Scotland's Climate Assembly - process, impact and assembly member experience: research report
Mixed methods research into Scotland’s Climate Assembly, including process, impact and assembly member experience.
3. Assembly member experience
This chapter explores the Assembly members’ experience with regards to participation, emotional experience, climate attitudes, learning and knowledge, and outcomes. It begins with vignettes of the experience of four members, selected to illustrate different types of journey through the Assembly.
“Gael”
Gael is aged 45-64 and lives in the south of Scotland, successfully accessing the Assembly using her tablet from her rural home. She was immediately struck by the quality of the process and the support provided.
Gael reports having a fantastic relationship with her fellow members, and would welcome meeting up in person in future to catch up with one another. She also had a good relationship with the facilitators, feeling consistently included, respected and listened to by them. This environment made her very comfortable to raise her own views and learn from other members, despite thinking certain individuals tended to dominate the conversations. The Assembly process allowed Gael to feel empowered and she strongly supports the outputs, thinking that climate change needs to be addressed with an extremely high level of urgency.
After Weekend 7, Gael feels hopeful and optimistic but also worried about climate change and upset at the level of devastation inflicted on the planet. Reflecting on her experience, Gael says:
“I have loved and loathed the process. I have felt challenged both mentally and emotionally. I have learnt so much about myself in the process. I have a valid point of view. I have life experience that has given me perspective on all the challenges we face. I feel shattered and exhilarated at the same time that I have been a part of this journey. I have met and shared ideas with the most diverse group of people. And I have loved the fact that I still have the capacity to learn. And I am grateful that I was chosen”
“Cliff”
Cliff is aged 45 - 64 and lives in central Scotland. Despite thinking that citizens’ assemblies are just an opportunity for governments to defend choices they have already made, he joined Scotland’s Climate Assembly as he also believes that assemblies are a good way of involving people in making recommendations on important issues. Cliff believes his opinions are as valid as anyone else’s and is comfortable challenging other people’s opinions.
Before the Assembly started, Cliff had learned about the topic of climate change through books and internet searches of blogs and government reports, and considered himself to have a medium level of knowledge. He thinks there is no such thing as climate change. Instead, he believes climate change is based on pseudo-science and myths.
Cliff reflected that while he had learned something new from a few of the speakers and found their involvement in breakout rooms quite helpful, overall he did not trust them. He critiqued the evidence presented, highlighting the absence of scientists who deny climate change and suggested the evidence resembled propaganda which promotes a communist global government. Throughout the Assembly, Cliff maintains the view that anthropogenic climate change is not real. He felt the small group sessions were unhelpful and that the outputs from these discussions, and indeed the Assembly’s final goals, recommendations and statements of ambition, did not reflect his views.
At the end of Weekend 7, Cliff was less certain that his opinion is as valid as anyone else’s. Reflecting on his experience, he praises the Assembly’s organisation. However, he reports his knowledge on climate change has barely increased and says that whilst he enjoyed taking part, it has not affected his original views.
At the end of Weekend 8, Cliff reflects that he is very dissatisfied with the Scottish Government response and felt his views were not reflected in the finalised Assembly Statement of Response.
If someone is interested in knowing more about climate change, Cliff would tell them that there is no climate emergency and encourages them to avoid being brainwashed by “woke Snowflake nonsense”.
“Rayne”
Rayne is aged between 30-44 and lives in North East Scotland. She joined the Assembly knowing little about climate change, remarking that she was “not sure what it really is”. However, she found her understanding of climate change increased sharply, particularly over the first three weekends.
Before the Assembly started, Rayne thought that climate change would not happen “in [her] lifetime” and she expressed little urgency about climate change. At the end of the Assembly, she came to the realisation that climate change is an immediate and urgent problem, saying
“It's real. It's happening now. It's not affected me personally in a life-changing manner, but it is to someone else on this planet.”
Rayne now also thinks that action to tackle the climate emergency is needed at all levels, including individuals, communities, businesses and governments. She is particularly excited about carbon labelling and interested in the concept of 20 minute communities. A key learning for her was that we cannot rely on technology alone to solve the climate emergency and that it will require reducing actual usage and demand.
Rayne trusted the information that was presented by the speakers, and found the transcripts and written summaries of the presentations helpful in her learning about climate change. She also found the live Q&A sessions with experts and the time with speakers in breakout rooms helpful, although she struggled at times in assessing conflicting evidence. As a visual learner, Rayne would have liked more time to make use of the materials on the platform ahead of weekends.
Rayne found the small group discussions less helpful for her learning. Nevertheless, she felt her contributions were listened to by the other Assembly members, and that her views are reflected in the finalised goals and recommendations.
In Weekend 8, Rayne reflects that she struggled to provide a “substantial evidential response to the Government’s response”, as she “did not manage to pre-read” it.
She later agrees that there was not enough time to satisfactorily finalise the Statement of Response, explaining that she has:
“No true confidence in our responses produced in quite a rush and I'm not sure how many people actually managed to completely read the Government's responses. I feel like we are slightly disrespecting the amount of time that the Government had put in to respond to us, with the pretty shabby amount of work we have put in to respond to them.”
Despite this, Rayne tends to agree that her views are reflected in the Statement of Response, but lacks confidence that Parliament and political parties will take the Assembly Response seriously.
“Pete”
Pete is aged 22-29 and lives in Central Scotland. He was happy to take part in the Assembly as he strongly believes that citizens’ assemblies should be used more by government - they can be used as a tool for governments to take on board opinions from a variety of different people. Looking back on the Assembly as a whole, Pete is confident the Assembly achieved this, as he thinks that the Assembly was diverse enough to ensure a broad range of perspectives were considered.
In Weekend 3, Pete joined the Diet and Lifestyle topic stream. Before the Assembly began, Pete felt that individuals may not have to cut down on their consumption of meat to tackle climate change. However, by the end of Weekend 7, Pete included reducing meat consumption in his top five things he would tell someone who wanted to know more about climate change, and also committed to reducing his personal meat consumption.
However, despite this change in opinion, Pete claims that his knowledge about climate change has only increased marginally. Before the Assembly began Pete rated his knowledge about climate change at 6 out of 10 (where 0 is nothing at all, and 10 is a great deal), and at 7 after Weekend 7.
At the start of the Assembly, Pete had confidence that the Assembly report will be taken seriously by Parliament and political parties. However, reflecting on the Scottish Government response to the Assembly report, Pete thought:
“There was some good responses but a lot of it was what they are already doing and some of it was quite waffly. Felt like they were afraid of the changes needed”
Despite this, Pete has some confidence that Parliament and political parties will take the Assembly Statement of Response seriously.
Reflecting on his experience, Pete feels a sense of privilege for taking part in the Assembly, and overall he really enjoyed the process, highlighting how he felt the Assembly was run smoothly. Thinking of the emotional impact that participating in the Assembly has had on him, Pete explains:
“It's had a bit impact psychologically as I am more aware the impact of day to day activities had on the environment. It's hard to know that if we don't make changes then we may struggle to survive. It's also positive though that a lot of people are becoming more aware of the issue and that the reason the assembly was put together was to try to contact this. I'm hopeful that things change.”
3.1 Assembly member participation
This section covers Assembly members’ engagement and ability to participate, their interactions with other members, influence over the process, their experience of developing the outputs, and their interaction with Children’s Parliament.
Key findings
- Generally high levels of engagement, with connectivity issues affecting some members’ ability to participate.
- Most felt listened to and respected by other members.
- Members had some opportunity to influence the Assembly process.
- Some lack of clarity about how members’ work was collated and consolidated between weekends.
- Most felt their views were reflected in the various outputs over the course of the Assembly, suggesting overall sense of ownership of the process and outputs was high.
Almost all members attended each weekend (see Appendix 1 for details). Most were observed to participate with videos on, although technical problems meant this was not possible for some. Levels of engagement were generally high, with commitment and enthusiasm evident. Group dynamics were observed to be generally positive, with a minority of members who were relatively quiet.
On the whole there was a visibly diverse mix by age and gender of members reporting in plenary sessions on behalf of their small groups to the whole Assembly.
3.1.1 Ability to participate
Members were asked about factors reducing their ability to participate in each weekend including: connection difficulties, difficulties with online members hub, distractions in the home, device use, and length of sessions. The extent of problems varied across the weekends, with connection difficulties the most common issue affecting up to one in six respondents to some extent (see also 2.3.2 Online format). The other factors affected less than one in ten. Data was not collected on the extent to which these factors affected participation. A few members’ participation was affected by illness due to Covid-19 or vaccine side-effects.
3.1.2 Interactions with other Assembly members
Across the weekends, a large majority of respondents agreed that they felt respected by their fellow participants even when they didn’t agree with what they had to say (83% average across all weekends). Reflecting back on their experience of the Assembly as a whole after Weekend 7, over eight in ten respondents (86%) agreed that their contributions had been listened to by the other Assembly members. For example, one commented:
“I really enjoyed this whole experience. I found it really interesting and especially enjoyed the break out rooms where I feel I learned a lot talking things through with fellow assembly members , some of whom were very knowledgeable in different areas.” (Assembly Member, WE7)
Across the weekends, between four and six in ten respondents (average 47%) agreed that ‘one or more people in my small group were particularly influential in helping me to think through the issues we were discussing’, and also thought the Assembly is diverse enough to ensure a broad range of perspectives are considered (average 84%).
However, there were a few who agreed that ‘I didn’t always feel free to raise my views and ideas for fear of others’ reactions’ (average 11%). A few (average 6%) agreed that ‘I had already formed my opinion and the discussion had little effect on me’, this rose to around one in ten respondents (12%) in the Weekend 7 survey.
As discussed in Section 2.3.5 Facilitation, some members reported that others in their group dominated the conversation, affecting their ability and motivation to contribute.
3.1.3 Influencing the process
The Arrangements for the Administration and Operation of Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland: Scotland’s Climate Assembly states that “within the remit of the legislation, and with expert support, members of the assembly (once in place) will be able to shape the assembly’s agenda[61].”
Reflecting back on their experience of the Assembly as a whole after Weekend 7, 68% respondents agreed that they had ‘the opportunity to influence decisions about the content of the information presented to them’. Members had been offered an opportunity to suggest speakers or areas to cover. However, it is not known how many suggestions were offered and whether they were taken up, or whether members were supported to identify speakers and areas to cover, in accordance with the Arrangements. Members were also asked if they wanted an additional (seventh) weekend. Members prioritised their draft goals and recommendations. Members voted on options for structuring the report, and although were not directly involved in writing the report they contributed quotes that were included.
A few interviewees reflected that they would have liked Assembly members to have been more involved in process decision making. Despite being promised opportunities to shape the agenda of the Assembly, it was not clear that Assembly members had a meaningful opportunity to do this. For example, the Assembly did not have a sub-group of members to use as a sounding board as was employed in the Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland. One interviewee noted there was a risk that a sub-group would not have been representative of members’ views.
3.1.4 Developing the outputs
As described in 2.2.1 Assembly question, Assembly members were tasked with answering a question[62] determined by the Stewarding Group, within the frame of the Climate Change Act and its targets. Members were not given a set of recommendations to discuss or approve, as with the Climate Assembly UK. However, many evidence presentations proposed ways for tackling climate change in an effective and fair way. Over the course of the Assembly, members worked on developing and finalising their response to the question they were set.
Between weekends, the Design Team collated and consolidated information that had been generated by members in their small group sessions. This involved grouping draft overarching statements (also referred to as statements of ambition), goals and recommendations by theme. It was suggested by one interviewee that the Secretariat could have been more involved in that process, bringing their knowledge on climate change. Due to the quick turnaround between weekends, and the amount of information, there were occasional duplications or omissions. A coding system was developed to show how information had been merged. However, one interviewee reflected that members found the coding system difficult to follow and that using diagrams or visuals may have worked better. Some difficulties in tracking the changes made by the Design Team were also observed in the small groups. This may have affected members’ sense of ownership over the outputs. There were a few comments in the member surveys related to this:
“It was a difficult weekend at some points. Some members in my groups felt discussions which had been had or points raised fell by the wayside in the presented texts“ (Assembly member, WE6)
“Over the previous weeks, we have been presented with drafts of the goals and recommendations and asked for our feedback and comments and to identify gaps. On several occasions, I have spent time to feedback conscientiously and identify points which were discussed but somehow not captured” (Assembly member, WE6)
The process of formulating goals and recommendations took place within the topic streams. In Weekend 6 when members came back together as a full Assembly, representatives from each stream presented their proposed goals and recommendations with a rationale. This was followed by mixed-stream small group discussions to reflect upon and refine the goals and recommendations, identify tensions between different goals and recommendations, identify and agree mergers. Groups could call in Evidence Group members to answers questions as needed (see 2.4.3 Interaction between experts and Assembly members).
For Weekend 7, the Evidence Group provided some feedback on some of the draft recommendations, suggesting rephrasing, issues or measures for members to consider[63]. This feedback was advisory, and members were not required to accept their advice. Further factual clarifications were also provided as requested.
Members voted on their support for the goals between Weekends 6 and 7. The recommendations were finalised in the Weekend 7, and voted upon by the members after Weekend 7.
A large number of recommendations (81) were included. This was considered by interviewees variously as a consequence of having: a broad Assembly question, a process which involved prioritisation but not within a set limit, and insufficient time to allow for further consolidation. Ultimately a decision was made by the Secretariat (in consultation with the Stewarding Group) to keep the number of recommendations open. One interviewee suggested that in future, topic streams should be limited in the number or recommendations they could make, whilst another interviewee reflected that these were the recommendations that the members wanted.
The member surveys included questions relating to sense of ownership of the process and outputs. In general, around eight in ten respondents agreed that their views were reflected in the various outputs over the course of the Assembly.
Figure 3.1 shows the results for Weekends 2 to 6, for the prioritised themes, overarching statements, goals and recommendations.
Figure 3.2 shows the results for the finalised overarching statements, goals and recommendations.
Figure. 3.2 Assembly members’ ownership of finalised outputs (WE7 survey)
A large majority of respondents agreed that the overarching statements, goals and recommendations were developed in an effective and in a fair way, with 80-85% agreement across these three outputs.
However, as noted earlier, many respondents did not feel there had been enough time to engage with the evidence (see 2.4.4 Assembly members’ engagement with evidence) and develop and finalise the recommendations (see 2.3.4 Programming the sessions), including in a more strategic way. A few members raised concerns in the member surveys. For example:
“Far more time was spent fixated on wording than on thinking about the bigger picture- whether our recommendations made sense as a whole, whether we were prioritising the right things, whether it was affordable to spread resources over all these recommendations. We were seriously constrained in what we allowed to discuss, and often spent hours on petty arbitrary tasks that served the interests of the facilitators in making it easier to compile the report. The Assembly should have had more control over the agenda … That said there are lots of good things in the report and it is ultimately a positive contribution” (Assembly member, WE7)
“The process of collating the goals and recommendations has been rushed and muddled, with successive drafts failing to capture important points raised. There has been insufficient evidence provided in some areas, in others there have been clear efforts to steer the Assembly members to focus on particular issues. Communications have been poor. These factors have resulted in a set of recommendations which fail to address some important areas and overemphasise others.” (Assembly member, WE6)
“Overall I have a personal mix feeling about my participation: I am proud to be part of the assembly, to be helping in shaping a new vision for Scotland and I feel we are having an important responsibility here as citizen to ensure our views are written and heard. But I am also concerned that our recommendations are not enough and that we have maybe not covered everything, missing out some important opportunity. I wonder if an external and independent third party view on our work at some point could not have ensured that we are not missing out something.” (Assembly Member, WE6)
3.1.5 Children’s Parliament
Children’s Parliament[64] conducted a parallel process to the Climate Assembly.
In Weekends 1 and 2, Assembly members viewed a video featuring children participating in the climate change project talking about their views and experience[65]. Around six in ten respondents to the Weekend 2 survey reported finding this video ‘quite helpful’ or ‘very helpful’ for their own learning about climate change. A quarter found it ‘a little’ or ‘not at all’ helpful.
In Weekend 6, members watched the final Children’s Parliament video containing their 42 Calls to Action[66]. Between Weekends 6 and 7, a few members met with Children’s Parliament investigators and reported back in Weekend 7 to the plenary. This stimulated some further refinement of a few of the recommendations, such as tightening up language.
The Weekend 8 survey asked members about extent to which the children’s contribution had shaped or informed their deliberations and recommendations. Only 73 members attended Weekend 8, of whom 70% completed the survey, so the results should be treated with caution and may not be representative of all Assembly members. Around four in ten said ‘very much’ or ‘quite a lot’, just under a third said ‘somewhat’ and a just over a quarter said a ‘little’ or ‘not at all’.
These mixed results are reflected in the survey comments. For example:
“Think it's great they were involved and it's fab to get kids involved in things like this - to encourage their democratic rights and critical thinking. However, I felt their inclusion in the weekends perhaps took a bit away from the time we had to deliberate and hear evidence. I'm sad to say it felt like a 'puff piece'.” (Assembly member, WE8)
“I felt that their contribution was vital - it was energising! Their comments and ideas were clear and cut through to the heart of many of the issues.” (Assembly member, WE8)
“I have loved watching the children's parliament video, it was very informative, straight to the point and very hopeful that the future is in good hands.” (Assembly member, WE6)
“Time was wasted on child propaganda from the children' parliament making the lack of time worse. You can't have a (literature review or cost benefit analyses but here's the opinion of a 6 yr old and the propaganda their teacher has told them” (Assembly member, WE7)
3.2 Emotional experience
This section covers member’s emotional experience of participating in the Assembly.
Key findings
- Members were less worried and more hopeful than the population as a whole about what Scotland can do to tackle climate, and became increasingly more optimistic that ‘things will work out fine’ over the course of the main Assembly period.
- Many experienced mixed emotions about what they were learning about climate change.
- Eleven members reported their feelings about climate change were having a negative impact on their mental health.
Assembly members were asked closed questions about their emotional experience during the main Assembly period in the Weekend 2 to Weekend 7 surveys, and again after the follow-up Weekend 8 meeting[67]. Weekend 8 was held 11 months after Weekend 7, and followed publication of the Scottish Government response, which members discussed[68]. Some respondents also provided comments about their emotional experience, which provides further insight.
Around eight in ten respondents agreed each weekend (WE2 - WE7) that they felt ‘excited or hopeful about what we can do to tackle climate change’. The proportion that agreed dropped in the Weekend 8 survey to around six in ten respondents. For comparison, in the Deltapoll population survey, 52% agreed with the statement.
Feeling ‘optimistic that things will work out fine in relation to climate change’ fluctuated across the weekends. The lowest proportion was after Weekend 3[69] (31% agreement) and the highest after Weekend 7 (62%). This compares with 39% agreement in the Deltapoll population survey. This indicates that whilst the Assembly members had similar levels of optimism about tackling climate change as the Scottish public at the outset, they became considerably more optimistic as the Assembly progressed. However, after Weekend 8, levels of optimism dropped back down to 31%.
During the main Assembly period, there was a decrease in the proportion of respondents feeling ‘worried or upset by what I am learning about climate change’, from 48% after Weekend 2 to 28% after Weekend 7. This compares with 68% agreement in the Deltapoll population survey[70]. The Assembly respondents started off less worried or upset about climate change than the public, and became increasingly less worried than the public as the Assembly progressed.
Comments in the member surveys indicate that decreasing levels of worry and increasing levels of optimism coincided with a growing sense of personal and collective responsibility, and for some also a sense of pride as Assembly members tasked with producing recommendations for the Scottish Government. References were also made relating to a sense of agency in changing their behaviour and taking urgent climate action. One respondent commented:
“It has been a privilege to be a part of the Assembly. Very challenging and a big responsibility to produce these recommendations for the Scottish Government. I have looked at the Interim Report today and it is impressive and I am proud to have contributed to it in even a small way. I know that all I have learned about climate change will affect my lifestyle in the future.”(Assembly member, WE7)
However, after Weekend 8, levels of worry increased to 38%. One respondent commented:
“I feel like there was a good intention and the process was very thorough but I'm not convinced that the results will be used effectively by SG (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.” (Assembly member, WE8)
Around one in five respondents agreed that they felt ‘overwhelmed by the information on climate change that is being presented’. This proportion remained fairly constant throughout – including in Weekend 8, with many of the same respondents giving this response across the weekends. In the Deltapoll population survey, 53% agreed that they felt ‘overwhelmed by what I am finding out about climate change’. Several respondents commented on feeling overwhelmed by the volume of evidence and the limited amount of time to digest it and to discuss it in their small groups. Comments included:
“The only negatives I can think of are that I did at times feel overwhelmed and lost with the sheer amount of information / tasks and that being terrified of speaking in front of groups I did not participate as much as I would have liked to.” (Assembly member, WE7)
“We've been given such a lot of information, in a very short space of time … The amount that has been presented to us has been quite overwhelming. I like to take a step back, I don't like to feel rushed.” (Assembly member, WE6)
Many respondents experienced mixed emotions. For example, in the Weekend 2 survey, around three quarters of those who were worried or upset also felt excited or hopeful. Comments from survey respondents also show this. For example:
“I did find some of the information worrying, we all live on this planet but there are so many people who do not accept that climate change is happening. I did worry how people could be brought round without methods of force which I strongly oppose. But as I continued with the assembly I believe it can be brought about in a fair way leaving no one behind. If we do what we can and the government and all political parties are compelled to meet deadlines it's achievable. I came away from the assembly feeling optimistic that everything we have suggested would greatly benefit the have nots encouraging everyone to get on board.” (Assembly Member, WE7)
“I have loved and loathed the process. I have felt challenged both mentally and emotionally. I have learnt so much about myself in the process. I have a valid point of view. I have life experience that has given me perspective on all the challenges we face. I feel shattered and exhilarated at the same time that I have been a part of this journey. I have met and shared ideas with the most diverse group of people. And I have loved the fact that I still have the capacity to learn. And I am grateful that I was chosen. Thank you” (Assembly member, WE7)
“At times, stressful, at times confusing and at times frustrating. However also informative, participatory, well run over all, developmental and at times fun. A worthy assembly to be a part of, both for the future of Scotland, and for my own education on urgent matters.” (Assembly Member, WE7)
A few other members also expressed frustration in the surveys, about the Assembly itself, factors affecting their participation, or about inadequate climate action. For example:
“The time allocated to review the goals/recommendations from the previous week wasn't enough and we had to rush which was frustrating and I don't think it serves its purpose.” (Assembly member, WE4)
“I've struggled at times during this process. As a victim of technological obsolescence I found my inability to download anything due to not having the latest version of software greatly impacted my ability to participate in the proceedings. The level of frustration this caused me was unlike anything I've experienced before. Perhaps 3 months of isolation compounded this emotional response” (Assembly member, WE7)
During the main Assembly period, between three and five respondents each weekend (average of 7%) agreed that ‘my feelings about climate change are having a negative impact on my mental health’. Six respondents reported this experience in one survey and five respondents in more than one survey. This compares with 25% agreement in the Deltapoll population survey. In a survey conducted by YouGov in 2020, 55% said climate change affected their mental health in some way[71].
The surveys included two questions about emotion regulation in relation to awareness and suppression of difficult emotions.
Across the Assembly weekends, an average of 34% of respondents agree that they ‘push emotions away so I do not feel distressed about climate change’, with an average of 42% disagreeing. In the Deltapoll population survey, a similar proportion (35%) agreed with the statement.
An average of 50% of respondents agreed that they were ‘not aware of feeling any negative or distressing emotions about climate change’, with an average of 24% disagreeing. In the Deltapoll population survey, 38% agreed with the statement.
Comparing the member survey results with the Deltapoll population survey indicates that Assembly members felt much lower levels of worry and overwhelm than the population as a whole, and higher levels of hopefulness and optimism. A forthcoming study looking at this aspect of member experience in detail, suggests that these differences may in part be due to a focussed sense of purpose and agency that being an Assembly member brings, along with exposure to evidence that may have underplayed the severity of the climate crisis and that was framed in ways that reassured members that climate change can be tackled in an effective and fair way[72].
Impact on mental health also appears to be much lower than is indicated for the population as whole. The emotion regulation results suggest that many members used emotional avoidance or suppression coping strategies.
3.3 Knowledge and learning
This section presents findings related to Assembly member’s learning and knowledge gained. It also includes information about members’ sources of information about climate change.
Key findings
- There was an increase in members’ self-rated knowledge about climate change.
- There was an increase in confidence that the Assembly had the information to answer the question.
3.3.1 Sources of information
Prior to the Assembly, respondents were asked where they got most of their information about climate change.
TV and websites were the most popular sources, followed by social media and newspapers, as shown in Figure 3.3.
3.3.2 Learning journeys
Across Weekends 2 to 5, an average of 76% of respondents reporting learning something new by listening to all or most of the speakers.
Members were also asked to rate their knowledge of climate change on a scale from 0 (nothing at all) to 10 (a great deal). As shown in Figure 3.4, there is a slight increase in the percentage of respondents reporting higher levels of knowledge over the course of the Assembly.
Figure 3.4 shows that after Weekend 7, 80% of respondents reported their knowledge at 7 or higher compared to 49% in after Weekend 3 and 25% in the pre-Assembly survey.
The CAUK population survey (conducted Sept 2020) and the Deltapoll population survey (conducted July-August 2021) show lower levels of self-rated knowledge of 7 or higher[73], at 33% and 54% respectively, which suggests an increase in knowledge in the UK population over that period[74], reaching a level similar to the members of Scotland’s Climate Assembly after Weekend 3.
One respondent commented:
“Before participating in the Assembly, I was aware of climate change and that urgent action was required. However, I really only thought of climate change as it related to burning fossil fuels, e.g. driving cars, flying, domestic heating. Over the past seven weekends I have learned that carbon is everywhere. I had no concept of 'embedded' carbon. I had never really thought about food waste or what happens to my recycling. What I eat, buy, and throw away, all contributes to my carbon footprint. It was a real eye-opener.” (Assembly Member, WE7)
Figures 3.5 and 3.6 show perceptions of having the information required to answer the Assembly question themselves and by the Assembly as a whole. Although there is some fluctuation, there is a growth in confidence about having the information required in the last two weekends, particularly for the Assembly as a whole indicating trust in collective intelligence.
Figure 3.5 illustrates that as the Assembly progressed, a higher proportion of respondents answering “quite a lot” and “very much”. Similarly, Figure 3.6 shows that the response “very much” became the most common answer by the final weekend.
Figures 3.7 and 3.8 show very slight increases in climate literacy amongst respondents, with respect to questions about climate impact[75], with higher levels of agreement than for the population as a whole.
Knowledge questions in surveys
As subjective assessments of learning are notoriously unreliable, due to social desirability bias some objective knowledge questions were included in the member survey to gain some insight into the extent to which they were learning key facts about climate change and decarbonisation in the evidence presentations.
After Weekend 1, around eight in ten respondents were aware that temperatures since 1880 had risen by an average of 1 degree.
The Weekend 3 survey knowledge questions were based on evidence presented in Weekend 2. Three quarters of respondents thought that vegan diets had the lowest negative impact on the climate. Just under half were correct in thinking that Scotland has a higher average of CO2 emissions per person than the UK. Just over half were also correct in thinking that Scotland is already experiencing sea level rise, with eight in ten recognising that Scotland is already experiencing warmer temperatures.
The Weekend 7 survey included statements which reflected key messages in the evidence presentations across the topic streams. As shown in Table 3.1, agreement with the statements was high, ranging from 74% to 100%.
Table 3.1 Member agreement with evidence statements
Shifting to a more plant-based diet across the population will make a considerable contribution to reducing Scotland’s carbon emissions to net zero
Agree (‘strongly agree’ + ‘tend to agree’) 79%
A post-EU subsidy scheme for farmers and land managers should encourage farmers to transition to more sustainable land management practices and should include training, support and funding at a regional level, giving farmers the support they need to help themselves
Agree (‘strongly agree’ + ‘tend to agree’) 90%
Reducing overall consumption is an important part of the mix, along with using and consuming things more efficiently
Agree (‘strongly agree’ + ‘tend to agree’) 91%
Bringing both existing and new homes to very high levels of energy efficiency will make a considerable contribution to reducing Scotland’s carbon emissions to net zero
Agree (‘strongly agree’ + ‘tend to agree’) 100%
Developing a place-based approach to how services are delivered in communities across Scotland will help ensure a fair and equitable response to climate change.
Agree (‘strongly agree’ + ‘tend to agree’) 74%
Responding to the huge challenges posed by climate change offers real opportunity for the Scottish Government to initiate a high-quality and secure jobs agenda across Scotland, within both the public and private sectors.
Agree (‘strongly agree’ + ‘tend to agree’) 84%
Reducing emissions from transport in line with existing targets will require a reduction in the amount of travel as well as a shift in modes of travel (e.g. shifting to electric vehicles, public transport)
Agree (‘strongly agree’ + ‘tend to agree’) 90%
Scotland is already experiencing the impacts of climate change e.g. through warmer temperatures, increased rainfall and sea level rise. These impacts will continue, even if greenhouse gas emissions were to stop today, due to historic emissions. There is therefore a need for actions that help Scotland adapt to current and future impacts.
Agree (‘strongly agree’ + ‘tend to agree’) 90%
Decarbonisation of our economy is considered a priority with negative emissions technologies generally regarded as a last resort
Agree (‘strongly agree’ + ‘tend to agree’) 81%
3.4 Climate attitudes
This section presents findings relating to Assembly members’ attitudes about climate change and how to tackle it. Population survey data and other secondary data is included for comparison where relevant.
Key findings
- There was an increase in concern about climate change as an urgent issue, increase in support for certain climate actions, and increase in importance of climate change in political views amongst the Assembly members.
- There was a shift away from seeing the national government as having the main responsibility for tackling climate change.
- A few members denied the reality of human-caused climate change, of whom all but one maintained these views throughout the Assembly.
Assembly members were asked about their views on climate change in the pre-Assembly, Weekend 3, and Weekend 7 surveys. 46 members completed all three surveys. Where comparable data exists, the Deltapoll population survey and results from other secondary sources are included for comparison[76].
A higher proportion of the respondents to the pre-Assembly survey thought that climate change was an ‘immediate and urgent problem’ (76%) than all Assembly members at recruitment[77] (68%). However, as shown in Table 3.2, respondents to the pre-Assembly survey held similar views on this question to the Scottish population as a whole[78]. Respondents’ levels of concern about climate change as an urgent issue increased over the course of the Assembly.
| ‘Climate change is an immediate and urgent problem’ | ‘Addressing climate change requires an extremely high level of urgency’ | ‘Very concerned about climate change’ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| pre-Assembly survey Base: 68 | 76% | 41% | 47% |
| WE3 survey Base: 61 | 89% | 61% | 62% |
| WE7 survey Base: 69 | 88% | - | - |
| Deltapoll population survey Base: 1917 | 75% | - | 41% |
| Scottish Household Survey 2019 | 68% | - | - |
| Scottish Household Survey 2020 (telephone)[79] | 80% | - | - |
| Ipsos MORI Scotland 2020 | 79% | - | - |
| RESiL RISK survey 2019 | - | 34% | - |
| Climate Assembly UK population survey 2021[80] | - | - | 35% |
| BEIS/Defra population survey 2020 | - | - | 38% |
Across all the Assembly surveys, there were very few respondents who thought that there is ‘no such thing as climate change’ or thought that it is caused ‘entirely’ or ‘mainly by natural causes’ (4-5%), In the Deltapoll population survey, 12% held these views, which is similar to other secondary data[81].
Similarly, only a few thought climate change is ‘not really a problem’ or were ‘not convinced that climate change is happening’ (4-6%). This compares with 7% in the Deltapoll population survey, which is similar to other surveys[82]. One respondent with this view in the pre-Assembly survey changed their view in the Weekend 7 survey to thinking that ‘climate change is an immediate and urgent problem’.
Assembly members were also asked for their views on responsibility for tackling climate change. A shown in Table 3.3, the results indicate an increase in views that responsibility should be shared across society.
| ‘Private companies, national government and individuals should equally take main responsibility for finding a way to better tackle climate change’ | ‘National government should take main responsibility for finding a way to better tackle climate change’ | |
|---|---|---|
| pre-Assembly survey Base: 68 | 66% | 25% |
| WE3 survey Base: 61 | 67% | 28% |
| WE7 survey Base: 69 | 80% | 16% |
| Deltapoll population survey Base: 1917 | 63%[83] | 20% |
Respondents were asked to what extent ‘we’[84] should do particular actions to tackle climate change. As shown in Figures 3.9 to 3.12, there was an increase in the proportion who thought ‘we should definitely do’ all the actions, from the pre-Assembly survey to Weekend 3 and Weekend 7 surveys.
For each measure, Assembly respondents support at pre-Assembly is broadly similar to that of the Scottish public, but the level of support increases as the Assembly progresses. After Weekend 7, members’ views are markedly different to the Scottish public.
Figure 3.9 above includes results from the Ipsos MORI Scotland 2020 survey, which asked a related question: ‘to help reduce carbon emissions from farming, would you be willing to eat less red meat?’. 70% of respondents who currently eat red meat said they would be willing to eat less of it in order to reduce emissions from farming[85]. This result is consistent with the Deltapoll population survey result.
Figure 3.10 shows an increase in the proportion of respondents who thought ‘we should definitely’ limit the amount of air travel, from pre-Assembly to Weekend 7.
There was also an increase in proportion of those who thought ‘we should definitely’ reduce our overall levels of consumption, as shown in Figure 3.11.
Again, there is an increase in the proportion of respondents who thought ‘we should definitely’ reduce the amount of domestic energy used.
Respondents were also asked for their views on statements relating to politics and climate change.
As shown in Table 3.4, a higher proportion of respondents considered climate change in their political thinking at the end of the main Assembly period compared to the start, and compared to the general Scottish public. The Weekend 8 survey results have been included, although these should be treated with caution due to the smaller sample size[86]. Around half the respondents at Weekend 8 reported taking climate change into account when voting in the May 2021 Scottish elections, compared with almost a third of the public.
Whilst 84% of respondents to the Weekends 3 and 7 surveys thought it important that economic recovery after Covid-19 prioritises climate change, a lower proportion of the public (67%) agreed with this statement.
| Agreement (‘strongly agree’ + ‘tend to agree’) | ‘If a political party’s policies don’t deal seriously with climate change, this would put me off voting for them’ | ‘Climate change was a consideration in my constituency vote in the May 2021 elections’ | ‘In the economic recovery after Covid-19, it's important that government actions prioritise climate change’ |
|---|---|---|---|
| pre-Assembly survey Base: 68 | 65% | - | 73% |
| Weekend 3 survey Base: 61 | 80% | - | 84% |
| Weekend 7 survey Base: 69 | 84% | - | 84% |
| Weekend 8 survey Base: 51 | 78% | 55% | - |
| Deltapoll population survey Base: 1917 | - | 31% | 67% |
3.5 Outcomes for Assembly members
This section presents findings relating to Assembly members’ views on participating in group discussions and political decision making processes, as well as about their participation in various climate and civic actions.
Key findings
- Evidence suggests some members became less nervous speaking in a group over the course of the Assembly.
- Most popular mitigation actions since taking part in the Assembly are: reducing amount of meat and dairy in diet, reducing overall consumption, and reducing domestic energy use. This is consistent with the increase in support for these as actions that “we should definitely do”.
- Other popular actions include: discussing climate change and politics with friends and family, and making consumer decisions based on associated climate impacts.
- Least frequent actions include: contacting elected officials, attending political party events or a sitting of Parliament or local government, and attending a demonstration or protest.
- Around two thirds of respondents to the Weekend 8 survey agree that they feel more confident to engage in political decision-making as a result of being involved with the Assembly. Around half agreed that taking part in the Assembly made them want to be more involved in other aspects of government decision making. Two respondents reported running for an elected position to influence decisions about climate change.
As shown in Table 3.5, across the Assembly the proportion of respondents agreeing with the statements remains fairly constant, with the exception of ‘I feel nervous speaking in front of a group’ which reduces over the course of the main Assembly period. For example, one Assembly member commented:
“It was such an interesting,, informative & enjoyable learning experience. At the beginning of the assembly, it was a bit nerve-racking but with the huge support from the secretariat and everyone I became more confident.” (Assembly member, WE7)
| Agreement (‘strongly agree’ + ‘tend to agree’) | pre-Assembly survey Base: 68 | Weekend 3 survey Base: 61 | Weekend 7 survey Base: 69 | Weekend 8 survey Base: 51 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I think my opinion is as valid as anyone else’s | 87% | 87% | 94% | 92% |
| I enjoy participating in discussions and debates | 73% | 78% | 75% | 82% |
| I feel comfortable challenging someone else’s opinion during a conversation | 70% | 70% | 65% | 73% |
| I feel nervous speaking in front of a group | 46% | 41% | 31% | 31% |
| I feel more confident to engage in political decision-making as a result of being involved in this citizens’ assembly | - | - | - | 63% |
| Taking part in this citizens’ assembly has made me want to be more involved in other aspects of Government decision making | - | - | - | 54% |
Members were also asked about their participation in various climate and civic actions. The Climate Assembly UK research also included these questions, and would provide comparison if/when these results are published.
Table 3.6 shows the number of respondents after Weekend 8 who said they were doing particular climate actions, either from before taking part in the Assembly or since.
The three most popular climate actions overall (sum of before and after taking part) and the most popular actions since taking part are: reducing the amount of meat in diet, reducing overall consumption, and reducing amount of energy used in the home. This is consistent with the increase in support for these actions as things that ‘we should definitely do’ discussed earlier in this chapter (see 3.4 Climate attitudes). Some Assembly members reflected on what they have been doing with the experience and learning they have gained about climate change and how to tackle it since Weekend 7:
“Less meat eating, change of heating to a lower carbon set up in my home, am more informed in discussions on green issues outside of the assembly and am more aware of waste and support a circular economy.” (Assembly member, WE8)
“I have participated in a podcast and attended three Parliamentary events to discuss aspects of the Assembly process and some of the recommendations. I have also made changes to my lifestyle such as eating less meat, and using active and public transport where possible, and reducing my overall level of consumption. I am much more politically aware then prior to becoming an Assembly member both at a national and local level. I closely follow climate related news in Scotland and globally.” (Assembly member, WE8)
| Scotland's Climate Assembly wasn’t about asking you to make changes in your own life. However, we would be interested to know whether or not you have done any of the following? Base: 51 | ‘I did this before taking part in Scotland’s Climate Assembly’ | ‘I have done this since taking part in Scotland’s Climate Assembly’ |
|---|---|---|
| Improved my home insulation | 20 | 5 |
| Reduced the amount of meat in my diet | 19 | 19 |
| Reduced the amount of dairy in my diet | 11 | 14 |
| Switched to a renewable energy provider | 15 | 6 |
| Switched to an electric car instead of a petrol / diesel car | 2 | 5 |
| Signed a petition about climate change | 12 | 7 |
| Contacted a politician about climate change | 4 | 5 |
| Carbon offset my flights | 2 | 4 |
| Became a member of a climate or nature organisation (e.g. Greenpeace, RSPB, Extinction Rebellion, or a local campaign group) | 6 | 2 |
| Attended a demonstration or protest about climate change | 3 | 3 |
| Ran for an elected position to influence decisions about climate change | 0 | 2 |
| Limited my amount of air travel (flying)[87] | 8 | 10 |
| Reduced my overall levels of consumption (the amount of things we buy) | 17 | 20 |
| Reduced the amount of energy I use in my home | 19 | 18 |
The least popular actions are: running for an elected position, attending a demonstration or protest about climate change, carbon offsetting flights (less relevant during Covid-19 restrictions), and switching to an electric car. Although, one Assembly member reflects on their recent climate actions, and political commitment:
“I have been hosting fireside conversations with my local community to discuss local climate action. I have put my name forward as a local Green Party Councillor candidate.” (Assembly member, WE8)
With regards to civic actions, Table 3.7 shows the number of respondents by frequency of actions. Five actions are related to climate change whilst seven actions relate to civic engagement with politics.
The most common (sum of somewhat and very often) climate related actions are: discussed climate change with friends and family, and made consumer decisions based on associated climate impacts. The most common civic action was to discuss politics with friends and family. A few Assembly members commented:
“I’ve been having casual conversations about climate change with my boss, friends and family. I can’t make others do what I’m doing but I can share the things that work for me to show others how a sustainable lifestyle can work for a person. Some people find that hard to visualise.” (Assembly member, WE8)
“I think people are sick of the sound of my voice challenging attitudes on climate emergrncy” (Assembly member, WE8)
The least popular actions are: to contact an elected official, attend a political party meeting/event or a sitting of parliament or local government, and attend a demonstration or protest. Covid-19 restrictions could have affected motivation or ability to attend in-person events. Respondents were also less likely to share or comment on climate or political stories online.
| How often would you say you have done the following since the last Assembly weekend in March 2021?[88] Base: 51 | Never | Almost never | Not very often | Somewhat often | Very often | Unsure / Don’t Know |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discussed climate change with family & friends | 1 | 2 | 12 | 23 | 12 | 1 |
| Talked to friends and family about what you did as an Assembly member | 1 | 4 | 18 | 17 | 9 | 1 |
| Shared or commented on a story relating to climate change online | 17 | 6 | 10 | 13 | 4 | 1 |
| Made decisions about items you’ve bought based on associated climate impacts | 9 | 1 | 6 | 17 | 17 | 1 |
| Tried to gather more information about any of the topics that were discussed during Scotland’s Climate Assembly | 5 | 5 | 11 | 21 | 8 | 1 |
| Discussed politics with family and friends | 2 | 4 | 9 | 19 | 16 | 1 |
| Shared or commented on a story relating to politics online | 21 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 2 |
| Contacted an elected official | 26 | 11 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Attended a meeting or event for a political party (virtually or in-person) | 37 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Signed a petition | 13 | 7 | 25 | 4 | 2 | - |
| Attended a sitting of parliament or local government (virtually or in-person) | 39 | 5 | 4 | - | 1 | - |
| Attended a demonstration or protest | 32 | 11 | 5 | - | 1 | 2 |
Contact
Email: socialresearch@gov.scot
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback