How do you keep a carbon reduction programme going after the first workshop?

Fix the date of the second session before the first one ends, give everyone the same short measurement at the same interval, ask for one small action each between sessions, and send people their own numbers back within days. Enthusiasm has a half-life of about a fortnight, so the programme has to run on something else.

What the first workshop is for

A good workshop, Climate Fresk included, does one thing unusually well: it gets a room of people to agree on what is happening and why, in an afternoon, without anybody being lectured. It is not designed to produce a plan, and it does not. Mistaking it for the whole programme is the commonest way these things end, successfully, on the day, with nothing after it.

The four things that keep it going

A date for the next session, announced in the first one. "In the autumn" is not a date.
The same measurement every period, taken by everyone. Home energy and travel are enough to begin with.
One action per person between sessions, chosen by them, small enough to finish.
Their own figures back within days, next to the group's. People stay for the feedback rather than the facilitation.

A rhythm people keep

When	What happens	Why it holds
Session one	Workshop, then a baseline submitted before anyone leaves	Everybody goes home with a number of their own
Monthly	A ten-minute submission and one reminder, on the same day each month	Short enough to do on a phone in a queue
Quarterly	Ninety minutes together, the group's results shown first	A long enough gap that there is something to show
Yearly	A written report, targets revisited	The point at which a trend exists rather than a reading

The measurement side of this is a design problem of its own, covered in collecting carbon data over years.

Where programmes die

The gap straight after the workshop. Four weeks with nothing to do, and a group that agreed on everything has quietly become a mailing list.
A submission that takes an evening. Anything over ten minutes gets postponed once, and once is usually enough.
Reporting the average alone. The least engaged leave first, so a shrinking group produces an improving trend all by itself. Put the number of participants next to every figure.
Waiting for a proper method. A rough baseline everyone submitted is worth more than an accurate one half the group skipped.
Pledges instead of measurements. A pledge cannot be checked next year, which is precisely what makes it popular.

What it produces over several years

EcoCounts, the community carbon footprint charity I founded, ran this pattern with around 25 participating households across North and Central London. In 2025 the group recorded a mean footprint of 5,171 kg CO2e against a London average of 6,890, about 25% lower, with home energy 30% lower (2025 impact report).

The gap is not really the interesting part. The interesting part is that there is a series at all: most engagement programmes cannot say what happened to their participants after year one, because nobody was still measuring.

What running one involves

For a staff team, a membership, or a community group: a first workshop, Climate Fresk where the group needs the whole picture and a shorter session where it does not; a measurement designed around the people who have to fill it in; quarterly sessions built on their own results; and a report at twelve months. Facilitation and the data collection are the same job, which is why they are not sold separately.

Priced by the job, once the group size and how often it can realistically meet are known. A programme for twelve staff who already share a building is not the same work as one for eighty households who do not.

If the workshop already happened and nothing has happened since, that is recoverable, and usually with the people who came to it. Working out how is free.

adam.hardy@cyberspaceroad.com