ABSTRACT
Failure of governments across the world to address climate change has fuelled social movements focused on climate-related policy and action. Research analysing these movements has focused mainly on the types of strategies employed including blockades and occupations, marches and petitions, divestment, boycotts and litigation as well as how groups are framing climate change as a problem. What has been largely missed are the ways these groups are framing the change they want to see, that is their demands to governments. Not all demands and actions have the same potential to create the changes needed to mitigate climate change. Used in public health and health promotion, the systems science Intervention Level Framework (ILF) is a tool that can help analyse to what extent different demands have the leverage to create change in a system. We use the ILF to analyse 131 demands from 35 different climate-related advocacy groups in Australia. Results show demands are more focused on lower system leverage points, such as stopping particular projects, rather than on more impactful leverage points, such as the governance structures that determine climate-related policy and decision-making mechanisms. Further, the results highlight the lack of attention on public health related topics of transport and food systems. This paper shows how a systems science framework used in health promotion, the ILF, could enable climate advocacy groups to more effectively target demands to achieve more impactful outcomes from governments, corporations and the public.
