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 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.
A report seeking to spotlight how people of colour experience and engage with climate change in Britain finds that people of colour show very high levels of personal engagement with climate actions (73% having changed their lifestyles in response to climate change).
Despite this, many still face barriers to action:
“The single most commonly reported barrier was other things taking up people’s time and energy (82%). Perceived insufficiency of climate awareness or knowledge (80%), difficulty or inconvenience of climate actions (77%), and perceived inefficacy of individual action (73%), were also commonly reported to be significant barriers to taking individual action on climate change”
The Social Change Lab investigated the so-called ‘radical flank’ effect: whether more radical/extreme protests can improve the perception or acceptability of more moderate campaigners.
Based on several waves of polling data conducted before and after the radical actions of Just Stop Oil in 2022 (blocking the M25 motorway), the authors found that increased awareness of Just Stop Oil after their motorway protest was linked with stronger identification with and support for Friends of the Earth (an increase from 50.3% to 52.9% of the population).
This is a potentially important finding, given that Just Stop Oil themselves are very unpopular among the public and the motorway protests were badly received/reported on very negatively by most media.
However, studies exploring similar questions around protests in other countries have not always always reached the same conclusions: there is not yet consistent evidence for a ‘positive’ radical flank effect from disruptive protest.
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%).
Formed by a group including some prominent previous Extinction Rebellion activists/spokespeople, the Climate Majority project responds to longstanding calls from public engagement strategists for campaigners to do more to explicitly get beyond the ‘bubble’ of supporters.
Emphasising the ‘hidden majority’ across society who care about climate change – a perspective backed up by a range of research in the past five years including Britain Talks Climate – the Climate Majority project represents a pivot from the strategy of Extinction Rebellion which argued that a critical mass of 3.5% of the population was required to rise up and create systemic change.
In a wide-ranging and in-depth analysis of how the UK public views low-carbon lifestyle changes, in the context of reaching net zero, the CAST centre (Climate Change & Social Transformations) reported on a set of ‘deliberative’ workshops (discussion groups) with members of the public.
The workshops covered four topics: ‘how we heat our homes’, ‘the food we eat’, ‘the products we buy’ and ‘how we travel’.
In contrast to the snap polling that is commissioned in the wake of policy announcements, this approach to understanding public opinion provides participants with the chance to discuss, reflect on and consider the nuances of behavioural changes in the context of net zero.
Summaries for each of the four topics above are presented in the report. In contrast to media commentary and political strategy positioning climate behaviours as part of the ‘culture wars’, one overall conclusion was that personal choices and freedoms are important, but people are willing to engage in low-carbon lifestyles in a way that is proportionate to their own circusmstances:
“Personal choice and freedoms are important aspects underpinning public preferences. In many cases people preferred options that made environmental choices easier rather than restricting choice. Strong negative reactions were only noticeable for strategies which were perceived to take away choice completely, such as meat-free diets, no access to individual car ownership, or living in smaller homes. While these more ‘radical’ strategies do not enjoy high public acceptance, people are willing to consider the principles that underpin them, especially if supported by other actors. For example, most participants were unwilling to consider becoming vegetarian or vegan, but were willing to consider how they could reduce their meat intake. Similarly, living car free was not considered acceptable or feasible by most participants, however they did want to reduce their dependence on cars generally and were open to other modes of transport.”
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.
In analysis by Kantar, coverage of protests at COP26 was found to have outstripped coverage of the conference itself (in traditional media).
On social media, Geta Thunberg was one of the biggest presences on Twitter, driving engagement with traditional coverage of COP26 protests.
What the public ‘sees’ at climate conferences can shape wider climate beliefs – and although there was small but significant increase in public optimism during the course of COP26, the dominance of protests in traditional and social media is likely to have conveyed an overall impression of the conference as a ‘problem’ (to be protested against) rather than part of the solution.
Grounded in More in Common’s ‘Britain’s Choice’ audience segmentation, Britain Talks Climate provides insights and guidance on how to engage the seven segments that span the breadth of British society.
The two ‘Disengaged’ segments are the least likely to engage in low-carbon behaviours, although they are also likely to have among the lowest carbon footprints.
Civic Pragmatists regularly give to charity, are highly involved in their local community and engage in a range of ‘personal’ low-carbon behaviours
Progressive Activists are the most likely to engage in a range of low-carbon behaviours
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?”
This short animation from Climate Outreach makes the case that ‘behaviour change’ and ‘system change’ are not mutually exclusive, as some advocates suggest.
Instead, they should be seen as ‘two sides of the same coin’, with individual action part of broader engagement with climate change and one way in which people can build a sense of agency and ‘efficacy’ (that their actions matter).
In a first for the annual Emissions Gap report, a chapter on emissions from lifestyle changes concluded that behavioural changes – from those with high carbon footprints – are essential for bridging the gap between current emissions levels and those consistent with the UN Paris agreement
The graphic below shows how skewed emissions are across different income groups
The centre for Climate Change & Social Transformations (CAST) carried out a set of global surveys with over 3000 participants from Brazil, China, Sweden and the UK in 2020 (the survey is repeated annually)
Large majorities from across borders, age divides and financial backgrounds were positive on the need for action on climate change.
Click through to the CAST dashboard to filter the results further.
Understanding support for the frequent flyer levy
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.