Who We Are: A Brief History of Citizens’ Climate Lobby

To ground volunteers in the organization they are representing, this section reviews CCL’s origins, culture, and evolving work.

Citizens’ Climate Lobby was founded in 2007 by Marshall Saunders, a businessman-turned-grassroots organizer who believed deeply in ordinary people’s ability to influence Congress. Marshall’s insight was simple but profound:

Marshall had previously worked in microcredit, helping people lift themselves out of poverty by shifting systems from the ground up. He saw parallels in the climate challenge: systems change requires empowered citizens.

What we do best is also what makes us unique.

• Bridge-Building Across Divides: We’re the only climate advocacy organization training citizens to engage members of Congress respectfully, persistently, and across party lines.
• Citizen Empowerment At Scale: Citizens’ Climate mobilizes everyday people to become effective advocates, reminding policymakers that we — not just corporations or professional lobbyists — have a voice.
• Laser Focus on Policy Change Through Congress: With a commitment to making our voices heard in Congress, Citizens’ Climate provides sustained citizen lobbying for effective, bipartisan federal legislation.

What Is a Theory of Change?

Before diving into CCL’s specific model, it helps to clarify the concept itself.

Definition: A theory of change explains how and why you believe change will happen. It identifies:

• The outcome you want.
• The conditions necessary for that outcome.
• The steps your organization takes to create those conditions.

In advocacy organizations, a theory of change helps answer:

• Why are we focusing on these tactics?
• How exactly do these actions lead to the policy change(s) we want?
• Where should volunteers direct their energy?
• Which strategies fit within our mission, and which don’t?

Why It Matters for CCL Volunteers

A well-understood theory of change helps volunteers:

• Stay aligned with organizational strategy.
• Understand the “why” behind specific campaigns or decisions.
• Avoid distractions that don’t advance political will.
• Communicate persuasively with the public and with Congress.

CCL’s Theory of Change: The Three Conditions Congress Needs

Now we turn to the heart of the training. A Member of Congress’s (MOC) position on climate action is governed by strategic requirements that reflect their ongoing need to serve their constituents and maintain political viability. CCL believes that federal climate action becomes possible when Members of Congress experience three internal conditions:

Important Note

Salience, feasibility, and political safety are not boxes to check, but more like three dials on a mixing board that together shape a member of Congress’s willingness to act. Turning up one dial can sometimes compensate for another, but no single condition is usually enough on its own and in most cases, some degree of political safety is still required. CCL’s advocacy focuses on adjusting these conditions where possible, making progress across all three to help move members forward.

Condition One: Salience

A Member of Congress thinks: “This clearly matters to my constituents, and they support action on this.”

Climate becomes salient for a lawmaker when:

• There is visible, consistent constituent support across different parts of the district. The support is broad and noticeable.
• People they hear from regularly—voters, local leaders, stakeholders—are expressing support for action.
• The issue shows up in ways that are difficult to ignore (media, meetings, events, conversations).
• It reflects an expectation, not just an opinion.

Condition Two: Feasibility

A Member of Congress thinks: “This is a good thing to do.”

Even with strong constituent support, a lawmaker may hesitate unless they personally believe in the value of the policy. They are more likely to hold that belief when:

• The policy aligns with their values or worldview.
• They see clear benefits (economic, environmental, security, or community-based).
• The policy makes sense to them on a practical or moral level.
• They feel confident that supporting it reflects good judgment.

Feasibility increases when:

• Messaging aligns with their values and priorities.
• Trusted validators reinforce that the policy is beneficial.
• The policy is framed as a sensible and positive step forward.

Advocacy implication: Help the MOC connect climate solutions to what they already believe is good policy—economically, morally, or socially. Use your MOC Common Ground Blueprint (link to Training 5) to tailor your message to them.

Discussion Prompt

Feasibility in Your District

• What do you know right now about your MOC’s values or worldview? Remember what you learned in BRIDGE Unit 1 about the six moral foundations. Where is your Member of Congress coming from?
• What kinds of stories or data do you think matter most to your Members of Congress?
• How does CCL’s culture of respect and appreciation contribute to a Member of Congress feeling like climate action is a positive step forward?

Condition Three: Safety

A Member of Congress thinks, “I can support this without political risk.”

A lawmaker may see strong constituent support for a climate policy (salience) and believe that climate policy is good to do (feasibility), but still hesitate if they perceive political risk (safety). Lawmakers must believe that taking action won’t:

• Cost them support among key voters or stakeholders
• Trigger backlash that outweighs benefits
• Undermine their political identity or coalition

Advocacy implication: Demonstrate that supporting climate policy is politically acceptable by showing depth of support with the groups of people they listen to the most.

Safety increases when:

• Constituent support is visible and diverse
• Trusted voices across political or community lines speak up
• The MOC sees they will not be isolated in taking action
• Supporting the policy fits within acceptable political boundaries for their district

Reflection Questions

Political Safety for your Member of Congress

• Why might a Member of Congress be afraid to lose support from key voters or stakeholders?
• How would it help increase an MOC’s sense of safety for trusted voices to speak up?
• Can you think of a time when you realized your view differed from your peer groups’? What thoughts or feelings did you notice before you decided whether to speak up or stay silent?

Voices That Can Help Create These Three Conditions (Salience, Feasibility, Safety)

Depending on your Member of Congress, any combination of these local constituents — and others not listed here — can help create the conditions they need to act.

Advocacy implication: Bring locally credible voices representative of the district’s diversity — business owners, farmers, veterans, young people, faith leaders—by doing so you are creating the conditions of salience, feasibility and safety needed to make it easier for your Member of Congress to support our policies.

Discussion Prompt

Voices in Your Community

3–4 minutes

In small groups, discuss:

• What voices could you elevate in your community to show your Member of Congress that there is broad, intense support for climate action (salience)?
• What trusted messengers might help your Member of Congress see that climate action aligns with their values or worldview (feasibility)?
• What key voters or stakeholders could speak up about climate action to show your Member of Congress that they are not alone (safety)?
• How might we engage those groups?

Why This Theory of Change Shapes What We Do—And Don’t Do

CCL keeps its focus on relationship-based, nonpartisan, community-rooted advocacy because:

• These tactics are the most effective at building safety, the rarest and most essential condition.
• They create salience through trusted messengers and community leaders—not just generic public pressure.
• They allow for feasibility framing tailored to each district.

Our theory of change also explains why we avoid:

• Tactics that generate fear or shame.
• Actions that polarize or harden partisan identities.
• Strategies that feel good emotionally but do not move lawmakers toward the three conditions.

It grounds us in disciplined, research-informed advocacy rather than reactive activism.

Power vs. Force in Advocacy

For many years, CCL volunteers reflected on an idea called “Power vs. Force.” Legal scholar Charles Reich, whose work inspired CCL’s original activity, described power as something that comes from within us—something relational and generative. As he put it, power is “anything that comes out of you and goes out into the world,” especially when it creates a genuine response in others.

It can sometimes feel like effective advocacy means pushing harder—more facts, more urgency, more pressure. But when we try to make someone change against their will, that’s force. And force often creates resistance.

Instead, when we connect with someone—when they feel heard, respected, and understood—and they choose to move with us, that’s real power. Our theory of change and BRIDGE Advocacy Program build on this understanding.

CCL volunteers build power through relationship-based, nonpartisan, community-rooted advocacy.

Why This Matters for CCL’s Theory of Change

As you think about how to bring CCL’s theory of change to life in your advocacy, remember that political will is not forced—it is built. Lawmakers are far more likely to act when they feel motivated by broad constituent engagement (salience), aligned with their values and understanding (feasibility), and supported by trusted relationships (safety). Our role is not to push them into position—but to help create these three conditions where movement is possible.

Practice Activity

Mapping the Theory of Change to CCL’s Work

Remember: the whole point of a theory of change is to understand how our work achieves the outcomes we want to see. So now that we understand our theory of change, this is the key question: How are we creating these three conditions of salience, feasibility, and safety?

What we do at home to create these conditions will make it easier for a Member of Congress to support climate action in D.C. Without these conditions, even well-designed legislation may stall. But with them, CCL believes that durable bipartisan progress becomes possible.

Small group breakout or whole-room discussion:

1. List common activities your chapter does (letters to the editor, lobby meetings, tabling, grasstops work, conservative outreach, etc).
2. Look at each activity and determine which condition it’s most related to. If an activity reaches a broad and diverse group of community members, it’s probably increasing salience. If an activity builds your relationship with your Member of Congress or delivers them targeted messaging or relevant data, it’s probably increasing feasibility. If an activity mostly activates trusted messengers, it’s probably increasing political safety.
3. Identify gaps:
   • Which of our activities are successfully creating the intended condition for our Member of Congress?
   • How could our activities change or evolve to be even more effective at creating that condition for our Member of Congress?

Reflection

This activity helps volunteers see the strategic purpose behind familiar actions—and helps avoid ineffective or off-mission efforts.

Looking Ahead

In our next training, we’ll step into a new role together — that of the Advocacy Detective. This part of the curriculum invites you to look more closely at your own district and Member of Congress with curiosity and strategic insight.

As Advocacy Detectives, we’ll investigate questions like:

• What can help put climate action higher on our community’s radar, and therefore feel more salient to our Member of Congress?
• How can we better understand our MOC’s values and worldview, so we can make climate solutions feel feasible?
• What political pressures and key supporters shape whether climate action feels safe?

You’ll learn how to gather clues, analyze your district’s landscape, and identify which of the three conditions most needs strengthening — and how our chapter can focus its energy to build it.

So as we move forward, bring your curiosity and your local knowledge. The stronger our detective skills, the better we can target our advocacy to build real political will where it matters most.