Experiential Diversity Through Citizens’ Assemblies: A Path Towards Better Climate Policy

Photo by Takver

Empirical briefing sheets—not community experiences—often mold the decisions of policymakers. On the issue of climate change in particular, numbers and data dominate conversations. These quantitative fact sheets are just apathetic words on paper; they cannot reflect the qualitative experiences of 300,000,000 individual Americans.

Staggering figures on climate change regularly circulate through social media and sustainability campaigns as well. Policymakers, for their part, have long been aware of terrifying predictions about climate change. Yet it has become clear that sending more science statistics to politicians and constituents who are skeptical of science in the first place does little to change minds and a gridlocked government. Climate change, however, cannot wait: it demands action now.

How, then, should we approach the challenge of persuading policymakers to support new climate policy? One approach is to supplement policymakers’ briefings with more experiential diversity, provided by personal interactions with their constituents. Speaking to how people’s day-to-day experiences shape their perspectives, experiential considerations can ensure that policies speak to the specific needs of communities. Although data-based policies may still achieve results, what may hasten progress is an approach through citizens’ assemblies, an experience-oriented policymaking strategy that brings in both constituents and policymakers. Citizens’ assemblies are uniquely situated to address urgent climate issues, as constituents’ informed opinions on climate policy are often nonpartisan.

Helping both constituents and policymakers better understand the stake of a policy debate, citizens’ assemblies allow policymakers to hear their constituents’ diverse viewpoints to inform their policy decisions. The concept was developed by Ned Crosby in 1971, as he sought to “enhance reason and empathy among citizens as they discussed a public policy matter” in Minneapolis. His meetings created dialogue and action for local issues, such as water quality, healthcare, and budget priorities. The process has since grown worldwide; in 2016, for instance, the Irish government utilized a citizens’ assembly to recommend abortion policies—policies that were later accepted by a general public referendum, indicating that the policy’s support extended well beyond the citizens’ assembly to the population as a whole. The same group met again to be educated on and vote on climate policy recommendations, prompting Ireland’s growth as a sustainability leader.

Although climate change affects many communities, it impacts each community in markedly different ways. For farmers, more unpredictable weather patterns have undermined agricultural production in areas like the San Joaquin Valley of California. If a citizens’ assembly is held, a participating grape grower may suggest more irrigation and hydroelectric power may promote their work sustainably and economically.  Meanwhile, in underprivileged communities across the country, climate change is exacerbating health challenges like asthma; bringing in an asthmatic constituent recently affected by the introduction of a nuclear power plant in their neighborhood would widen the lens of policymakers about how the location of energy sources affects their community. These community members are far more likely to persuade their representative than is an empirical fact sheet. 

Furthermore, since citizens’ assemblies draw from a randomly selected portion of the constituency, they reach across party lines, acting of the people, by the people, for the people. For constituents, climate policy is not necessarily partisan, which is why citizens’ assemblies are uniquely equipped to create better policy. Rural communities in the United States, for example, who tend to vote for the Republican party, believe that the government should do more to reduce the effects of climate change than Republicans in general. When these rural Americans share their perspectives and relate to a specific policy on which they have been educated, their politicians may be more eager to hear them. Communities of farmers, energy workers, and business owners can come together to impact the government. When policymakers listen to these constituents, they hear real stories, not sheer statistics.

Nonetheless, opponents of citizens’ assemblies may argue that listening to these individual perspectives strays from being politically objective; that small constituent samples may elevate niche concerns that obscure the larger problem; and that experts, not general citizens, are the best people to advise policymakers on complex decisions. However, randomly selected participants, as in any scientific investigation, provide a representative perspective that can be extrapolated to the general population. Plus, during citizens assemblies, certified expects are not removed from the policymaking process; their analyses can still inform policymakers, as well as the opinions of constituents.

Only 36% of U.S. adults believe that elected officials act in the best interests of the government, and the majority of Americans believe the government should do more to combat climate change. The government needs to listen more. As President Biden noted in his inaugural address, “This is the time to heal in America.” With such detachment between the governing and the governed, citizens’ assemblies present a way for people to engage directly with the government, rebuilding overall trust.

Harrison Gerson (CC ‘25) is a first-year at Columbia College interested in sustainable development. You can find him watching telenovelas, trying new foods, and smiling in his spare time.