From the Climate Community

Drawing on polling by More in Common of more than 12,000 people and focus groups in the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands, Europe Talks Flying digs into attitudes towards aviation and climate change, often considered one of the trickiest topics in terms of bringing about behaviour change.

Overall, the picture is one of risk and opportunity.

The risk comes from badly designed campaigns (most people like flying and the idea of ‘flight shame’, prominent as it may be in climate circles, is something that only a minority of the wider population feels or agrees with).

The opportunity lies in the broad-based support for heavily taxing or even banning private jets,  and investing in faster, more affordable train journeys. This would build a platform for introducing policies like a ‘frequent flyer levy‘, which is generally popular and seen as fair (although some of the groups least likely to be impacted by this are the most wary of it).

Crucially (as with carbon footprints in general), it is disposable income rather than concern about climate change that determines the amount people fly.

Focusing on the findings relating to the UK specifically:

• Low trust in government means voters don’t have faith that the necessary investment in the affordability of train journeys will happen, to allow travellers to switch from short-haul flights. Affordability is the most important consideration when the costs of so many aspects of day-to-day life are unmanageably high.
• Importantly – in terms of how messages about reducing flying may be received by the audiences of climate campaigns – Progressive Activists are among those most likely to have flown more than five times in
  the last year. Progressive Activists are likely to be actively involved with campaigning on climate change, but perhaps driven by their higher incomes and fewer family responsibilities, are among those who fly the most.
• There is some limited support for restricting airport expansion, and a general view that airlines should meet the cost for the transition towards low-carbon travel, not customers.

The National Trust – with a huge portfolio of land and historic properties that faces a wide range of risks from a changing climate – has released a report which includes a call for a new Climate Resilience Bill, putting adaptation on the same footing as mitigation (which they argue has a ‘unifying focus’ on net zero).

Research shows that people beyond specialist circles do not make a clear distinction between mitigation and adaptation, and see worsening climate impacts as one of the most motivating reasons for decarbonising faster. When asked directly whether the UK government should prioritise adaptation or mitigation, the most popular answer (around half of the survey respondents) in a 2020 poll was that both should be of equal focus.

Writing for Labour List, More in Common’s Luke Tryl sets out why there is a chance to increase support among crucial ‘Red Wall’ voters (represented by the Loyal Nationals audience in More in Common’s Britain’s Choice model), arguing that:

Perhaps the area with the greatest potential lies in Labour’s green prosperity plan. Public support for the plan is high at 57%, rising to 61% among loyal national voters and a mammoth 84% among the group of voters who opted for the Conservatives in 2019 but who are now voting Labour.

Coupled with Public First polling showing that delaying net zero whilst failing to tax oil and gas companies is a vote loser, there is clearly a space for making a bolder, fair pitch to the electorate on green policies: consistent political leadership is an essential piece of the puzzle for building public support for the specifics of the transition.

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.

A More in Common focus group for the Guardian newspaper, carried out just after the Uxbridge by-election, concluded that

“The heated rows over green policy that have dominated Westminster over the past week, had passed voters we spoke to in Don Valley and Chipping Barnet by.”

Although our Climate Barometer tracker data shows that there are some (Conservative) voters who are opposed to clean air zones, this perspective from far outside of the ‘bubble’ of Westminster commentary is useful to keep in mind: even opposition is unlikely to be strongly held or ‘top of mind’ for most voters.

A paper by researchers in the USA has tested narratives about climate change and migration. They found that:

…reading about climate-induced immigration (vs. immigration not linked to climate change) did not change participants’ climate concerns or climate policy support. Instead, reading about climate-induced immigration resulted in more negative attitudes toward immigrants.

The research matches similar findings across the UK and Europe showing that attitudes towards migration can’t be used as a ‘tool’ to boost climate concern (and many argue on ethical grounds that the link shouldn’t be ‘weaponised’ in this way). At best they have no impact on climate policy support, and at worst, they can backfire by increasing anti-immigration sentiment.

The image of Britain “split down the middle” on issues of local renewable development projects is not, according to research by More in Common, an accurate depiction of public opinion.

In focus groups with communities in two regions where green energy developments have been presented as contentious and controversial in local media, they report that:

“Most Brits are balancers, tired of the loudest voices dominating debates, and eager for us just to get on with it quietly, less talk, less fuss and more action.”

While renewable energy projects are often positioned as controversial, and do attract some loud minority opposition, these conversations suggested people were often not aware of planned developments, and were typically broadly supportive when offered the chance to reflect on them.

Media analysis by Climate Outreach suggests that international negotiations are key events not only for policy, but in shaping public attitudes on climate:

“The annual UN conference provides a yearly focus point for climate media stories, events and activists. While the focus is on policy making, this can have a significant associated impact on how citizens view and understand the issues being discussed. For example the perceived failure of COP15 in Copenhagen is associated with a significant downturn in public climate concern. Understanding the interplay between different elements within the plethora of coverage is crucial for public engagement.

Our analysis indicates that publics in general were engaged by COP26 and the majority felt more optimistic about chances of dealing with the climate change challenge by the end. Yet it is noticeable that there were marked differences in the dominant narratives between traditional media and those most loudly heard on social media and at cultural events. Does this matter? One possibility is that it doesn’t – and that as the climate conversation grows, it’s natural and right that differences of opinion will remain. But from a communications perspective, mixed messaging may impact on how people understand and relate to climate change – which could undermine effectiveness.”

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?”