When climate assemblies call for stringent climate mitigation policies: Unlocking public acceptance or fighting a losing battle?

Abstract

In a context where traditional political institutions struggle to build consensus on urgent climate action, this study investigates the role of deliberative instruments in climate policymaking. Specifically, it examines how Climate Assemblies (CAs) influence public acceptance of implementing stringent climate policies. Using public reactions to the recommendations of Luxembourg’s Klima Biergerrot (KBR) as a case study—which, like other European CAs, called for more ambitious climate mitigation measures—our findings indicate the importance of outcome favorability: agreement with the content of the KBR policy proposals (i.e., winning from the process) was the strongest predictor of acceptance for their effective implementation. However, we also found that, while policy losers were prominent, their acceptance of implementing proposals they disagree with increased the more they perceived CAs as legitimate and fair decision-making processes. This evidence suggests that CAs’ can foster ‘loser consent’ and help bridge divides with climate policy opponents. In this way, CAs have the potential to help overcome climate policy gridlock by building broader public acceptance for necessary, though often unpopular, climate actions.