At election time, political parties are good at finding financial space for issues that make the collective heart beat faster: healthcare, education, security. This is understandable - these are tangible issues, with direct impact on the daily lives of many people. At the same time, it is striking that climate policy rarely plays a decisive role in the voting booth for the majority of people, despite the enormous social task involved.
The reason is partly psychological, partly political. Climate change, and thus climate policy, is relatively intangible. The benefits are in the long term and are little to not visible. The burdens are often short-term. Moreover, climate problems are transboundary. While the costs are mostly felt locally, the benefits are diffuse and spread globally. This makes it difficult to get citizens excited about policies that cost money today, while the measurable benefits come only decades later and partly in other parts of the world.
Need for stability
This fundamentally distinguishes climate policy from classic areas of government. In healthcare, education or security, people see the effects of policy investments relatively quickly. A waiting list that gets shorter, a class that gets smaller, a neighborhood cop who patrols visibly. Climate policy, on the other hand, often requires behavioral change, technological innovation and redistribution of costs. Moreover, effective climate policy requires stable direction to reduce financial-political investment risks.
And there's the rub. Because climate policy is highly dependent on changing cabinet coalitions that emerge from election results in which climate is rarely the main issue. There are voters who make climate policy the main issue in their personal political choice, but so far this has always been the vast minority. The result is that time and again new political constellations are formed that revise old plans, shift accents elsewhere or postpone policy goals. This creates a pattern of fragmentation and uncertainty, which undermines the willingness of citizens, companies and international partners to invest. The energy transition thus becomes a patchwork quilt that is constantly being tugged at.
Household prices are going up...
This is worrisome, especially with drastic measures in the pipeline. Take ETS2: the new European emissions trading system for road transport and the built environment, among others. From 2027, CO₂ emissions in those sectors will have a price. In practice, that means higher costs for citizens who have a central heating boiler and drive on gasoline or diesel. Current calculations assume an increase of about 10 to 15 cents per liter of gasoline or per cubic meter of gas. A serious price increase for many households, especially during times of economic uncertainty.
Although the ETS2 provides some sort of price cap to protect citizens from excessive burdens, I have my doubts about its effectiveness. Again, the benefits of this climate policy are long-term and collective, while the burdens may be individual and acute. Those with well-insulated homes and electric vehicles may not notice much. But for those without the financial room to make it more sustainable, the bill could be steep.
... which will increase the pressure on political support
The political risk is obvious. When climate policy is associated with costs, while the benefits remain abstract, the populist frame lurks: expensive, unfair, pointless. In contrast is an electorally awkward narrative about scientific models, global emissions targets and intergenerational justice. Broader layers of voters in previous elections saw bread in a national responsibility for meeting climate goals. The question is whether this broad support holds up at a time when the costs of climate policy are becoming increasingly visible and felt. The answer to this rhetorical question is predictable: climate is a policy area with many electoral risks.
This outlook could be bleak. Yet I believe there are ways to deal with this in a different way. In fact, the electoral risks associated with climate policies can be an incentive for social mobilization. Not only through protests against government policies, but also through joint initiatives that are complementary to government policies. If you look at the public demonstrations against the (lack of) climate policy, I see a large potential of people who could possibly also be mobilized financially. Furthermore, in addition to this group of involved and outspoken citizens, there is undoubtedly a broader, more silent majority who may not participate in demonstrations, but who are willing to contribute financially in a relatively low-key way. This kind of social initiative could be based on another form of solidarity: conditional cooperation.
Conditional financial cooperation offers opportunities for acceleration
The idea is simple, but powerful. People are more willing to contribute to a collective cause if they know others are doing the same. No one feels compelled to donate, say, a hundred euros to climate policy on their own. But if there is certainty that, say, one million others do as well, the perspective changes. Then it feels fair, proportionate and supported.
Imagine a system in which people can commit to a contribution - for example, a percentage of their income or savings - under the condition that a predetermined number of other citizens do the same. Only when the critical mass is reached is the contribution collected. The destination of the money is transparent and targeted. For example, home insulation, renewable energy projects or climate technology.
Such a mechanism - based on the principle of conditional cooperation - offers opportunities to unlock social affordability for climate policy without depending on the erratic political tide. It is not an alternative to government, but a complement in an area where public consistency has become rare. Of course, the success of such a mechanism lies in the details of implementation. Among other things, thought must be given to institutionalizing the mechanism, communication, accessibility and transparency. Yet it all starts with an idea on paper.
This is why I believe that conditional cooperation can grow into a new form of climate solidarity: voluntary, proportional and supported. Not imposed, but arising from a shared willingness to contribute - provided that others do the same. If politics is too shaky to stay the course, we must look for structures that will hold. Not a plea to sideline the government, but to organize social decisiveness where public support is under pressure.
This column was written in a personal capacity by Bart van der Pas.
