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
Commentary & Analysis
18th May 2026
Commentary & Analysis
16th April 2026
Commentary & Analysis
11th March 2026
Our tracker shows the enduring popularity of policies that also save on household bills (like installing insulation, or incentives to do so).
Although Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) get a bad rep, our tracker shows support outweighing opposition and support gently rising over the past three years.
One way to look at levels of policy support across the piece is that they’re really quite stable – but some are not stable in a good way. When it comes to sales of new gas boilers, and the phase out of sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles, opposition started to outpace support around 18 months ago, and this trend has (slowly) continued.
Commentary & Analysis
29th November 2025
The Autumn Budget is out. Here’s a preview of what the tracker reveals about what people blame for the cost of energy bills, taxing the super rich, and who pays for net zero.
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.
A new survey has found that two-thirds of people around the globe have not heard of the term ‘climate justice’, and less than 1-in-5 feel they have a good understanding of what it means. But despite a lack of awareness about the terminology, a clear majority (70%) felt that climate change is driven by capitalism and colonisation. The study by Charles Ogunbode and colleagues builds on previous work addressing engagement with climate justice, by suggesting that people are aware of the key issues underpinning climate justice, even if they don’t consciously link these with the concept. People’s beliefs about climate justice-related issues were also found to positively influence their climate actions and support for policies – suggesting there is much value in building greater awareness.
Commentary & Analysis
31st August 2024
What’s in a name? The question of what the best – most persuasive, or least polarising – term for climate change is, has a long history.
On the one hand, small tweaks to individual words or short phrases are unlikely to be driving big differences in perceptions one way or another. People’s values, worldviews, political ideology and increasingly the perceived fairness of different climate policies, are what drives public engagement.
But whether its the editorial choices made by leading international newspapers, to the framing of campaigns that drive media coverage of climate activism, linguistic choices do carry some weight. Previous research has argued that some terms (e.g. ‘global warming’) are more emotive; campaigners have criticised ‘climate change’ as a term for lacking urgency.
In a new open-access paper, researchers tested a wide range of different terms, including ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’, ‘climate crisis’, climate emergency’ and ‘climate justice’, in a survey of over 5000 US residents and concluded:
Overall, “climate change” and “global warming” were rated as most familiar and most concerning, and “climate justice” the least, with ratings for “climate crisis” and “climate emergency” falling in between.
Moreover, we find no evidence for “climate crisis” or “climate emergency” eliciting more perceived urgency than “climate change” or “global warming.”
We therefore recommend sticking with familiar terms, conclude that changing terminology is likely not the key solution for promoting climate action, and suggest alternative communication strategies.
The ‘alternative communication strategies’ might include identifying tangible ways in which audiences with different moral and political values could benefit from specific climate policies, or ensuring communities impacted by new energy infrastructure, or changes to urban travel systems, feel adequately consulted.
Confirming previous research around the general lack of familiarity with the term ‘climate justice’, the paper also noted that willingness to support climate-friendly policies and eat less red meat were lowest for ‘climate justice’ (which was the least familiar term tested).
This isn’t an argument for downplaying the importance of the issues the term refers to, which are central to both international climate governance and the implementation of specific in-country policies. But it does underscore the lack of recognition of the phrase among many public audiences, a finding which has also been observed in UK research.
In a survey of 2000 people carried out by Opinium, on behalf of Positive Money, 75% of UK adults were concerned about the impact of climate change on the cost of heating or cooling their home, while 69% were worried about the impact of grocery prices, 54% on the price of housing or rent, 74% on electricity costs, 68% on the cost of water and 59% on transport costs.
These concerns about ‘climateflation’ show that the perceived impacts of climate change are not confined to changes in the weather (although these are becoming more noticeable to people too).
Climate Barometer data backs this up – concern about the impact of climate change on household bills was the third most common choice behind ‘harm to nature and wildlife’ and ‘suffering and hardship for the world’s poorest’.
Separate analysis investigating the cost of ‘not zero‘ (i.e. not pursuing net zero goals fast enough) by the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) supports people’s concerns: households really are facing higher bills because of a lack of action on climate change. Their calculations reveal that cumulative savings of £70bn on the UK’s energy bill could have been made had investments happened over past decade.
The Positive Money report emphasises that these climate-linked costs are disproportionately felt by lower income households.
How did climate show up at the 2026 elections?