Words by Dr Christina Demski, CAST Deputy Director
CAST Deputy Director, Dr Christina Demski, shares five key insights on fairness for climate policymakers and practitioners, drawn from her work on engaging the public with climate change.
People care deeply about fairness. It lies at the heart of public trust. Individuals’ support for climate policies and their willingness to engage in low-carbon behaviours depend on how fair they perceive climate solutions to be.
This finding consistently emerges from social science research into climate action. One of the first topics I worked on as a researcher, back in 2011 as part of the UK Energy Research Centre, was public engagement with energy systems. We found that concerns around justice and fairness were key values that explained whether people supported new energy policies and transitions.
Since then, my colleagues and I have found similar results in relation to public support for energy storage technologies, resource efficiency strategies, low-carbon lifestyle changes and net zero policies. When over 100 citizens from across the country met at the 2020 UK Climate Assembly to discuss how the UK could meet its Net Zero target, they decided that fairness was the second most important principle that should guide climate action.
So, we know that fairness is important. And that we should pay attention to people’s views and concerns around fairness when rolling out climate change policies and public engagement initiatives. But what are these views and concerns specifically? How should we respond to them?
Here are five key insights on fairness to keep in mind, drawn from my work on engaging the public with climate change.
1) People are highly tuned into whether the impacts of climate policies are fair
We call this distributional justice. It’s all about who wins and who loses from efforts to solve climate change. Perhaps unsurprisingly, concerns around distributional justice are highly salient in public discussions about net zero futures.
Financial costs and impacts are brought up frequently, but people are also concerned about how climate policies may affect the health, well-being and security of different groups. People often emphasise that vulnerable individuals (such as those on low incomes), future generations and people in other countries should not be disproportionately impacted by climate policies.
Varied and inclusive public participation and engagement approaches provide opportunities to understand how specific policies and initiatives can address specific fairness concerns within a specific context. In addition, monitoring and evaluating climate engagement activities (e.g. see KNOCA’s Impact Evaluation Framework for climate assemblies) is key to ensuring their processes and outcomes are fair.
Distributional justice also incorporates views around ‘who pays’, with many feeling that individuals with the highest carbon footprints should make the biggest lifestyle changes and greatest contributions to climate solutions (e.g. via a frequent flyer tax). This may prove difficult, however, as emerging research suggests high-income groups (with high carbon footprints) are perhaps even less willing than lower-income groups to engage in climate action.
2) Lack of choice is perceived as unfair
People value having the freedom to decide how they live their lives. Climate policies that (appear to) remove this choice are considered unfair. This explains, in part, the backlash to heat pumps in Germany and why more radical lifestyle changes (e.g. vegan diets, bans on short-haul flights) often receive less support in public discussions around low-carbon living.
That said, policies that encourage behaviour change by restricting choice are less likely to be seen as unfair if they provide adequate support and deliver wider benefits. For example, no one wants to be forced to get rid of their car, but someone might consider trading in their vehicle if a scrappage scheme made it more financially viable.
3) Fairness is also about who gets to influence decisions on climate change
Public discourse highlights the importance of procedural justice – ensuring that the processes through which climate solutions are developed are fair. A vital aspect of this is involving diverse groups of people in discussions and decisions on climate solutions. This is especially relevant to public engagement activities where powerful actors such as governments and businesses organise the event and decide who is invited to take part.
There are increasing efforts to include young voices in deliberative forms of participation, such as climate assemblies. However, certain groups remain left out – for example, there is a lack of research on how people of colour engage with climate change. Targeted engagement approaches may be necessary to ensure diverse perspectives and experiences are heard and included.
4) People want their leaders to ‘do their bit’ and be honest and transparent about climate action
While most people believe that individuals have a part to play in reducing emissions, they also assign responsibility to the Government and key industries. When people perceive that these societal actors aren’t taking significant action, they become less willing to make individual lifestyle changes. Such perceptions can also fuel discourses of inaction, which we know permeate societal discourse on net zero more generally.
Relatedly, our work on energy actors highlights the importance of perceived transparency and honesty of key actors. This is linked with trust in Government, which is currently low (and has been for some time). The public wants leaders to provide a clear vision for the future and a clear plan for how society is going to get there, and to be upfront about their own climate impact. The public also wants trustworthy, accurate information about climate policies and how climate decisions are made. The UK Government’s upcoming Public Participation Strategy on climate change provides an excellent opportunity for policy officials to deliver this.
5) Views and concerns around fairness may shift over time
The principle of fairness is likely to stay salient in the public mind, but the specific aspects of fairness that people are concerned about may change. For example, currently, British people are fairly satisfied with their gas boilers and therefore divided on the concept of gas boiler bans. Such bans may be perceived as unfair due to removing choice around how to heat your home.
However, as society shifts to low-carbon heating and external shocks affect energy prices, it may be considered unfair to leave people behind by not supporting them to switch from a gas boiler to a heat pump. It is important to continuously engage with the public to understand salient fairness concerns across shifting contexts, and as specific climate policies are implemented and start to shape people’s lives.
Conclusion: Embedding fairness in climate action
Fairness is not just a nice-to-have in climate policy and engagement – it’s a public priority. People care deeply about whether climate solutions are just, inclusive, and equitable. We must stay attuned to how public concerns around fairness evolve as net zero policies begin to reshape daily life.
Whether you’re designing policies, leading climate engagement, or simply communicating about climate change, fairness must be front and centre. That means being transparent, leading by example, paying attention to who is (not) benefiting, and involving people from all walks of life. Doing so builds trust and ultimately makes climate initiatives more effective and enduring.
Follow us on Bluesky and LinkedIn and subscribe to our newsletter for future updates from the CAST team.