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
Climate Barometer tracker data shows that the public, and strikingly MPs, do not put the political party they voted for in the top three most trusted sources to speak on the subject of climate change.
In the public data, only 2% selected this option, including only 1% of Conservative voters.
For MPs, the figure is higher at 14%, but hardly a ringing endorsement.
Because of the way the question was asked, sources with the ‘credentials’ to speak on climate change are likely to have been preferentially selected. However, the fact that the voters for (and political representatives of) their own political parties don’t see themselves as being trusted on climate suggests there is a space in the national political discourse for credible, climate-literate politicians.
The top three trusted messengers for MPs are:
1) Academics, 2) Naturalists such as David Attenborough and Chris Packham, and 3) The Climate Change Committee.
The top three trusted messengers for the public are:
1) Scientists, 2) Naturalists such as David Attenborough and Chris Packham, and 3) None of the above.
The government’s newly published Local Power Plan points the country in a direction that the British public support: clean energy that’s transparent, affordable, and delivers real benefits to communities and their local environments.
When we asked about the three most important factors for involving local communities on infrastructure proposals, both the public and MPs were most likely to select “clear, plain language information about the project and its impacts” and “being asked for views early, before decisions are made”. These were followed by “a clear explanation of how views influenced the final decision” for MPs and “independent or trusted organisations running the process” for the public.
When we asked which 3 factors people felt were most important in terms of influencing their support or opposition for local infrastructure projects, they picked: the project’s impact on the local environment, on energy bills and on the local community as the top considerations.
These three priorities are consistently the highest for all groups across age, gender, region, social grade, housing tenure, political support, education level, ethnicity, and whether they live in urban or rural areas; a rare point of alignment between these different subgroups of the public.
Strikingly, what made much less of a difference were people’s views about climate change and net zero.
This doesn’t mean that belief in (or concern about) climate change isn’t a critical foundation on which to build engagement around clean energy in general (this is the core idea behind linking the ‘how and the why’ on net zero, as we argued in our recent message testing work with Public First).
But when it comes to specific clean energy projects, the local impacts and financial considerations loom larger: as the transition becomes ever more place-based, this trend is only likely to accelerate.
Commentary & Analysis
27th January 2026
Signal in the Noise is Climate Barometer’s annual publication that monitors and makes sense of patterns and trends in opinion on climate change
Has the Green Party really stopped talking about the environment?