We often hear that certain voters are “climate deniers.” In Germany, this label is frequently used to describe supporters of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), now polling at roughly the same level as the governing centre-right CDU/CSU - around 26%.
At Shared Ground, we believe the reality is more complex, and that there is an important nuance behind what can appear as climate denialism. We ground our work in research and a deep understanding of audiences on the right. So it was natural that we wanted to test this assumption. Is it really the case that these voters reject any environmental and climate policy? Or is something else going on?
More importantly: is it possible to design policies that protect climate, environment, and nature while also earning broader support from those skeptical of mainstream climate solutions, including from AfD voters?
What we found
This work comes from a commitment to depolarising the debate and building solutions that genuinely work for the people they affect.
We combined quantitative analysis, qualitative research, and a policy development process to better understand AfD-leaning citizens on their own terms and propose solutions that are coming from people’s needs and not Brussels or Berlin - like we discussed with Florian Wagner, the Executive Director of heimatwurzeln, in our latest episode of Reset.
The conclusion is clear and indeed more nuanced than the mainstream narrative suggests; what is often described as denialism is really a deep mistrust in politics, institutions, procedures and promises. Climate, environment, and nature protection solutions rooted in local benefit, security, and continuity are well received - at least on paper. Delivery, not ambition, is where acceptance breaks down. In other words, securing support for climate policy is not just a matter of communication or messaging, but about designing better policies - ones that are rooted in the realities of the communities.
The challenge
There is a way to design and implement solutions that are both good for our environment and climate, and good for people. The big challenge lies in political willingness - and in creating the conditions for implementation that take people’s interests seriously.
As a result of our study and consultations, we come here with five practical learnings and recommendations that we encourage policymakers to reflect on and act upon. Because we need to turn promises into reality, not just empty words.
It is simple: policy cannot ignore ¼ of Germany. That is neither democratic nor a serious answer to the challenges Germany - and other countries - face. So if you are looking for a different approach, and you are ready to introduce change, here are five recommendations that come from our study:
1. Extend citizens’ rights from symbolic participation to meaningful decision-making power
Many participation processes invite citizens to speak - but not to decide. This reinforces a common perception we heard again and again in our focus groups: people can say what they want, but the outcome is already fixed.
A credible approach means clear decision rights and rules: what exactly can citizens influence? Location, design, spending priorities? It also means ongoing involvement, not one-off consultations, but engagement from planning to implementation. And it means visible impact - showing clearly how input changed outcomes, and where it did not. Be realistic and pragmatic.
Without real influence, participation lowers sense of control and agency and increases mistrust rather than legitimacy.
2. Move from declared goals to demonstrated feasibility
Ambitious targets without visible pathways quickly sound unrealistic. For many citizens, they become “fairy tales.” One focus group participant told us that some solutions sound “too good to be true”.
Credibility improves when policymakers ground proposals in concrete local examples and pilot projects, not hypothetical solutions. It also improves when they show who does what, when, and with which resources. And it matters to acknowledge limits and trade-offs openly. People do not reject ambition but they need to see solutions as feasible and realistic to support them.
3. Simplify complex and heavily bureaucratic systems
Complex systems send a clear signal: this is not meant for ordinary people. Even motivated citizens and small businesses can be excluded by excessive paperwork, unclear rules, or fragmented responsibilities.
A more effective approach would simplify procedures to the essential steps, create one-stop access points at local level, and support trusted intermediaries - for example chambers and associations - to guide participation.
If people cannot navigate a policy, they cannot support it. Trusting people they know, and applying subsidiarity by bringing decisions closer to people, can bring better benefits and ownership.
4. Turn climate goals into local value creation
A good policy means being tied to visible, local benefits. This means linking measures to jobs, apprenticeships, and local infrastructure. But also treating agriculture and crafts as part of the solution, not as collateral damage. And it means framing policies in terms of protecting home regions, stability, and continuity. People support what strengthens their community - not what feels distant and abstract.
5. Address concerns about fairness
Many conflicts come down to a simple question: who pays, and who benefits?
A credible policy makes this explicit. It clearly states who bears the costs and who gains. It designs compensation and benefit-sharing mechanisms. And it ensures participation models are accessible beyond the well-off.
Perceived unfairness can undermine even well-designed policies.
Our take on the right direction
What we propose builds directly on what we tested. The five policies we brought into focus groups (from the list of more than ten) - Energy Sovereignty Zones, Securing the Future of Farming, Local Jobs First, Rural Tech Craft Revival, and Heimat Bonds for Local Energy - were not abstract ideas but grounded, place-based interventions designed around security, fairness, and local benefit.
Across very different participants, the reaction was consistent: these policies were supported. They were seen as sensible, desirable, and aligned with people’s priorities - because they create new jobs, strengthen rural economies, give regions more control, and allow citizens to participate directly as workers, decision-makers, or even co-investors. What made them compelling was precisely that they connect environmental goals to tangible improvements in everyday life.
But the same discussions also revealed the core tension: even well-designed policies are dismissed if people do not believe they will be delivered fairly, simply, and as promised. This is where the five broader “switches” come in. They translate these tested ideas into a general framework for policymaking. The lesson is not just what policies to pursue, but how to design and implement them so they are credible to those who currently mistrust the system the most.
You can download our policy brief here and reach out if you have specific questions.
You can read our first Noted by Shared Ground issue “Too Good to be True: Climate Lessons from AFD Voters in Germany”.
You can listen to our Reset by Shared Ground episode “How Do We Build Legitimate Climate Policy in Germany? Listening to AfD Voters on Trust, Fairness, and Political Legitimacy”.
You can follow our activities on our website and on our LinkedIn page.