Too good to be true: climate lessons from AfD voters in Germany
Research results from a study conducted in Germany among AfD-leaning voters.
In Germany, voters of Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD) are often portrayed as climate deniers, their opinions therefore ignored or at least not taken seriously in policy development. But what if this is an oversimplification? What if we paused and tried to understand? If we meet, discuss, explore, and build together, we might discover that behind a skepticism for elite-driven policies (including those related to climate change) lies a deep love for nature, a need for self-determination, and attention to everyday life with loved ones. Can policy take these into account and reclaim the trust that has been lost?
These are the questions we, at Shared Ground, wanted to ask. Together with the German research institute Sinus, we developed a study exploring how AfD-leaning citizens think about nature, climate, the environment and policies aimed at protecting these. We looked at how solutions could be improved or built anew, and how they could be better rooted in real-life experience, needs, and fears. Using a mixed-methods approach - quantitative survey analysis complemented by focus groups with AfD voters and leaners across Saxony, Brandenburg, Thuringia, and Bavaria - we gained insights that should be taken seriously for policies that work for many, not just a few.
Not denialism but significant mistrust
Mistrust - not climate itself - is the central reason climate policy fails to gain traction with this group. It fuels doubt about political motives, skepticism toward participatory processes, and concerns about whether policies are feasible or will work in practice. “I don’t believe in anything anymore […] Almost everything is just a lie” we heard during focus groups. It may sound radical but it was a recurring theme in our discussions. This level of mistrust is not limited to climate policy; it extends to political actors, participation formats, and complex financial instruments.
Many fear being misled or overruled. Politics is experienced as unpredictable, driven by “constantly changing rules”, which turns even reasonable climate measures into something that “feels too good to be true”.
Unpredictable solutions, shifting rules, and unclear procedures create barriers and frustration. Citizen participation is often perceived as symbolic as one of participants told us: “Citizens can say what they want. In the end, the state will implement what it thinks is right anyway”. Trust is not built through symbolic participation or rhetorical appeals, but through real decision-making power, simple procedures, and tangible benefits for individuals and communities.
Realism and credibility
Many climate and environmental policy measures we discussed were approved in principle, but the discussion quickly turned to implementation: “Is this realistic? Will anyone deliver it? Can we actually benefit?”. In our study, the decisive factor was less what policies aimed to achieve than how they were designed, communicated, and implemented. Acceptance depended on whether people could see concrete steps, realistic timelines, and clear responsibilities rather than another promise that vanishes in bureaucracy.
It is about real-life opportunities
Support for climate and energy measures rises when they clearly create local jobs, strengthen domestic agriculture and crafts, and are visibly fair in who benefits and who bears costs. Longterm solutions must therefore focus less on a single flagship idea and more on four pillars as the research results suggest: real participation with clear outcomes, reduced bureaucratic burdens, local value creation, and investment in rural infrastructure.
Fairness is the dividing line
Questions of who benefits and who bears the burden were decisive for acceptance. Perceptions of unequal gains, particularly around land use and renewable energy, quickly brought hostility and conflict. People called for clear rules and compensation mechanisms that make distribution transparent and prevent windfalls for a few. Financial participation models, meanwhile, faced structural limits. Bonds or investment schemes around local energy projects were often seen as too complex, too risky, or simply unaffordable. Many participants doubted they had the savings, time, or trust to engage. This challenges a common assumption in policy circles that more financial participation automatically means more acceptance: for these communities, comprehensibility and realistic expectations matter more than sophisticated instruments.
Beyond Germany
These insights have broader relevance for other European nations (and possibly beyond), where ambitious policy agendas often collide with weak local trust and overstretched administrative capacity. The core lesson from our research is that acceptance among skeptical and value-conservative groups is less about ideology and more about realism, fairness, and trust—about whether national goals are credibly connected to local realities. Having grown up in Silesia, a coal-mining region heavily affected by energy and climate policies, with a significant burden for individuals, families, and communities, I have witnessed firsthand how policy decisions are experienced on the ground.
Building long-lasting solutions requires creating the right conditions: local infrastructure, access to services, and meaningful participation without misjudgment or mislabeling. It requires clear communication of who decides what, honest acknowledgment of administrative limits, and a serious effort to address distributional conflicts openly rather than pretending they don’t exist. Treating AfD voters and many others who disagree with climate solutions as deniers is costly and misleading. If we want climate policy that endures, we need to start by listening to those who currently mistrust it the most.
- Natalia Węgrzyn, Executive Director of Shared Ground
* Insights come from the 2025-2026 study by Shared Ground and Sinus Institut