Our Environment, Our Voices shows where policy fails in practice

If you’ve not read the Our Environment, Our Voices letters to the Prime Minister brought together by Everyone’s Environment then you should. It’s a letter campaign calling for decisions about climate and nature to be shaped by lived experience.

If you’re reading this then you’ll likely already know that people at the sharp end of inequality often face the worst environmental harms yet are too often left out of the decisions that affect their lives. But raising that issue is not where the value of this campaign sits.

What these letters do, very clearly, is show how and where policy fails in practice. And they expose a set of gaps under which a myriad of issues exist that are easy to miss if you are not living them.

We design for decisions people cannot make

A consistent assumption runs through a lot of climate and environmental policy. That people will make rational choices between options. That if we provide the right incentives, the right information, the right nudges, then behaviour will shift.

People aren’t choosing between options. They’re managing constraints. 

“In my home, bills shape daily choices: in winter I have rationed heating… in summer I have struggled through heatwaves without adequate cooling.” Saul

When someone is balancing cost, health, time, safety, and reliability all at once, there is no single “green choice” to make. There is only the least bad option available. Policy that assumes otherwise will not work in the real world.

We say access. People experience usability

Many of the climate actions described in policy already exist. Public transport is available, green spaces exist, cleaner technologies are in place. But the real difference is between something existing and it working for everyone. For example:

“Public transport… can be difficult for me to use when it is crowded, unpredictable, or not designed with neurodivergent accessibility in mind.” Saffron  

The challenge is not always about expanding provision. It is often about whether what exists can actually be used. That level of detail rarely shows up in policy design.

“Many tube and train stations are inaccessible… even those stations claiming to have lifts and platforms that are accessible rely on staff being there on time to set up the arrangements needed.” Tamara

Upfront cost blocks transitions before they begin

We often frame the benefits of climate action in terms of long-term gain - lower bills being a common one. Too often policy assume that people can invest now to benefit later. Many cannot, especially those who are in the deepest poverty, as Trussell and I explored together.

“Accessing more environmentally friendly vehicles… is just not an option for most of us.” Laurel

Even where support exists, it does not bridge the gap. It still requires capital, stability, or housing conditions that are out of reach for many households. This is often why people who want to act cannot participate in climate action. It’s not because they disagree, it’s because they cannot get in.

Until that is addressed, the benefits of climate action will continue to work primarily for those who already have financial security.

We are at risk of repeating a familiar economic pattern

“I have seen what happens when whole communities are left behind by economic change… It’s a legacy that still shapes our health, our opportunities, and our life expectancy.” Liam

Liam writes from a post-industrial community about what happens when transitions are not designed well. Experience has shown that in communities where industries disappear, jobs do not return, and then health, opportunity, and life chances decline over time. That memory sits underneath how the transition to a post-carbon economy for many communities. It’s not a resistance to change, it’s having been burnt before by policy decisions that failed their community.

If investment, jobs, and infrastructure do not land in the places that need them most, we will reproduce the same pattern under a different name.

We are missing forms of knowledge that change the answer

“It is not fair that we have to inherit a deteriorating world that we have had extremely limited consultation about.” Nicole

There is also something quieter in these letters, but just as important. People describe not seeing themselves as part of the environmental conversation. Not having the right background or not feeling qualified to contribute. And yet, when they do engage, they bring insight that changes how problems are understood.

Bringing real life into policy debate brings in the people who can see where systems break, which assumptions do not hold, and the consequences of decisions across a full day, a full week, or a whole life. Without it, policy is built on partial information.

And that’s the difference between something that exists on paper and something that actually works in practice.

“Co-creation lets me join my voice with other experts by lived experience…” Laurel

What can we do?

If you are a funder, policymaker, or charity leader, the implication is straightforward.

• Are you using lived experience to test whether your work functions in real conditions?

• Are you resourcing that input properly?

• Are you prepared to change direction based on what you hear?

“Do not build the future without us.” Liam

Because if we don’t, we will continue to produce climate solutions that make sense in theory and fail in practice.