Search

The use of deliberative mini-publics (DMPs), such as citizens’ assemblies, is becoming more common in climate policy-making across many countries. The upsurge of these methods reflects an acknowledgement of the need to engage the publics in policy choices that significantly impact their lives. Many DMPs to date have focused on the general challenge of decarbonization, across a range of policy areas. In this article, we first situate DMPs within the wider field of public engagement methods. We then draw from deliberative democratic theory and practice to argue that the next step for climate DMPs is to focus them on specific climate policy challenges and to embed and routinize their use in existing policy-making institutions. We present a case study of the targeted use of a climate DMP, which we designed and ran in partnership with the UK Climate Change Committee, focused on home energy decarbonization. We use this case study to explore barriers and challenges to embedding such an approach in climate policy-making institutions. Finally, we suggest ways that such challenges can be overcome and identify a number of tensions that must be navigated as DMPs become embedded in climate policy-making. Key policy insights Deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) can facilitate two-way dialogue between the publics and policy-makers, overcoming weaknesses in existing forms of communication between these two groups of actors. The decision to use DMPs in climate policy and the design of such DMPs, should be informed by an analysis of the type of policy challenge being faced. Existing climate policy institutions, such as advisory bodies, provide potential venues where the use of DMPs can become routinized as a way of gathering insights on public policy preferences. Future targeted climate DMPs will need to find ways to overcome limitations to participants’ familiarity with different technologies and capacities, in order to better predict the impacts of different policy options. Tensions ex

The design of energy and climate policy is usually seen as an ‘expert’ domain, relying on technical tools such as economic analysis. However, policy requires the support of politicians and citizens alike, through the democratic process. Many policies, such as reducing carbon emissions from homes and transport, also affect people’s lives directly. It is thus necessary to supplement technical analysis with methods that allow an exploration of people’s views, values and behaviours. One such method is codesign, whereby groups of citizens work with policy analysts to develop strategies informed by the lived experience of citizens, as well as the specialist knowledge of analysts. There is a history of co-design approaches in public services such as healthcare, but there have been few attempts to co-design public policy measures. This paper reports on a Citizens’ Panel, a representative group of people working with specialists to create co-designed policy recommendations for reducing carbon emissions from homes. The process revealed that policy co-design can provide detailed, viable proposals. In this case, panellists emphasised the necessity of leadership and support from government; tailored, consistent information; targeted regulation; and financial incentives. Finally, the wider potential role for policy co-design for energy and climate is addressed.

Meeting internationally-agreed climate goals will require the involvement of people, in various roles: as members of families and communities, as voting citizens, as employees and as consumers. Yet to date, energy and climate policy enacted by governments has tended to sidestep this issue, treating the challenge as primarily a technical or economic, rather than social, undertaking. This research examines how people have been conceptualized in energy and climate governance in the United Kingdom, through corpus analysis of key documents by government and regulatory bodies, and qualitative interviews with policy stakeholders. The research finds that governance is seen primarily as a technical or economic challenge, with little mention of people. Where people are discussed, an economic framing tends to be used. Policy stakeholders understand the problems of this approach, and argue for a more comprehensive understanding of people in governance. They see the technical and economic framing as a consequence of market-based energy policy, and centralized governance, as well as the training, processes and culture of governance organizations. Evidence from this study suggests that reforms are needed to policy and governance, including better use of social research, reforms to consultation processes, limits to marketized approaches to energy, greater deliberative engagement, and more localized energy and climate strategies. Including people is an essential part of building robust governance processes for decarbonization. Finally, this study points to the need to learn from the embedded knowledge of policy practitioners. © 2022