�����̨

The need to transition our societies to become more sustainable is more urgent than ever, but ambitious climate policies can face strong public pushback. Think of the yellow vest movement in France, originating as a response to fuel taxes, or the rollback of carbon pricing in Australia after a long and acrimonious political debate. Why do societies sometimes accept costly action for the common good, but at other times push back and reject it?

“There is little scientific understanding of why and how climate backlash arises,” explains James Patterson, Assistant Professor at Utrecht University’s Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development. Patterson leads the , which aims to understand the drivers and mechanisms behind public pushback to climate policy. He explains: “If we understand what it is about climate policies and their implementation that causes backlash, policymakers can take this into account and design policies with greater chances of public acceptance.”

Patterson is joined by three PhD researchers, who each focus on a different aspect of climate policy backlash. We spoke to each of them about their work.

Ksenia Anisimova: Understanding public responses to hard climate policies

In her research, Ksenia Anisimova focuses on public responses to "hard" climate policies—such as carbon taxation, regulation, and technology phase-outs—across OECD countries. These policies, which impose constraints or sanctions on target groups, are often seen as the most contentious. . “I explore how the public responds to policies like the carbon taxes implemented in France, Canada and Mexico, and the role this backlash then plays in altering climate policy – or not,” she explains.

One surprising finding from her research is that backlash against hard climate policies is relatively rare. “Backlash is quite uncommon, but it can have a disproportionate impact when it does occur,” Anisimova notes. Protests against carbon taxation in countries like France and Canada, for example, demonstrate how backlash tends to arise when policies are perceived as overly ambitious—or, in some cases, not ambitious enough, like in the case of coal phase-out in Germany.

Anisimova believes backlash isn’t inherently negative. “Rather than avoiding backlash at all costs, policymakers should see it as a symptom of a mismatch between the policy and its context,” she argues. For Anisimova, effective communication and public engagement are key to reducing contention. “Policymakers should not assume hard climate policies will automatically face widespread resistance,” she says. “Building trust, ensuring fairness, and highlighting long-term benefits can foster greater public acceptance and support for ambitious climate action.”

Cille Kaiser: Unearthing local dynamics of climate backlash

Cille Kaiser’s research within the BACKLASH project examines how broader societal grievances shape public opposition to climate policies in industrial places and regions. “People don’t necessarily oppose policies like a carbon tax or renewable energy projects themselves,” she explains. “Instead, pushback is often rooted in issues like inequalities, power imbalances, or the decline of public services, which are only loosely related to the policies.”

Through fieldwork in Northwestern France and England, Kaiser has identified surprising connections between conflicts that are seemingly very different in nature, such as renewable energy projects and coal mining. She found that public pushback may result in positive changes, like changes to the siting or scope of a project, even when it does not stop the project altogether. “ It has real value when citizens make their concerns known,” she notes. Like Anisimova, Kaiser argues that backlash is not always something to avoid: it can reflect a healthy democratic process. However, she emphasizes the importance of addressing underlying factors like economic precarity and declining public services, which exacerbate opposition. “Climate policies hit some people harder than others,” she says, “and that’s deeply connected to these systemic issues. Policymakers need to take this into account to foster more inclusive solutions.”

Jasmin Logg-Scarvell: The role of bureaucrats in navigating climate policy backlash

Jasmin Logg-Scarvell’s research explores how government officials navigate opposition to climate policies and, in turn, shape these policies in response. “Contrary to the stereotype of bureaucrats as boring paper pushers, my research shows they can be key players in overcoming challenges in climate policy,” she explains. “I’ve found that they often strategize about stronger climate action, particularly when they believe the government’s direction isn’t in the public interest,” she notes. While this proactive role can be encouraging, it also raises questions about the balance of power, particularly in politically polarized environments.

Comparing the contrasting outcomes of proposed carbon taxation in Australia and Canada, Logg-Scarvell highlights two key lessons. “The Canadian government took backlash more seriously from the outset and better emphasized how the revenue would directly benefit citizens and industries,” she explains. This proactive communication and planning helped mitigate opposition more effectively than in Australia, where backlash ultimately led to policy repeal.

Logg-Scarvell sees a shift in how policymakers approach backlash today. “There’s growing awareness of the need to account for backlash, but this can lead to overly cautious policies that hinder ambitious climate action,” she observes. Balancing public concerns with the urgency of addressing the climate crisis, she argues, is crucial for creating effective and sustainable climate policies.

Learning from backlash to build better climate policies

The BACKLASH project highlights that while backlash to climate policy can be disruptive, it also offers valuable insights for building stronger, more inclusive approaches. Project lead James Patterson advises policymakers not to let fears of backlash limit their ambition but instead to address real-world public concerns within their approach.

“Climate policy should be seen as an opportunity rather than a burden,” he explains. “Making policies relevant and appealing to people’s lives is key. For instance, enabling exciting home retrofits or improving everyday experiences—like making public transport smoother or addressing rail bottlenecks—can help people see the benefits of sustainable solutions. It is important to support people through broader measures that foster economic security and empower them to embrace change”.