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.
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.