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 Climate Just Map tool shows which places may be most disadvantaged through climate impacts.
It aims to raise awareness about how social vulnerability combined with exposure to hazards, like flooding and heat, may lead to uneven impacts in different neighbourhoods, causing climate disadvantage. The maps can be used alongside other local knowledge to identify where actions may be needed.
There are maps on flooding (river/coastal flooding and surface water flooding), and heat and fuel poverty.
Ahead of hosting the UN climate change conference (COP26) the UK government has released a length net zero strategy, which includes new oil and gas licensing in the North Sea, so long as they pass a ‘climate compatible’ check point.
A report and guide produced by Climate Outreach ahead of COP26 presents a set of insights for engaging the public around international negotiations. Drawing on analysis with two key audience groups (Loyal Nationals and Civic Pragmatists, two of More in Common’s ‘British Seven’), the report notes that:
“Messaging that speaks to the need to protect nature, and that frames climate change as a shared global crisis and a shared global responsibility, is likely to resonate.
Language around the benefits from green investments and jobs is effective, but not when it seems to undermine the idea of global cooperation.
Engagement needs to counter the fact that many people do not understand what COP is about, and when they do they are often sceptical about what it could achieve, or believe it should be
conducted online rather than in person.Communications should be confident in framing climate change as a shared global crisis and a shared global responsibility. There is no need to overly explain the global context or cater to a misplaced sense of isolationism.”
Grounded in More in Common’s ‘Britain’s Choice’ audience segmentation, Britain Talks Climate provides insights and guidance on how to engage the seven segments that span the breadth of British society.
The two ‘Disengaged’ segments are the least likely to engage in low-carbon behaviours, although they are also likely to have among the lowest carbon footprints.
Civic Pragmatists regularly give to charity, are highly involved in their local community and engage in a range of ‘personal’ low-carbon behaviours
Progressive Activists are the most likely to engage in a range of low-carbon behaviours
In new research written up in a commentary for The Conversation, the risk of political leaders’ high carbon lifestyles could undermine the credibility of the messages they convey on climate change. Whilst the research focuses specifically on political leaders, the same arguments apply to a wide range of individuals and organisations who deliver climate messages (including the climate movement itself).
“The public fully understand political leaders have tight schedules and their activities inevitably involve plenty of high-carbon activities such as air travel.
But people are also very sensitive to the details of each specific situation and alert to signals and behavioural cues from leaders. Context is crucial.
If our leaders are not perceived as fully committed, will they be able to take the public with them as the need for behaviour change becomes more and more pressing?”
Outlining the arguments in favour of clean air zones, this Green Alliance report notes that they are now found in over 250 cities across Europe, and that there is “comprehensive research demonstrating they work” to reduce car use and pollution, once in place.
This short animation from Climate Outreach makes the case that ‘behaviour change’ and ‘system change’ are not mutually exclusive, as some advocates suggest.
Instead, they should be seen as ‘two sides of the same coin’, with individual action part of broader engagement with climate change and one way in which people can build a sense of agency and ‘efficacy’ (that their actions matter).
In a first for the annual Emissions Gap report, a chapter on emissions from lifestyle changes concluded that behavioural changes – from those with high carbon footprints – are essential for bridging the gap between current emissions levels and those consistent with the UN Paris agreement
The graphic below shows how skewed emissions are across different income groups
Research conducted as part of Climate Outreach’s Britain Talks Climate work shows clear differences between segments of the UK population in terms of their opinions and preferences around food and climate change.
For instance, ‘Progressive Activists’ (vocal, passionate and politically active, but despairing about how the Government has tackled climate change) are the only segment to show majority support for reducing their meat and dairy intake as a personal step on climate change. They were also the only segment in favour of taxing meat and dairy products.
On the other hand, ‘Backbone Conservatives’ (patriotic, conservative and optimistic, skeptical of symbolic lifestyle changes and deeply caring about food, farming and the rural economy) showed limited interest in reducing their own meat and dairy intake. They showed very little enthusiasm for vegetarianism and none for veganism. However, they are positive towards ‘common sense’ ethical actions such as buying local, eating seasonally, reducing food waste and supporting British farmers.
‘Disengaged Battlers’ (broadly supportive of the need to tackle climate change, but feel unrepresented and are too busy surviving day-to-day to give environmental issues more of their attention) show strong support for penalising brands that use excessive or difficult-to- recycle plastic packaging (76%), and for setting targets for supermarkets to reduce food waste (80%).
Four years of CAST polling data shows trends among different audiences. Older age groups, men and those who lean Centre or Right politically are generally less willing to reduce their meat consumption. No clear pattern was found for income or rural vs urban residents.
The majority of British people are unsure which party has the best climate policies, according to the Britain Talks Climate toolkit.
“Despite high levels of concern overall, the majority of segments are not engaging with climate change in terms of politics or policies. When asked which UK party they felt had the best climate change policies, the most frequent response from most segments was either “none of the above” or “don’t know”. Progressive Activists and Civic Pragmatists were exceptions, with the majority citing the Green Party as having the best climate policy.”
The ambiguity people feel about which political party has the best climate policies is an invitation to make a clearer offer to the electorate.
A key headline message from the Britain Talks Climate toolkit (grounded in the Britain’s Choice audience segmentation) is that climate change is currently not a polarised issue for Britons, with majorities of all segments saying that it is an issue for everyone, regardless of income, background or politics.
New research highlights the need for people to feel empowered to prepare for and respond to climate impacts.
The research, which included interviews with flood victims, climate communication experiments, and a nationally representative survey about climate impacts found it was crucial for people to feel empowered to carry out adaptation, and believe that their behaviours will make a difference (‘efficacy’).
“In particular, [there was a] consistent influence of efficacy beliefs on climate adaptation behaviours, going beyond past work to show that different types of efficacy (self, response and collective) influence responses at personal, policy and broader social levels.”
These ‘efficacy beliefs’ were crucial to promoting climate-resilient behaviours. That means that it’s important people feel personally able to take actions, feel that climate actions will work, and believe that working together with other people will help to bring about changes.
The centre for Climate Change & Social Transformations (CAST) carried out a set of global surveys with over 3000 participants from Brazil, China, Sweden and the UK in 2020 (the survey is repeated annually)
Large majorities from across borders, age divides and financial backgrounds were positive on the need for action on climate change.
Click through to the CAST dashboard to filter the results further.
The UK Climate Assembly, held in 2019-20, gathered public perspectives on how the UK should achieve its net zero climate target. It brought together 108 participants, selected to represent the demographic diversity of the UK, who met over several weekends to look at evidence, deliberate on the question and produce recommendations for the Government.
Discussions revealed that participants support reducing meat and dairy consumption for climate and other reasons, such as health. Other favoured policies included emissions labelling for food; low carbon farming regulation and incentives; training on sustainable land use; support for local food production; and changing retailers’ behaviour. People also highlighted that policies should consider things like fairness, support for farmers, affordability and education.
Discussion workshops held by the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST) in Devon, Aberdeen and Manchester in 2022 produced similar findings – that people (across a range of ages, genders, ethnicities and income levels) were supportive of a transition to healthier diets with less meat, and emphasised the importance of fairness in relation to dietary changes and policies.
Halving meat consumption and swapping red meat for white meat were considered desirable and feasible, alongside eating a balanced diet. These strategies were seen as quick and easy changes that many people would be able to make.
Strong negative reactions were only noticeable for strategies which were perceived to take away choice completely, such as fully meat-free diets. These were generally perceived as too restrictive and involving too much of a change for most people (i.e. unfair), at least in the near future. There were also concerns about vegan diets being unhealthy and detrimental to the livelihoods of farmers.
A major review of the nation’s food strategy and culture highlights the need for dramatic change in how the UK produces and consumes food to improve public health, protect the NHS and ensure resilience to shocks, such as climate change.
The review, which looks at the entire food chain ‘from field to fork’, recommends a 30% reduction in meat consumption by 2032, along with a range of measures to reduce diet inequalities and move away from ‘junk food’ culture.
The review notes that voluntary measures will not be enough. It recommends that all food companies with more than 250 employees – including retailers, restaurants, fast food joints, contract caterers, wholesalers, manufacturers and online ordering platforms – should publish an annual report on a range of measures, including food waste and sales of protein by type (meat, dairy, fish, plant, or alternative protein).
The review also acknowledges that the spaces in which consumers buy and eat food can have a strong influence on people’s dietary choices:
“Supermarkets and the hospitality sector are extremely adept at nudging consumers towards certain products and behaviours. They can do this by changing their layouts and menus, using discounts and promotions, reformulating their own products, changing their packaging and labelling, and using their enormous purchasing power selectively.”
This aligns with what we already know about people’s dietary habits being far from simple individual choices. What we eat is affected by a wide range of structural factors – these include biological, medical, developmental, psychological, economic and social factors, as well as the influence of media, infrastructure and the food environment. The Government’s Obesity System Map is a great visualisation of these many interlinking variables.
Climate Outreach, in collaboration with Cardiff University, have published a briefing containing seven recommendations for public engagement on climate risks and adaptation, including the insight that communication on adaptation shouldn’t be divorced from messages on mitigation. The distinction is not widely recognised beyond the climate community: concerns about mitigation and adaptation reinforce each other and are perceived as two sides of the same coin
