to sell it to the electorate.

Hans Kundnani

But Rafael, why – can we answer Jonathan Fowler’s question? Why do you think that doing all that might not just lead a whole bunch of, you know, very powerful political parties that oppose taking action on climate change?

Rafael Jimenez Aybar

Well, because if they listen to the people and they are – if they are listening to science, they will have to take action.

Hans Kundnani

But what if they reject science? That’s the whole point.

Rafael Jimenez Aybar

That’s true and if that happens, then it will not work.

Hans Kundnani

Dale, you looked like you were dying to jump in. So, I want to bring in Emily, as well, but Dale, do you want to quickly…?

Dale Jamieson

Well, I just wanted to say that in many ways, science is quite anti-democratic, that actually following science, or listening to Scientists, is all about deferring to expertise. So, there is a tension and an anxiety between, sort of, the usual idea of democracy and the deference to science. There’s a couple other things at some point I’d like to get in on this discussion. You should go to Emily, probably, first.

Hans Kundnani

Yeah, and Emily, I mean, any thoughts you had on any of this, but perhaps maybe you could also address the near-term/short – the long-term/short-term question, because nobody’s touched on that, and maybe, you know, this is relevant to what you were saying about public attitudes. You know, do you think that that – you know, how does that fit in with how people think? You know, would it be helpful, as the questioner suggested, to focus more on some near – some short-term goals, rather than long-term targets?

Emily Gray

Yeah, and I think it’s an excellent point, and if governments are to bring people along with them, I think there is a need for a transparent conversation about steps that are involved and the scale of the transition. Because this is going to mean, of course, change, not – you know, big changes, not just from governments and corporations, but also from people, themselves, and there is a lot of misperception, still, around actually what – you know, what makes – what would make a difference, in terms of reducing carb – greenhouse gas emissions. So, for example, people here in the UK are likely to think recycling makes a really big difference and I – and much less – more less – much less likely to link climate change with things like, you know, how much meat and dairy we consume, which you know, we know actually make a bigger difference to your carbon footprint. So, those – there are those misperceptions.

But I think we also need to think about the factors that make a difference to people’s support for, you know, for different net-zero policies. I think somebody mentioned the gilets jaunes in France example, and when we – in the net-zero’s policies work I mentioned, we looked at people’s initial support for a net-zero – for different net-zero policies. And, you know, of the ones we tested, frequent flyer levies were particularly popular, perhaps because of the perceived, like, fairness and effectiveness of the policy. But then we also put some trade-offs to them. So, we asked them, then, about, well, you know, “What if – what about the personal implications of this policy for you? So, say if it meant that you were less likely to be able – you weren’t able to take as many flights as you wanted to, or that, you know, you had to pay more to take a flight?” And what you see then is that support drops really sharply, and I think what’s really interesting is to look at who supports drops more among – because certainly, what we’ve found is a political fault line there, where, certainly within the UK, once those trade-offs were introduced, Conservative voters were – you know, opposed most of the net-zero policies, all but one, whereas Labour supporters, on balance, still supported five of them, even after the trade-offs were made. So, I think understanding those differences and the reasons underlying them are really important in bringing the public along with you.

Hans Kundnani

Very interesting. Okay, I’m going to take another round of three questions. So, I’m going to take the question from Anazette live. If we can unmute Anazette and, also, I don’t know if it’s Dia or Dea, if we can take that question live. But while they’re being unmuted, I’m going to read out a question from Vittoria Brown, who I think is in Glasgow and asking a question from there. And she asks, or says, “There is a correlation between ‘full democracies’ and high levels of international spill-over, according to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. What are the ways in which these democracies can promote the accountability needed in order to decrease their carbon spill-over?” Then – now, let’s take Anazette’s question. Anazette?

Anazette Olivera

Hi, good morning, good afternoon, good evening.

Hans Kundnani

Hi.

Anazette Olivera

I believe my question is how do we get…

Hans Kundnani

Could you – Anazette…

Anazette Olivera

…Hans, to the…?

Hans Kundnani

…could you introduce yourself, sorry?

Anazette Olivera

Hi, sorry, I’m Anazette Olivera from Belize. Belize is located in Central America, between the countries of Guatemala and Mexico. And while I’m in Central America, I’m also a Caribbean country, so, where climate change is concerned, I believe we have a lot of effects of it and hence, the reason I want to know how can we get our citizens to actually care, so that they can make an impactful change to have – force our governments to act? Because while we may have our country leaders who poses as they want to react and want to act for the betterment of their citizens, as it relates to climate change, I’m still of the opinion that our citizens are passive and are in not in that state of mind to actually be a, what is it, a forceful people to actually have a government to get their act together and do something about climate change.

Hans Kundnani

Perfect, thank you. This is one of the great things about doing these things online is that you can have people all over the world. And then, Dea or Dia? If we can unmute…

Dea

Hi, can you hear me alright?

Hans Kundnani

Yes, yes, great.

Dea

Yes, my name is Dea, I’m from Indonesia. I’m currently a student in Loughborough University, London. And I’m a bit surprised that even those from the most established democracy are quite pessimistic about the role of democracy to help tackle climate change, and my question is, what about those in young, less established democracy, where a huge part of its public are still questioning whether climate action will contradict their economic investment – advancement? Just, like, few days ago, Indonesian Minister of Environment just tweeted on Twitter that “The massive development will not stop, regardless our commitment in climate action and the citizen” – the netizens in Indonesian Twytter were – in Twitter were divided, pros and cons to this statement. So, my question will be what would you – be your thoughts and suggestion on what the climate and democracy champions in this young, less established democracy can do? Thank you very much.

Hans Kundnani

Great, thank you so much. So, we’ve got spill-overs, how to get citizens to care and be more active, and put more pressure, I suppose, and then, finally, our sort of, our pessimism in established democracies and how do we improve things in less established democracies in relation to climate change? Dale, do you want to go first?

Dale Jamieson

Yeah, so…

Hans Kundnani

And I think you had a…

Dale Jamieson

So, what…

Hans Kundnani

…couple of other things to come back to…

Dale Jamieson

You…

Hans Kundnani

…as well.

Dale Jamieson

Which I think will still be punted further down the line. But let me just say in response to these questions that, first of all, there is an enormous amount to be said on behalf of certain kinds of democracies and certain kinds of participation, that are about the intrinsic value of having citizens be the authors of their own laws and the authors of their own states. That is a completely different question from whether or not you think democracy is specially good at being a problem solving tool, particularly for problems like climate change. So, nothing that I’ve said counts against the idea that citizens should write their collective fate, as well as their individual fate, and that this is a value that we should promote.

But I also want to say that, for me, there’s something a little off about the framing of many of these discussions around climate change, because I think they fail to take two points that are, for me, really central. The first is that with respect to climate change, we all are living in failed states. This is not a question of here we are floating down the river, life is hunky dory, as we used to say in 1950s America, and suddenly, we have a problem on the horizon and the question is, how do we solve this problem? That is not the state that we’re in. Every country in the world, regardless of its system of governance, has failed to respond adequately to the challenge of climate change. We need to understand that, and bromides are not on the path of the solution, whatever those bromides are about.

Secondly, I also think there tends to be a COP-centric view of the challenge of climate change, that if only we could knock the heads of world leaders together, we could get them to put the right words down on paper, that sort of, all of our problems would at least be under control, or at least we could sleep well at night knowing that the daddies and mommies of the world, you know, were actually running the ship. The real action on climate change is global, it’s everywhere. It’s in Belize, it’s in Indonesia, every bit as much as its in Glasgow, I would argue even more than in Glasgow.

Hans Kundnani

[Pause] Thank you, Dale. “With respect to climate change, we’re all living in failed states,” I think might be the quote of the evening. Rafael?

Rafael Jimenez Aybar

Yes, thank you. I think that the questioner’s made another very important point, which is what is the role of the full democracies in contributing to the solution, worldwide? And, also, the two later questions that talked about the lack of awareness of people about the challenge and whether it might – it’s 100% for them, both the action that in – is necessary and the risk of inaction. So, I believe that we have a massive challenge of delivering awareness raising everywhere and this may be a responsibility of national governments, or they might – this might be a responsibility for the international donor community. But it is true that people need to understand what their immediate risks are, and the rest of the conversation will follow.

But when it comes to this point, and some others, I would like to share some feedback that I collected. I couldn’t help passing on the questions to a few legislators in office from different political persuasions and from different countries that are active on climate, to get some candid feedback about the topic of this panel. And the feedback I got was very diverse, but I – it’s true, I was surprised to find some democratic nihilism, confirming the notion that political space for major lifestyle changes is only going to be created by major disasters and that our only hope is technology. But I also got some enthusiastic voices that were keen to give this challenge a go and work to strengthening environmental democracy, work on strengthening access to information and access to decision-making and access to justice, to turbocharge democracy and steer societies towards a more sustainable path.

There was consensus that autocracy is not under the resolution, anyway, and some people referred to China, even if it is the best performing major autocracy. Another stressed that “beyond lifestyle changes, with other major technological improvements, the goal of net-zero is a political pipedream, both within and outside of democracy, because the technologies needed to achieve net-zero are not mature, and with today’s costs, it would be impossible to run on a policy platform that implies several thousands of dollars, or pounds, per household, per year.”

So, some MPs said that they felt ‘vulnerable’, because they didn’t trust political opponents “to do the right thing and support climate action for electoral gain,” and that “any technological breakthrough is going to give them a breather.” So, I believe that we need to fire on all cylinders. We need to embrace democratic innovation. We need to strengthen environmental democracy with the three pillars and we need to accelerate and then audit our solutions.

Hans Kundnani

Could you – Rafael, could you say something, though, about the question around less established democracies, ‘cause these are the – precisely the countries that, as I understand it, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy works in?

Rafael Jimenez Aybar

Yes, well, I believe that the need is there for international community to step in and work with the Indonesian Government, which is, in fact, receptive, we have excellent relationship with the national parliament, to help them address this issue. First, to put it on the map, which is, by and large, already happening, and then to help them, as decision-makers, tackle it, to – they were quite interested to learn about the experience of the UK Climate Assembly, for instance. I’m not going to say that it’s going to be smooth sailing, but there are certainly receptive minds within those countries that will – are keen to receive support to work towards the solutions, implementing democratic innovation.

So, I think this is a task and responsibility for the international donor community and we need to rethink, I believe, our ODA in view of this challenge. I mean, one of the main issues on the agenda at COP is finance, but how much longer can we talk about finance, without talking about systemic corruption and policy capture in some of the recipient countries? I mean, this is why I keep on talking about democratic innovation, ‘cause business as usual is not going to deliver within a democracy, nor an autocracy. They’re also vulnerable to the same challenges that democracies are constrained by.

Hans Kundnani

Okay, thanks, and then, Emily, last words to you, any final thoughts? And perhaps maybe especially on Anazette’s question about how can you get citizens to actually care? Given that, as I say, you actually, you know, research public attitudes, I think you might be the best placed to answer that question.

Emily Gray

And on this question for the passive public, I think I feel more hopeful about this than, you know, than the questioner perhaps did. I mean, it’s – I think we are seeing an upsurge in climate concern, if not yet levels of knowledge. But sadly, an important call to action is often when people start seeing the effects of climate change in their own local areas and communities. So, we always see, for example, when you – when extreme weather events hit a country, you always see an uptick in concern about climate. But I think what’s different – ‘cause what’s different now is just the extent to which that is happening. You know, people are feeling the effects of climate change and that, in itself, helps to drive concern. But I think it’s also about, you know, just good public engagement and the mechanism that democracies put in place to make sure that – so the voices of people affected by climate change are heard on this issue and bleed into policy.

Hans Kundnani

Great. I’m afraid we’re out of time. I think that’s a good place to end, anyway. I feel like this is a really interesting discussion about climate change and democracy and how they intersect. Perhaps it should be framed in a different way, I’m not sure, but it feels to me as if this is a really important and under-discussed subject. As I say, we tend to discuss these two things a little bit separately from each other, I think.

So, as I say, we are going to continue to have a series of discussions around democracy, together with WFD, over the next few months. The next one is on the 16th of December and that’s going to be about democracy in Asia and some of the challenges there. Hope to see some of you there, and in the meantime, thank you all very much for coming along, for watching, for asking questions and, in particular, thank you very much to our three speakers, Rafael, Dale and Emily. Thank you very much and see you