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
An analysis by the website Carbon Brief has found a record number of editorials in UK newspapers (almost exclusively right-leaning publications) that oppose climate action. Carbon Brief writes:
Newspapers such as the Sun and the Daily Mail published 42 editorials in 2023 arguing against climate action – nearly three times more than they have printed before in a single year. They called for delays to UK bans on the sale of fossil fuel-powered cars and boilers, as well as for more oil-and-gas production in the North Sea. In response to such demands, prime minister Rishi Sunak performed a “U-turn” in September on some of his government’s major net-zero policies.
Climate Barometer tracker data suggests a correspondence (cause and effect is harder to establish) between the views of Conservative MPs on net zero policies, and the views expressed in these editorials. But among the public there is not such a clear relationship, with even Conservative voters ambivalent on whether delays to net zero targets are in touch, or out of touch with public sentiment:
Opposition to climate policies is not only found in right-leaning editorials, however. An analysis by the the Centre for Countering Digital Hate found a surge in what they call ‘new denial’ narratives on Youtube in 2023. These include attempts to discredit green energy technologies, or exaggerate their cost – positions that mirror the editorial content analysed by Carbon Brief.
Desmog reviewed more than 2,000 Telegraph opinion pieces and editorials published online over a six month period, ending in 16 October.
The website reported that of 171 opinion pieces that dealt with environmental issues, 85 percent were identified as “anti-green”, meaning they were attacking climate policy, questioning climate science or ridiculing environmental groups.
The chart below shows the number of daily anti-green op-eds reached a peak around the Uxbridge by-election in July, as the debate around clean air zones reached a crescendo.
Although there isn’t a straightforward ’cause and effect’ relationship between media commentary and public opinion, this volume of coverage provides a loud drumbeat of anti-green commentary to Conservative MPs in particular (more than half say they read the Telegraph regularly), which is likely to be influencing the views they infer their constituents have on a range of green policies.
We see this clearly in the ‘perception gap‘ MPs have on onshore wind, but increasingly on clean air zones and other green policies too, where opposition among the public is significantly overestimated.
Commentary & Analysis
14th November 2023
There were bumps on the road to net zero in 2023. But did the delays and diversions reflect growing public doubts or political dividing lines?
Based on a survey of 2000 people, Public First have argued that a turn against net zero is a risky political maneuver: by testing different combinations of policy propositions with voters (on the environment and more widely) they found that green investment is one of the most universally popular offers across the electorate, and that whilst anti net-zero sentiment doesn’t move the dial much for those who agree it, for those who oppose it, its a significant vote loser. Public First reports that:
Increased investment in renewable sources and new taxes on the largest polluters in a wider policy platform makes a party 14% more electable
Delaying net zero and continued oil and gas drilling in the North Sea in a wider policy platform makes a party 10% less electable
Voters have genuine questions (and in some cases concerns) about how specific green policies will impact their personal finances and day-to-day lives. These questions should be taken seriously by campaigners and politicians alike to build public support.
But as an electoral strategy, this research shows that reducing net zero ambition, backing away from green investment, and failing to hasten the transition away from fossil fuels are vote losers, rather than winners.
Public First and Onward tested the support of 24 policies which would cut greenhouse gas emissions (some were existing government policies and some were not). All 24 received net-positive ratings looking across all voters, with energy efficiency measures, ramping up renewables (wind and solar), incentivising green home upgrades, planting trees, investment in public transport, and policies to help people switch to electric cars all proving highly popular.
Conservative voters currently did not support the phasing out of sales of new petrol/diesel cars by 2030 or gas boilers by 2035, but the report argues that:
Importantly, opposition is to targets and deadlines rather than the technologies
Understanding which net zero policies are consistently popular among the electorate is as important as understanding what the current barriers to support are for less popular policies: ‘win win’ ideas such as incentivising home upgrades/rolling out insulation are a way to hold the net zero conversation with voters on less contentious ground than, for example, low traffic neighbourhoods.
Polling by Public First and analysed by Onward, paints an important picture of how the public thinks about green policies in the context of the cost of living crisis.
As the Figure below shows, out of 11 reasons offered to people as to why the cost of living has become higher, the “UK trying to be more environmentally friendly” comes last, a long way behind increased global demand and price of energy, the conflict in Ukraine, Brexit and Covid-19.
Elsewhere in the report the authors write:
Voters thought that greener forms of energy were cheaper. Over half of the public (56%) and Conservative voters (53%) thought that investing in wind and solar would bring their energy bills down (vs a quarter who felt that investing less) in renewables would reduce living costs.
The message across these findings is clear: concerns about the cost of living are widely held, but green policies are not seen as the cause of the country’s current economic problems.
In research carried out just before Rishi Sunak’s speech announcing changes to the UK’s net zero targets in September 2023 (including a 4,000 sample, nationally-representative poll and eight focus groups of 2019 Conservative voters who are now undecided), Public First’s James Frayne argues that Sunak’s speech will have a maginally negative impact on overall support for the Conservatives. Read Frayne’s analysis here:
Sunak’s Net Zero speech may scarcely cut through to voters at all outside the bubble
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.
Commentary & Analysis
18th September 2023
Author of the research Matthew Goodwin describes net zero as “a pet project among an out-of-touch, morally righteous and self-serving elite.”
In a poll of around 1000 people in early August, 2023, 51% said they’d like to do more to reduce climate change and help the environment, but that they couldn’t afford to.
The same survey found that people think that the economic costs of climate change itself will be greater than the cost of measures to reduce climate change (by 41% – 22%)
In the contrast between these two responses, a lot is revealed: whilst people want to do more, cost-of-living pressures put restrictions on this.
But there is an acknowledgement that tackling climate change is less expensive than not tackling it.
Policies that reduce the upfront costs of new technologies like heat pumps (through government subsidies or as uptake grows and prices fall) can help to square this circle, and are a crucial aspect of positioning climate policy as fair for voters.
Comment: Climate vs the cost of living?
With financial worries so widespread, is there space in the public mind and political discourse for climate change?