From Emissions to Action: Why Some Climate Arguments Work and Others Do Not

This project investigates the relationship between climate-change arguments, policy interventions, and observed emissions outcomes. While substantial progress has been achieved in reducing emissions from sectors such as energy generation and waste management, other major sources, particularly agricultural methane emissions, have proven more resistant to change. The project seeks to understand why some greenhouse-gas mitigation strategies succeed while others fail, and whether this can be explained by differences in regulation, infrastructure, public persuasion, behavioural change, or policy framing.

Using emissions inventories, policy analysis, and argumentation theory, the project aims to develop a framework linking emissions sources, mitigation pathways, and forms of public and political argument. The ultimate goal is to improve the alignment between scientific evidence, climate communication, and real-world emissions reductions.

We know a lot about where greenhouse-gas emissions come from and what needs to be done to reduce them. However, some climate actions appear to be far more successful than others. For example, methane emissions from landfill sites and energy systems have fallen dramatically in the UK, while methane emissions from cattle remain a major problem.

This project asks a simple question: why do some climate messages lead to real change while others do not?

By combining emissions data with research into communication, persuasion, and public decision-making, the project aims to identify which types of climate arguments are most effective and how future climate policies can be communicated more successfully.