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
Behaviour change – actions people can take to reduce the amount of energy they consume – plays a central role in reaching net zero, especially for those with high carbon footprints.
Without changes in energy consumption (using and wasting less), travel habits (increasing public transport use and active travel), and the balance of food types in our diets, net zero by 2050 will be impossible to achieve: one recent estimate suggests around 60% of the emissions cuts required to reach net zero will come through behavioural changes in some form.
But the idea of ‘changing behaviours’ has often had a turbulent relationship with climate policy and campaigns. Across diet, travel and energy use, there are differing levels of support for changing behaviours, and differing levels of willingness to do so.
There’s no shortage of analyses into the sorts of behaviour changes that can reduce emissions. And its long been understood that consumption emissions are strongly skewed towards those with higher disposable incomes.
But politically, the topic remains controversial, and because of the huge variation in the size of individual carbon footprints across society, there is no one-size-fits-all message on shifting behaviours on the path to net zero.
This thread captures insights relating to people’s willingness to make behavioural changes in pursuit of net zero, as well as resources that provide guidance on how to communicate and campaign around shifting behaviours.
New research has revealed that politicians visibly ‘leading by example’ can substantially increase the willingness of members of the UK public to adopt further low-carbon lifestyle changes.
The study looked at over a thousand people’s responses to the examples of ‘high-profile individuals’ in a nationally representative survey. It found that the vast majority (86%) wanted to see politicians, celebrities and business leaders setting a good example in terms of their climate actions. Citizens were also more willing to adopt low-carbon actions, such as flying less, eating less meat, or driving an electric car if they saw leaders doing the same. At the same time, people’s overall approval of leaders who were setting a strong example improved.
Despite this, further investigation showed that politicians may currently be reluctant to publicise their personal climate-friendly actions due to fear of criticism for virtue signaling, or hypocrisy.
Together the work suggests that rather than pulling off ‘green stunts’, politicians’ consistency of action over time is crucial, and it can also be beneficial if they acknowledge that some changes may be too difficult or costly for everyone to make (such as buying an electric car or installing a heat pump).
Researchers at the centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST) have found widespread public support for low-carbon lifestyles. In workshops, people explored visions of an ideal 1.5°C future:
However, common ‘narratives of delay’ also punctuated these positive visions, stemming from what the authors identified as three emotional defense mechanisms:
1) Overconfidence in current actions (thinking that small changes have more impact than they actually do)
2) Defensiveness over radical change (despite many lifestyle changes requiring only moderate adjustments for many)
3) Dejection at the scale of the challenge (with fatalism acting as a demotivator for making lifestyle changes)
The paper concludes that:
“Rethinking strategies for public engagement with climate action will be an essential step towards creating a positive, ambitious, fair, sustainable vision of the future that is desperately needed as part of a people-centred approach to tackling climate change”
Surveys are clear that the British public supports the country’s net zero targets.
When surveys focus on specific policies (like low traffic neighbourhoods, for example), then a range of wider considerations come into play, and unsurprisingly, support for individual policies like this tends to be lower than support for net zero overall. Although, as Climate Barometer tracker data underscores, even this policy (presented as divisive in media commentary) has more support than opposition.
And this trend – of most net zero policies having greater support than opposition – is reflected in a new Ipsos survey.
In nationally representative polling from April 2024, just before the General Election was called, Ipsos reported that:
Support is highest for giving people more assistance to increase the energy efficiency of their homes (76%); frequent flyer levies (62%); and changing product pricing to reflect how environmentally friendly products are (56%).
The least popular policy tested (an exception to the rule of support outweighing opposition) was electric vehicle subsidies (39% support, 41% oppose).
However, while most net zero policies continue to enjoy majority support among Britons, Ipsos report that this support has fallen over the past two years:
Support for ensuring access to sustainable pension funds and increasing vegetarian/vegan options in food provisioning have both fallen by 8 points since 2022, support for creating low traffic neighbourhoods is down 7 points, and support for higher taxes on red meat and dairy products and electric vehicle subsidies are both down 6 ppts.
Labour and Lib Dem 2019 voters support all policies, while past Conservative voters only support a few: frequent flyer levies, changing product pricing, ensuring access to sustainable pensions, and enabling people to make energy efficiency improvements to their home.
The polling also suggested a softening of the intensity with which people report feeling worried about climate change (likely a reflection of the difficulty of maintaining a strong sense of worry about an issue that can’t be resolved in the short term), although Ipsos reported that overall levels of concern remained very high,
Climate Outreach worked with researchers from the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST) and the environmental charity Hubbub to test food and diet-related messages, with residents in Manchester who were ‘climate concerned’ but are not typically involved or represented in climate conversations (broadly representative of ‘Loyal Nationals’), testing ideas and messages about reducing meat and dairy over a 6 month period.
In surveys, only 27% of people say they have no plans to/don’t want to reduce the amount of meat they eat. But while there is potential to reduce the amount of meat and dairy in people’s diets, the research found that:
Drawing on polling by More in Common of more than 12,000 people and focus groups in the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands, Europe Talks Flying digs into attitudes towards aviation and climate change, often considered one of the trickiest topics in terms of bringing about behaviour change.
Overall, the picture is one of risk and opportunity.
The risk comes from badly designed campaigns (most people like flying and the idea of ‘flight shame’, prominent as it may be in climate circles, is something that only a minority of the wider population feels or agrees with).
The opportunity lies in the broad-based support for heavily taxing or even banning private jets, and investing in faster, more affordable train journeys. This would build a platform for introducing policies like a ‘frequent flyer levy‘, which is generally popular and seen as fair (although some of the groups least likely to be impacted by this are the most wary of it).
Crucially (as with carbon footprints in general), it is disposable income rather than concern about climate change that determines the amount people fly.
Focusing on the findings relating to the UK specifically:
The centre for Climate Change & Social Transformations (CAST) has published a revamped version of its data portal, giving quick access to international surveys of public opinion on a wide range of climate issues from 2020-2023.
The Climate Action dashboard displays trends in people’s intentions to make different lifestyle changes in the UK (alongside international data).
Although there’s wide variation across different behaviours in terms of people’s overall willingness to engage in them (from the 80% of people who try to avoid food waste, to the 11% who say they would follow a vegan diet), one overall trend is clear: there’s no meaningful drop-off between 2020 and 2023 in any of the behaviours.
Some show a spike in 2021, likely linked to the Covid 19 pandemic (e.g. avoiding flying) or the surge in global climate activism that preceded it. But none are lower than the 2020 baseline.
That’s important to bear in mind when there’s discussion of public support for climate action weakening. Data like this show clearly that it isn’t, even if some of the more impactful lifestyle changes people could make (like following a vegan or vegetarian diet) don’t yet have majority support.
In an open access research paper in the journal Nature Climate Change, Charlotte Kukowski and Emma Garnett argue that reducing inequality is not simply a positive ‘co-benefit’ of well-designed climate policies (although in a cost of living crisis, the affordability of green policies is a major consideration for voter support).
Instead the authors argue that many of the behavioural changes necessary to reduce emissions from travel or food consumption are simply not possible where income inequalities remain high. The paper uses an example of rural/urban travel costs and rent prices to illustrate how it may be easier for wealthier citizens to make low carbon travel choices:
While London boasts the cheapest bus fares and the most comprehensive public transport network in the UK, it also ranks highest for house prices and rents. Although rent and property prices can be lower in rural areas than in cities, the deregulation and subsequent privatization of the UK bus network in the 1980s have led to fare increases, a marked decrease in ridership, service fragmentation, increased car ownership and dependence, and transport-associated social exclusion, which disproportionately affect poorer citizens in rural communities
The analysis and recommendations for addressing ‘carbon inequality’ offer a different way of thinking about the challenge of population-scale behaviour changes: many policies are not currently viewed as fair by the public in large part because they aren’t currently equally accessible to people across the income spectrum.
The paper concludes that addressing general inequality, in turn makes behaviour change for net zero more feasible.
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”
Commentary & Analysis
18th December 2022
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.
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.”
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
Comment: Is ‘behaviour change’ a contentious topic or an essential part of net zero?
Understanding the sometimes turbulent relationship between behaviour change, policy making and campaigning on climate change and net zero.