We use cookies where necessary to allow us to understand how people interact with our website and content, so that we can continue to improve our service.
We only ever receive anonymous information, and cannot track you across other websites.
View our privacy policy
The BBC report that the controversial Rosebank offshore development off Shetland has been granted consent by regulators.
Located 80 miles west of Shetland, Rosebank is the UK’s largest untapped oil field and is estimated to contain up to 300 million barrels of oil.
Our tracker data shows that there’s more support for ending drilling in the North Sea than there is opposition – by a margin of almost 10%. However – in an example of a perception gap (explore more on this in our perception gap thread), at 76%, more Conservative MPs are strongly opposed to ending North Sea drilling – a higher percentage than Conservative voters (48%). Meanwhile, while Labour MPs are slightly more in favour of ending drilling than Labour voters (66% vs. 54%).
Polling by YouGov on behalf of Global Witness shows a lack of support for fossil fuel production, and a clear age gap in perspectives on oil and gas extraction.
Depending on which party (Labour or the Conservatives) is in power after the 2024 election, demographic differences like this may become even more prominent: a Labour government that secured the support of younger voters might be in a position to move significantly faster in terms of the social license to phase out oil and gas drilling in the North Sea.
In a survey of 20,000 people, and using the MRP method which allows conclusions to be drawn about specific political constituencies, Greenpeace found that of those who had an opinion, more than two thirds (70%) stated that climate and environment policies are important and will influence how they vote in the next election. For voters in Blue Wall seats, the study found:
more than four in five of constituents who had an opinion want the government to provide more financial support to insulate homes and 73% want more government funding for heat pumps. They also want to see more government investment for renewable power (88%) and subsidised rail travel to ensure it is always cheaper than driving (79%).
In research carried out just before Rishi Sunak’s speech announcing changes to the UK’s net zero targets in September 2023 (including a 4,000 sample, nationally-representative poll and eight focus groups of 2019 Conservative voters who are now undecided), Public First’s James Frayne argues that Sunak’s speech will have a maginally negative impact on overall support for the Conservatives. Read Frayne’s analysis here:
Sunak’s Net Zero speech may scarcely cut through to voters at all outside the bubble
Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind are among the most popular forms of energy generation among Britons. Among energy sources, solar and wind are regarded as producing the lowest emissions, and having the greatest impact when it comes to tackling climate change.
Ipsos polling shows that Britons feel split about the current quality of renewable energy infrastructure in the UK (solar/wind), with 48% rating it as very/fairly good, and 39% rating it as very/fairly poor.
The majority (70%) feel that infrastructure in Britain has not been adapted enough to cope with future changes in climate, and 65% of Britons feel that infrastructure isn’t being built quickly enough. Britons are also less resistant to increasing spending on infrastructure than citizens of other countries, even if it means higher taxes or more government borrowing. According to the public, solar energy infrastructure should be among the highest priorities for Britain’s investment (40%).
In fact, a separate poll by Ipsos shows that renewable energy features highly among the priorities for Britain, with wind and solar featuring as one of the top five “most in need of improvement” areas of Britain’s infrastructure, alongside roads, schools, hospitals, courthouses, as well as housing, and water supply/sewerage.
Anger is a powerful emotion. The Anger Monitor, a project of the Mind Works Lab, surveyed people in six countries (including the UK) and identified different types of anger in relation to climate change.
‘Toxic’ anger is difficult for climate activists to engage with, and is the type of anger that can be easily weaponised by extremists. But ‘constructive’ anger can motivate climate action, the Anger Monitor report argues, especially if activists harness the power of constructive anger through empowering campaign actions (these could include ‘feeling heard’ or taking actions to prepare for extreme weather conditions).
Echoing previous research that has recommended combining the strong emotions elicited by climate impacts with tangible mitigation/energy saving actions, the Anger Monitor research advises leaning into the range of emotions that different types of climate content invoke. Anger and worry levels can be raised by worsening climate impacts, but a sense of qualified hope can be instilled from seeing others taking tangible action.
Underscoring the message that people are not opposed to net zero policies, but do not consider themselves in a position to foot the bill for them, Greenpeace polling of 20,000 voters found that in Blue Wall constituencies:
Taken together, these results suggest a strong appetite for a range of climate policies, so long as the right people (the wealthiest individuals and oil & gas companies) pick up the tab
Voters in all of More in Common’s Britain’s Choice segments (including the more socially conservative segments) are more likely to say the Government is doing too little, rather than not enough, according to polling by in August 2023.
Whilst delays to some near-term net zero policies are being considered by the government following the unexpected ‘hold’ by the Conservatives in the Uxbridge by-election in July (where opposition to the expansion of the ULEZ scheme was assumed to have played a role), this data from More in Common underscores the limited political capital to be made from rowing back on net zero.
In response to the government announcing changes to Net Zero policies (around the phasing out of petrol and diesel cars, and gas boilers), a survey asked people to select the words they would use to describe the government pushing back or scrapping key climate policies.
The most commonly selected word was “untrustworthy” (40%) – followed by “sensible” (29%) and chaotic (25%). Respondents said they’d describe Rishi Sunak as “reckless” (33%), “backwards” (31%), and “sensible (29%) if he were to push back these policies.
Whilst these findings suggest there’s no straightforward political capital in watering down Net Zero goals, the percentage of people selecting ‘sensible’ to both questions is also important. For some members of the public – concentrated among Conservative voters – there’s a sense of pragmatism in delaying Net Zero targets.
Wider research suggests, though, that the reason for this is important to take into account. Voters are not sceptical of green policies, but people don’t believe the government has a credible plan, that the infrastructure is ready, or that changes are currently being made affordable enough to undertake.
These are all issues that a bolder, fairer offer to voters on Net Zero could address.
Polling by Greenpeace found almost nine in ten people (87%) want to see a loophole-free windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas companies.
Separate polling by Green New Deal Rising found 60% support for this policy when given a list of options for funding overseas climate finance commitments (the second most popular was a wealth tax on the richest 1%).
With the amount of airtime dedicated to the government’s plans to slow down some aspects of the UK’s net zero legislation, it can be easy to forget that for a large number of voters – across the Britain’s Choice audience segments – there is an expectation that the government should do more, not less, on climate change.
In an unusual televised speech, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced a set of changes to current net zero legislation. Most notably, Sunak confirmed delays to the dates on which the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles, and separately new gas-fired boilers, would be phased out.
The delays are to net zero targets that the Conservative Party itself set.
Sunak also announced that he would be ‘scrapping’ a number of policies, which in fact had not been implemented in the first place. This included ruling out any ‘new taxes’ on flights.
The changes were positioned as protecting households – already stretched by a prolonged cost-of-living crisis – from unreasonable burdens in the pursuit of net zero.
The Social Change Lab investigated the so-called ‘radical flank’ effect: whether more radical/extreme protests can improve the perception or acceptability of more moderate campaigners.
Based on several waves of polling data conducted before and after the radical actions of Just Stop Oil in 2022 (blocking the M25 motorway), the authors found that increased awareness of Just Stop Oil after their motorway protest was linked with stronger identification with and support for Friends of the Earth (an increase from 50.3% to 52.9% of the population).
This is a potentially important finding, given that Just Stop Oil themselves are very unpopular among the public and the motorway protests were badly received/reported on very negatively by most media.
However, studies exploring similar questions around protests in other countries have not always always reached the same conclusions: there is not yet consistent evidence for a ‘positive’ radical flank effect from disruptive protest.
For a long time, an argument made in favour of fossil fuels (and against supposedly ‘intermittent’ renewables) was that oil and gas could provide a secure, reliable source of energy.
But as familiarity with renewables (and confidence in them) has increased, so have perceptions of the reliability of solar and wind power. At the same time, in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the instability that subsequently rippled through the global energy system, doubts are growing among the public that oil and gas are in fact secure, reliable sources of energy.
This is a significant shift – and could be what ultimately underpins a faster transition away from oil and gas. At a time of global insecurity, energy sources that can provide reliable (and ‘hoegrown’) energy become even more attractive. As Luke Tryl, UK Director at More in Common writes, message testing is showing renewables, not oil and gas, winning out in terms of being a secure and reliable source of energy:
There has been a shift in how we view energy security towards renewables – message testing on anti-oil and gas arguments finds strong support for the idea they’re getting more expensive – & particularly for Loyal Nationals (Red Wall voters) the dependence on Putin worries people.
Together Against Sizewell C had argued the government had failed to assess the environmental impact of the project when granting planning permission.
Comment: Polling makes misleading claims about support for clean air zones and net zero
Author of the research Matthew Goodwin describes net zero as “a pet project among an out-of-touch, morally righteous and self-serving elite.”