Climate policy that does not lose AfD‐leaning voters

1. Objective of this brief

In Germany, voters of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) are often portrayed as climate deniers, their opinions therefore ignored or at least not taken seriously in policy development. Our deep research work and policy analysis with these voters in Saxony, Thuringia, Brandenburg, and Bavaria suggests something different: mistrust, not denial, is the central obstacle – and it is an obstacle that conservative actors can address if they choose to.

This brief distils findings from a two‐stage research project by Shared Ground and Sinus-Institut into concrete lessons for policymakers who want climate policy that is both credible and compatible with conservative priorities: order, security, and fairness.

2. Why this audience cannot be ignored

The rise of AfD is a symptom of something deeper: an erosion of trust, perceived fairness, and political representation in parts of Germany that have already shouldered heavy economic and social transitions. For many citizens, politics feels less like a process that protects their communities and more like a machine that serves distant interests and abstract goals imposed from above.

Climate policy sits at the centre of this tension. Treating AfD voters as “climate deniers” and excluding them from serious conversation does not make the problem disappear; it hardens resentment and hands AfD a permanent monopoly on speaking to their fears.

In our focus groups, mistrust was expressed bluntly: “I don’t believe in anything anymore… almost everything is just a lie,” one participant told us. Another summed up how many see participation: “Citizens can say what they want. In the end, the state will implement what it thinks is right anyway.” These are not just climate views; they are
judgements about the entire political system.

3. Research approach

Shared Ground carried out a two‐stage research project to move beyond assumptions about AfD-aligned audiences and to understand AfD voters and AfD-leaning citizens on their own terms.

STAGE 1

We analysed a quantitative study conducted by Sinus-Institut and heimatwurzeln on social values and public attitudes in Germany towards nature, climate, and environmental policy. The findings showed that AfD‐leaning citizens do care about nature and the environment, but favour solutions that are local, affordable, and aligned with values of security, tradition, and stability.

STAGE 2

Building on these findings, we developed a set of policy proposals together with experienced policy experts and former politicians, and then assessed them in four focus groups in Saxony, Thuringia, Brandenburg, and Bavaria.

The five policy ideas were deliberately grounded in conservative priorities and local realities:

1. Energy Sovereignty Zones – giving Länder more say over their regional energy mix within federal climate targets.
2. Securing the Future of Farming – strengthening agriculture in the eastern and southern Länder through resilience, local innovation, and stable rural development.
3. Local Jobs First – prioritising local workers in public energy and infrastructure projects, backed by training.
4. Rural Tech Craft Revival – incentives and training for tradespeople in green‐tech fields, tied to real demand.
5. Heimat Bonds for Local Energy – simple financial instruments that allow citizens to co‐finance local energy infrastructure.

Participants ranged from pensioners and farmers to technical professionals, restaurant managers, and public sector staff – reflecting a broad cross‐section of AfD’s base.

4. How AfD‐leaning citizens see climate and policy

NOT DENIALISM, BUT DEEP MISTRUST

The strongest and most consistent theme in our discussions was mistrust – in political motives, in procedures, and in the durability of any promise. People spoke about “constantly changing rules” and the sense that even reasonable measures “sound too good to be true.” This scepticism extends to participation formats and financial schemes: consultations are seen as symbolic, investment products as too complex or risky.

Participants’ scepticism was rarely about what a policy aimed to achieve, but whether participants believed it could actually be delivered in the real world: through existing institutions, infrastructure, and budgets.

WHAT THEY WELCOME

When we set aside slogans and walked through concrete ideas, many elements were welcomed – especially where they clearly protected or strengthened what people value:

➔ Policies that create visible local jobs, keep young people in the region, and support skilled trades and family farms.
➔ Measures that reinforce regional identity and allow communities to “decide more for themselves,” rather than waiting on distant ministries.
➔ Initiatives that make it easier, not harder, for ordinary people to participate – as co‐owners, decision‐makers, or direct beneficiaries.
➔ Space for like minded people to come together and discuss their issues with people who do not judge them (in our case focus groups served as these platforms).

In this framing, climate policy stops being an abstract global project and becomes a set of practical steps that make rural life more viable, secure, and dignified.

WHERE ACCEPTANCE BREAKS DOWN

Acceptance erodes when the conversation moves from aims to implementation. Across the groups, tensions clustered around the following fault lines:
➔ Political trust and participation: fear that citizen input will be ignored, and that decisions will be taken elsewhere regardless.
➔ Implementation credibility (capacity, economics, and infrastructure): doubts that government can deliver and sustain complex plans, and concern that promised jobs, training, and participation will remain inaccessible or
unattractive without reliable local infrastructure and viable incomes.
➔ Administrative burden: frustration with endless forms, unclear responsibilities, and the feeling that bureaucracy is designed to keep people out.
➔ Fairness and distribution: suspicion that some will carry the burdens (financial impact, noise, visual impact, risk) while others pocket the profits.
➔ Complexity and competence: distrust of financial instruments and a sense that only well‐advised, better‐off citizens can safely participate.

Put simply: the content of the policies is often acceptable; the way they are designed, communicated, and delivered is not.

5. Design principles for credible climate policy

The task is not to convert AfD‐leaning citizens into climate activists, but to design climate and energy policies anchored in their values and motivations and judged by them to be realistic, fair and credible. The research points to a set of practical design principles.

FROM SYMBOLIC PARTICIPATION TO REAL DECISION ‐MAKING POWER

Participation formats that ask people for input but give them no real influence confirm the suspicion that “citizens can say what they want; the state will do what it wants anyway.”

Credible participation requires:
➔ Clear decision rights: spelling out what citizens or local bodies can actually decide – for example, the location of projects, design variants, or spending priorities within a fixed budget.
➔ Ongoing engagement, not one‐off events: regular forums or councils that follow projects from idea to implementation.
➔ Visible follow‐up: public reporting on how citizen input changed decisions, and where it did not – with honest explanations.

FROM DECLARED GOALS TO DEMONSTRATED FEASIBILITY

Ambitious, yet abstract, goals are quickly dismissed as “fairy tales” if no one can show how they will be achieved on the ground.

Credibility improves when policymakers:
➔ Anchor proposals in concrete local examples and early pilots.
➔ Set out clear implementation pathways: who does what, when, with which resources and responsibilities.
➔ Are honest about limits: where timelines are long, where trade‐offs exist, and what cannot be promised.

FROM BUREAUCRATIC “SLUDGE” TO SIMPLE, PREDICTABLE PROCEDURES

Complex, opaque procedures are read as a signal that programmes are not meant for ordinary people, and, in practice, they can exclude even motivated citizens from participating. Instead of turning interest into engagement, they turn potential supporters into frustrated bystanders.

A conservative approach toadministration would:
➔ Strip procedures down to the essentials, with minimal steps and paperwork for citizens and small businesses.
➔ Create one‐stop access point at municipal or county level where people can get information, apply, and receive support.
➔ Fund locally embedded intermediaries – chambers, farmers’ associations, craft guilds – that help navigate procedures.

FROM ABSTRACT CLIMATE GOALS TO LOCAL VALUE CREATION

Support rises when people see how climate and energy measures make their communities more resilient, prosperous, and liveable.

Concretely, this means:
➔ Linking climate investments to visible improvements: stable jobs, apprenticeships, maintained infrastructure, better services in smaller towns and villages.
➔ Prioritising domestic agriculture and crafts as pillars of climate resilience rather than collateral damage of
transition.
➔ Communicating in terms of protection of home regions, order, and continuity – not only global temperatures and distant future generations.

FROM DIFFUSE BENEFITS TO DESIGNED ‐IN FAIRNESS

Who gains and who bears the burden is the dividing line in many debates, especially around land use and renewable energy.

A fair design starts by:
➔ Making distribution explicit: every measure should answer, in plain language, who pays, who gains, and on what basis.
➔ Building in clear compensation and sharing rules where burdens (noise, landscape change) and benefits (income, cheaper energy) do not align, and ensure affected communities see tangible, near-term value
➔ Keeping financial participation models simple and realistic, so that they are accessible to ordinary savers, not just the well‐off.

6. Concrete directions

For federal and Länder policymakers, party leaders, and foundations, these principles translate into a number of practical directions.

FEDERAL AND LÄNDER LEVEL

➔ Pilot Energy Sovereignty Zones in one or two Länder, with genuine local influence over project selection and siting within clear national climate targets.
➔ Tie climate funding to rural infrastructure and services – roads, transport links, vocational schools – so that climate investments visibly improve everyday life.
➔ Introduce “Local Jobs First” clauses for publicly funded projects, with transparent reporting on local hiring and training outcomes.

IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS

➔ Develop participation formats that give citizens real influence over at least part of local climate budgets, and document the results.
➔ Invest in intermediaries – local associations, cooperatives, and chambers – that can translate complex programmes into practical steps for citizens and small firms.
➔ Test and evaluate different fairness mechanisms (e.g. local dividends, targeted compensation) to see which most effectively reduce conflict and increase acceptance, while making direct, near-term benefits for affected communities clearly visible.