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
It has become a truism that climate policies must be fair – and perceived to be fair – if they are to be accepted and implemented. But whilst campaigners across the political spectrum now agree that making policies fair is at the heart of reaching net zero, this consensus has been forged through high-profile backlashes against climate policies which are positioned or perceived as unfair and the problems these have created.
Some of the earliest research on public acceptance of changes to the energy system identified fairness as a core value on which members of the public expected the UK transition to be based. Just like international climate policies, where climate justice (explore our narrative thread on this here) has gradually moved centre-stage, a ‘just transition’ is crucial if the transition is to happen at all.
In citizens juries, focus groups and deliberations, and the UK’s national citizens assembly on climate change in 2020, whether policies are seen as fair has driven public acceptance. This is often about affordability – which is something that varies with people’s income and ability to pay – but isn’t only about this. Whether green policies are seen as fair can also be linked to whether people feel they’ve been adequately consulted (a fair ‘process’) or whether the costs and benefits of policies are accrued unfairly by one group or another (fair ‘distribution’).
Plus, fairness means sometimes dramatically different things to different people (e.g. whether being fair means treating everyone equally, or singling out particular groups for special treatment).
But none of this detracts from the central message that the green transition will stand and fall on public perceptions of the fairness of flagship net zero policies (like the phase out of gas boilers, or phase in of electric vehicles).
Initiatives like the Local Storytelling Exchange are a response to this, putting relatable stories of the green transition in front of regional audiences who might not otherwise see them. And Climate Outreach has led calls for a coordinated public engagement strategy led from national government which would be aimed at avoiding the risk of backlash that comes through the implementation of policies that are not perceived as fair.
This thread collates insights around the fairness and perceived fairness of climate policies, linking out to more in-depth guides and resources, and showing the range of ways in which fairness sits at the heart of the green transition.
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.
Independent advisers the National Infrastructure Commission has recommended in a new report that low income households are given free heat pumps to aid the transition away from gas boilers.
Polling shows that there is currently some hesitation – especially among Conservative voters – around the phasing out of gas boilers over the next decade, with a belief that net zero policies will be ‘expensive’ becoming widespread.
Policies such as this – were it to be enacted – would reflect calls for a ‘Fairness Lock’ from IPPR, protecting the least able to pay from the costs of the green transition.
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
Underscoring the message that people are not opposed to net zero policies, but do not consider themselves in a position to foot the bill for them, Greenpeace polling of 20,000 voters found that in Blue Wall constituencies:
Taken together, these results suggest a strong appetite for a range of climate policies, so long as the right people (the wealthiest individuals and oil & gas companies) pick up the tab
In a report covering a wide range of issues and working class voters’ views on them, support for climate policies was explored. The report found that support held up across the socio-political spectrum, aligning with similar findings from the Britain Talks Climate evidence base. But – with important implications for how politicians and campaigners present climate policies and how their costs will be distributed – most working class voters felt the costs of the transition should not be borne by ‘people like me’
More working-class voters said the government is not doing or spending enough to try and reduce carbon emissions (34%), compared to those saying they are doing too much (25%), or getting the balance about right (16%), showing the awareness of climate action across all social groups. That said, they have a clear view when it comes to who pays: 53% agreed that it is important to combat climate change but “people like me should not be paying the cost of policies to reduce global carbon emissions”, whilst 16% said they would be prepared to pay some costs and 19% said they do not believe climate action is necessary
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.