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
In a straightforward rejection of the central claim behind the government’s announcements in September 2023 of delays to key net zero targets – that the changes would save households money – the Climate Change Committee issued a response emphasising that the changes would in fact make net zero harder to achieve, as well as be more costly. Explore the Climate Barometer narrative thread on climate policies, public opinion and the costs of living here.
The Climate Change Committee wrote:
The cancellation of some Net Zero measures is likely to increase both energy bills and motoring costs for households – households who are also facing increasing impacts from climate change. Electric vehicles will be significantly cheaper than petrol and diesel vehicles to own and operate over their lifetimes, so any undermining of their roll-out will ultimately increase costs. The cancellation of regulations on the private-rented sector will lead to higher household energy bills
A wide-ranging analysis from the centre for Climate Change & Social Transformations (CAST) on behalf of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) reveals that substantial behaviour change is required across society to reach the UK’s ambitious net-zero 2050 target, with 60% of reductions needing to come from (or at least be endorsed by) consumers
In a series of recommendations for mainstreaming behaviour change approaches as part of the UK’s approach to climate policy, the report argues that:
The provision of information is important in some circumstances – for example for young people choosing a green career – and can provide a rationale for wider policy interventions. But the provision of information alone is not enough to shift consumption behaviours in society
Climate policies which are perceived to be fair are more likely to be acceptable to the public.
The public largely support a reduction in the consumption of red meat and dairy, with many already reducing their consumption of beef, pork and dairy products…altering the food environment, for example by taxing high-carbon foods, labelling, subsidising meat-free options, and increasing plant-based options, would be likely to encourage further (and more equitable) behaviour change
Many of those who fly are reluctant to reduce their air travel because of its associations with pleasure, freedom, and social status (although recent studies suggest social norms around flying may be shifting). Strategies targeting individuals, such as increasing climate awareness or concern don’t typically result in behaviour change when it comes to air travel.
However, a Frequent Flyer Levy or Frequent Air Miles Tax have the potential to be effective in reducing aviation demand and to be perceived as fair by the public.
The Labour Party has pledged to create Great British Energy, a new, publicly-owned clean energy company to make the UK ‘energy independent’ and deliver 100% clean energy by 2030.
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%).
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.
Reviewing research on climate adaptation behaviours, a report prepared by the CAST centre for the Climate Change Committee concluded that most people know very little about how they can prepare for changes such as extreme heat, droughts, or flooding. The authors highlight that it is important for politicians to clearly communicate what types of behaviours are most effective in preparing for a changing climate, and provide advice tailored to the type of risk, alongside other measures like financial incentives for homeowners.
Based on a set of interviews with 15 MPs, and a focus group with civil society representatives, new research – based on the findings of a collaboration between the Climate Citizens research group at Lancaster University, The Climate Coalition and the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations, and supported by Green Alliance – shows how the climate opinions of MPs have changed since 2018 when a previous round of research was carried out. The report states that:
MPs are now much more concerned about climate; for them, it’s become a mainstream issue, but they have specific concerns that were not so evident before, particularly around how to manage the complex process of change.
All the MPs interviewed stressed the importance of protecting people from potential negative impacts, such as higher costs or job losses in high carbon industries. They also fear a political backlash if climate action is seen as unfair.
The report shows how the political agenda has shifted over five years, from the need to ‘do something’ to the pace of change.
The mainstreaming of climate change in the political discourse over the past five years is important to recognise. But significant challenges remain in closing the gap between the political and the social mandate, with Climate Barometer tracker data showing that MPs continue to underestimate the salience of the environment among voters, to misjudge support for onshore wind, and to underestimate support for Net Zero (which outweighs opposition across society).
In its June 2023 progress report to parliament, the Climate Change Committee outlined how the UK government could regain a sense of leadership on climate change:
Stay firm on existing commitments and move to delivery. The Government has made a number of strong commitments, these must be restated and moved as swiftly as possible towards delivery.
Retake a clear leadership role internationally. The UK will need to regain its international climate leadership
Empower and inform households and communities to make low-carbon choices. Despite some positive steps to provide households with advice on reducing energy use in the last year, a coherent public engagement strategy on climate action is long overdue.
In May 2023, the government’s new Public Order Act came into force, significantly increasing the power of the police to respond to protests, and to introduce new criminal offences. The government made explicit reference to activist groups such as Just Stop Oil and Insulate Britain as justifications for these measures.
The Act received widespread criticism from activist groups and other NGOs, as well as the UN Human Rights Chief. In particular, the Act introduced the following acts as criminal offences:
In addition, the Act has lowered the threshold to define “disruptive” protesting, and extended the use of stop and search powers for protests.
There is public support for punishing activists who cause disruption. For instance, 78% of Britons surveyed felt some form of punishment was appropriate for someone who has participated in a non-violent but disruptive protest, such as blocking a road (YouGov/Uni Bristol, July 2023). However, there was stronger support for fines as punishment (37%), rather than imprisonment (29%).
In a new report from the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), the costs to UK households of not reducing emissions to net zero are calculated: this is intended to challenge criticisms of the costs of net zero policies by making clear that not taking action has greater economic consequences.
The report argues that climate impacts are costly to the UK economy, and delays to the rollout of renewable energy and insulation schemes also mean households incur costs they needn’t be incurring: these are the costs of not zero
If the UK had not delayed in deploying renewables, insulation, rooftop solar panels, heat pumps and electric vehicles, some households could have saved around £1,750 on bills in 2022. Plus, homes are facing more than £400 extra in food bills this year because of the impact of climate change and oil and gas prices on the farming and food system. This amounts to a potential £2,150 added to household bills.
In a new paper (open-access link) published in the journal Language and Ecology, Clare Cunningham and her colleagues at York St John University analysed the prevalence and use of climate change words and phrases by politicians and activists.
The analysis revealed major differences. Activists use emotive language and talk about ecology, guilt, and morality. Politicians use much more technocratic language and focus on finance, trade-offs, technologies and the economy, reflecting a longstanding positioning of environmental issues among political elites as emerging from a cost-benefit analysis perspective.
Perhaps most strikingly, ‘people’ barely feature in politicians’ discourse on climate – showing up only as ‘bill payers’.
The analysis is important to help understand why campaigns aimed at political or other ‘elite’ groups can sometimes fail to land with public audiences, and vice-versa. In related research, IPPR tested a range of climate change narratives and found that (despite their common usage by climate campaigners) language around ‘green jobs’ was not as compelling for the public as language around protecting the environment for future generations, or the need to reduce the risks from climate impacts.
Climate Barometer tracker polling backs this up: the public is not very persuaded by arguments that climate policies will deliver lots of new jobs. But this is more likely to reflect a widespread lack of trust in the ability of government to deliver on its promises, than a distaste for green jobs.
Research commissioned by the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, suggests that people in the UK find it difficult to ‘juggle’ competing drivers of food choices (for example price, value, budget, convenience, health, environment, ethics and so on). Price often wins out in decision making, leading many to make uncomfortable compromises.
While many aspired to a more environmentally friendly diet, barriers such as price, a lack of trusted information; and feeling that the problem was ‘too big’ to make a difference – often undermined these goals.
And on a day-to-day basis, people tended to prioritise their immediate needs and concerns: ensuring the food they ate was safe and as healthy as it could be within their budget.
Despite this, some actions, such as reducing food waste and packaging waste, were areas where people felt they had more power to take action.
Alongside this, many people did not trust that key food decision-makers have the public’s best interests at heart. They felt that food businesses and the Government prioritise profit over people.
The public wanted decision-makers to support both their immediate needs and to protect the long-term interests of people and planet.
The Climate Change Committee, responding to the government’s inclusion of ‘climate compatible checkpoints’ for new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea as part of its recent Net Zero Strategy, concluded that:
“The best way of reducing the UK’s future exposure to these volatile prices is to cut fossil fuel consumption on the path to Net Zero – improving energy efficiency, shifting to a renewables-based power system and electrifying end uses in transport, industry and heating. Any increases in UK extraction of oil and gas would have, at most, a marginal effect on the prices faced by UK consumers in future”
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.
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.
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.