You have already sorted climate strategies by who would have to act. Today the question changes. Popular is not the same as cheap, and neither is the same as a strategy that actually works. You will stand on three claims about where responsibility should sit, hear the strongest case on each side, and you may move.

Three different things get mixed up when people talk about climate strategies.

A strategy can be popular: plenty of people say they support it.

A strategy can be cheap: it does not cost much money or effort.

A strategy can work: it actually cuts the harm it claims to cut.

Stand for each claim. Listen to the strongest case at both ends before anyone moves. Changing your mind is allowed, and nothing is scored.

Talk these through as a class. Nothing is written down and nothing is saved.

• Did anything move you, and what was it: a fact, a cost, or somebody else's reason?
• Which claim was hardest to place, and why? (hands-up if time)
• Where did popular, cheap and works pull you in different directions? (hands-up if time)

Today you weighed climate strategies across different actors and practised separating three things people often mix up: what is popular, what is cheap, and what actually works. You stood on three claims about where the load should sit, heard strong cases on both sides, and noticed what moved you. The class reached no single verdict, because the outcome asks you to discuss, not to settle it for everyone.