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
A generally popular policy proposal – which seems to have fairness hardwired into it – there is nonetheless confusion around who would be affected by a frequent flyer levy, pointing to a need for clearer communication.
Originally promoted by the climate charity Possible, along with the New Economics Foundation, the idea of a frequent flyer levy (i.e. an increasing charge on any flights taken after one levy-free individual flight for everyone per year) embodies the ‘polluter pays’ principle and reflects the highly skewed nature of emissions from aviation (roughly 70% of which are created by 15% of the population).
In general, it is a popular policy proposal, attracting support at the UK Climate Assembly, with one 2022 study placing it as the most supported climate policy (with support rising since 2021).
Looking at support for the policy broken down by different audience segments, though, reveals a more complex picture and points to the need for clearer communication and messaging around who would actually be impacted by a frequent flyer levy (i.e. the minority who fly more than once a year) – something that is also important for other climate policies where the costs are not yet perceived to fall fairly.
Climate Outreach research found that while the more affluent Established Liberals (who do fly more than average) were willing to pay extra to reflect this, groups like the Disengaged Battlers (with lower incomes) were less likely to support the policy (even though they would be unlikely to be affected by it).
In Climate Barometer tracker data, we see a consistent level of support among voters – including Conservatives – for the frequent flyer levy. However, there is a further decline in support among Conservative MPs from 2022 into 2023, signalling a major perception gap between public and political opinion on this climate policy. (Explore perceptions gaps in our thread on this topic.)
And in Rishi Sunak’s September 2023 net zero announcements, ‘new taxes on flying’ were one of the (not yet implemented) policies that he ‘scrapped’. Positioned in this way – as a new tax rather than a fairer replacement for air passenger duty – ‘scrapping’ it attracted strong support from Conservative but not Labour voters.
Keir Starmer made a fleeting visit to Brazil, ahead of the opening of COP30. But is the British public paying attention?
Recent More in Common data shows COP isn’t top-of-mind for most people (only 8% say they are ‘very aware’ of the conference), and there is a sense of ‘summit fatigue’. But despite growing weariness with the glacial pace of change, Britons still see the UN as the best-placed body to lead action on global issues like climate change.
People all over the world want climate action that is genuinely inclusive, as evidenced by the level of engagement with the People’s Summit in the run up to COP30. This year there is a push to create a ‘Citizens Track’ to more formally build in public opinion to the COP process. Combatting misinformation and shoring up ‘information integrity’ in climate communication is high on the agenda for the first time.
And there are some remarkable similarities in the core concerns of people around the world.
Consider Earth4All’s latest report on Brazil: the country has a pathway to eliminate poverty by 2040 while building a renewable energy powerhouse, and there is a strong mandate for action: 81% of Brazilians say major action is needed this decade to protect the climate and nature.
Yet only 35% believe their government is doing enough, and still need to be convinced policies are affordable and fair – a story familiar from patterns in British public opinion.
Zack Polanski has won the Green Party’s leadership race, ushering in a new era for the party. Polanski won the leadership race by an emphatic margin – but will his unique brand of ‘eco populism’ cut through with voters?
Climate Barometer data shows reasonable agreement with the idea that the super rich are the most responsible for climate change. In April this year, we asked the public for views on the following statement: “Together, the richest 1% of people in the world emit twice as much carbon as the poorest 50% combined”. While over a third of Britons said they had not heard this narrative at all (36%) – interestingly, many had heard and agreed with it (39%) and very few disagreed with it overall (4%).
Across political divides, Green backers were the most likely to have heard and agree with the idea that the super rich are to blame (66%), and the narrative resonates with a majority of the Labour base too (56%).
There was even reasonable agreement amongst Reform backers, with a third of this group (30%) saying they had both heard and agree with it – while just a minority had heard and disagree with it (8%). It’s Conservative backers who appear to be more on the margins here, being the least likely to have heard and agree with the statement (28%).
Together this suggests that narratives which pin the blame on the super rich still have more traction to gain – but when the message does get picked up, it tends to land well across a wide political spectrum, perhaps only failing to resonate with Tory backers.