Climate action, yes - but it must be fair

How can we achieve climate policy that is both effective and has the support of society? The Ariadne Citizens’ Deliberation addressed this question over a period of three years. The key finding was that citizens are certainly willing to support even ambitious climate policy measures – provided that their benefits are clear, social inequalities are taken into account, and political decisions are communicated transparently.

Results presented in dialogue with policymakers and the scientific community

The results of the Ariadne Citizens’ Deliberation were presented on 12 June 2026 at the Citizens’ Summit at Fraunhofer ENIQ in Berlin. Following presentations by Dr Ottmar Edenhofer (PIK) and Thomas Kralinski (BMUKN), the focus was on three thematic panel discussions on the transport transition, the heating transition and the financing of climate policy. There, the results of the citizens’ deliberation were discussed together with representatives from academia, politics, business and civil society.

The event concluded with a discussion with Members of the Bundestag, who assessed the measures developed from a political perspective and discussed what insights they would take away for future climate policy. An accompanying exhibition brought the three-year process and its results to life for the guests.

Citizen deliberation as part of research

The Kopernikus Ariadne project developed scientifically sound options for shaping the energy transition. What made it special was that the citizen deliberation was directly integrated into an ongoing research process – an approach that has so far been rather rare in the research landscape. From the outset, Ariadne involved citizens in a joint process of dialogue and learning with the scientific community.

The aim was not merely to find out whether people supported or opposed individual measures, but to jointly develop policy mixes that are both scientifically sound and socially viable.

The focus was on three key themes of the energy transition:

• climate-friendly mobility
• climate-neutral heating for buildings
• financing climate policy

Around 150 citizens from across Germany were selected at random to take part in the process. They brought with them a variety of life experiences, political views and backgrounds. A total of 180 people took part over the course of the process. These ‘everyday experts’ outlined which policy measures they would like to see for a climate-friendly future and which they consider feasible – and why.

This video offers a look back at the Ariadne citizens’ deliberation.

Discussing climate policy under real-world conditions

At the heart of the process was working with so-called ‘policy mixes’. The research team developed policy fact sheets for the transport and heating transitions. These explained the measures and highlighted the expected greenhouse gas reductions, the costs to the state, and who would benefit or be affected.

On this basis, the participants first put together policy mixes individually and later in small groups. Their task was to achieve a specified emissions reduction target whilst taking into account the limited budget of the national budget. It was precisely this that gave rise to genuine political trade-offs between effectiveness, costs and social justice.

The approach to the issue of financing was similar. Here, the research team developed four policy mixes that combined instruments such as CO₂ pricing, subsidy programmes and regulatory measures in different ways to achieve the 2030 climate target. The participants discussed the proposed combinations, voiced their concerns and reservations, and developed their own ideas for a viable mix of instruments.

Not wish lists, but genuine political trade-offs

This approach meant that measures and instruments were not considered in isolation, but in relation to one another. Participants openly discussed conflicting objectives and had to weigh up the options: under what circumstances would they be prepared to support a measure? Which measures deliver significant climate protection for little money? Which measures or policy mixes are socially just? Where is funding needed, where is regulation required, and where is better infrastructure needed? This resulted in realistic trade-offs rather than idealised wish lists.

The openness of the process was particularly noteworthy. Feedback from participants was incorporated directly into the further development of the policy mixes. For example, the research team added further measures relating to cycling or new funding options such as a ‘climate solidarity levy’. These were then discussed and evaluated jointly in subsequent rounds of dialogue.

Participants provided feedback on which measures they considered effective, fair and suitable for everyday life, and what an ‘ideal’ policy mix might look like. This gave rise to a debate that did not stop at technically feasible or cost-effective solutions, but consistently took the social foundations of political decisions into account.

Here you can explore the results for yourself and put together your own policy mix.

What citizens are telling policymakers

A consistent picture emerges across all three topics: climate policy can garner broad support – provided it is designed to be understandable, effective and fair. Participants called for reliability rather than short-term U-turns, transparent justifications for political decisions and honest communication.

The key findings are presented here in the final report.

Transport transition: creating alternatives and steering them fairly

Citizens supported numerous measures to improve climate protection in the transport sector. The Deutschlandticket, the expansion of public transport, the expansion of cycling infrastructure, a speed limit of 130 km/h on motorways, and the gradual phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies – such as the diesel privilege – met with particularly strong approval. At the same time, it became clear that higher prices for behaviour harmful to the climate are only perceived as fair if attractive alternatives are already in place. The expansion of public transport and cycling should therefore take priority before any additional financial burdens are introduced.

The heating transition: a clear course rather than uncertainty

There was also a high willingness to embrace change in the area of heating supply – albeit under certain conditions. The majority of participants supported the phasing out of fossil-fuel heating systems in new buildings. Mandatory requirements for existing buildings, however, were viewed much more critically. Above all, citizens prioritised planning certainty, social balance and clear information. Socially tiered subsidy schemes, independent energy advice and flexible solutions received significantly more support than rigid requirements.

Financing: Climate protection yes, but fairly

On the subject of financing, there was particularly intense discussion about distributive justice. Participants favoured a mix of policies with a direct environmental incentive effect, such as CO₂ pricing. However, this was conditional on a socially just design – for example, through a climate allowance, socially tiered subsidy programmes or greater contributions from financially better-off households. An increase in VAT was rejected.

Presenting complex topics in an accessible way

Visualisations played a key role in the deliberation process. Learning modules, policy fact sheets, illustrations and videos supported the discussions with participants. Complex information on climate impacts, public expenditure or societal effects was thus presented in an accessible way and made suitable for discussion.

At the citizens’ summit, the multi-year process and its results were presented in a clear and accessible manner. An exhibition guided visitors through the key findings and highlighted the policy mixes that had been developed. Guests were also able to put together their own policy mix using tablets.

Social acceptance arises through dialogue

The Ariadne citizens’ deliberation impressively demonstrates that people are willing to engage intensively with complex issues relating to climate and energy policy. Social acceptance grows where people can understand why measures are necessary, what consequences they have, and how different interests have been weighed against one another. To do this, they need time, clear information and the opportunity to weigh up different perspectives and questions.

This is precisely where the added value for academia lies. Whilst surveys often gauge whether people consider individual measures to be good or bad, deliberation reveals why they arrive at this assessment and under what conditions they would be prepared to support political decisions.

The Ariadne Citizens’ Summit thus marked not only the end of a project. It also demonstrated the potential of an approach that does not view science and society as separate entities, but allows them to seek viable solutions together.