anxious because they were learning more about it, so it was really interesting to see it was the reverse. These differences may be due, in part, to a focused sense of purpose and agency that being an Assembly member brings. They were recruited to come up with recommendations for government, and the importance of their role was emphasised. You could see that they took their roles seriously, and that would give them a sense of purpose. Because they were coming up with the recommendations – albeit within a framework – there was a real sense of agency, which is connected to the degree to which people feel hopeful or hopeless. Another potential reason for the greater optimism is they were exposed to evidence that may have underplayed the severity of the climate crisis. Assembly members watched video presentations from experts and advocates on topics directly related to climate change, mitigation and adaptation. The evidence members were presented with did include some of the facts, but there was a feeling maybe they hadn’t been given the full scenario up-front. Concern or worry was conveyed in just one in 10 of the presentations we analysed; urgency in one in three. There can be a tendency – and it isn’t always a conscious thing – for climate scientists to edit themselves and soften things so they don’t scare people. This could all have contributed to the Assembly members worrying less or being more optimistic. But climate distress – triggering emotions such as anxiety, fear, sadness, anger or guilt – can be seen as a positive sign, showing someone is in touch with the reality of the situation. It’s not about saying to people there is no going back, rather explaining the reality of the situation; telling them what is needed to get to 1.5C or to stay below 2C – and that there are still things we can do to avert the worst in terms of catastrophic impacts. DISAPPOINTMENT IN GOVERNMENT The Assembly report in June 2021 set out 10 statements of ambition, 16 goals and 81 associated policy recommendations, with a Government response published in December of that year. After receiving the Scottish Government response to their recommendations, levels of optimism dropped, worry increased, and members expressed their disappointment with the response. At the final weekend before the recommendations were submitted, 54%of members surveyed agreed that ‘I am confident that the Assembly report will be taken seriously by Parliament and political parties’. After they were presented with the government response, only 22% agreed ‘I am confident that the Scottish Government will fulfil the commitments made in the Scottish Government response’. There were two things going on there. One was to do with the design of the Climate Assembly, and the other being hit with the reality of politics – how government works, the slow speed at which it generally operates. The design of the Assembly was such that the panel worked on recommendations largely in isolation from finding out about existing policies. So, they came up with some recommendations that were broadly already happening or planned. That meant when the Scottish Government gave its response and said ‘this is what we’re already doing’, the members felt a bit deflated. Some of the recommendations they had made were new or transformational, but some were what government was already doing. The other reason for the disappointment that was expressed was it was difficult to see what difference their recommendations had made. Things with government can take a really long time as a result of consultations and other things. The members were bringing a sense of urgency with them, but that wasn’t reflected in the government response. One member told me: “I’m not convinced that the results will be used effectively by (the Scottish Government). I have been left with a feeling of deep disappointment and despair with all the knowledge I have gained and the lack of urgency taken on board by our leaders.” A BETTER INSIGHT It’s important we include these questions when we organise climate assemblies, or any kind of deliberative democratic process to do with climate change. It’s not something people might typically think of, but it’s important to understand how people are coping when we face up to the reality of the climate situation. My study suggests a sense of agency and empowerment – a feeling that individuals can make a difference – and benefits for emotional wellbeing. Whether this optimism is also based on overly-positive evidence, and whether it can survive contact with government bureaucracy, are issues that need to be considered if this hopefulness is not to be lost. FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 25 Dr Nadine Andrews is a Visiting Researcher in the Pentland Centre for Sustainability in Business. She achieved her PhD at Lancaster University in the HighWire Doctoral Training Centre, and is a Principal Researcher and Work Programme Development Lead in the Scottish Government Centre of Expertise for Transformation. This article is based in part on the article The Emotional Experience of Members of Scotland’s Citizens’ Assembly on Climate Change, by Dr Nadine Andrews, published in Frontiers in Climate, and produced as part of her work for the Scottish Government. n.andrews@lancaster.ac.uk
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTI5NzM=