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
Perception gaps occur both in MPs’ judgments of their constituents and the general public, and among public audiences too (i.e. members of the public sometimes misperceive what other people think about energy sources, green policies and climate change).
These misperceptions can have real consequences: a sense of fatalism if people don’t think others care; misplaced concerns about falling ‘outside the norm’ when taking action on climate issues; policies not being ambitious enough because politicians incorrectly ‘read’ voter sentiment.
Mischaracterisation of public support on onshore wind (our Climate Barometer tracker data shows MPs consistently underestimate it) has been a barrier to the approval and roll out of developments, with restrictive planning rules making it very difficult to approve applications and developments.
What’s driving misperceptions around climate and energy opinions?
This thread brings together our own Climate Barometer tracker data – comparing public and MPs’ judgments about public opinion on different topics and issues – with wider research and insights that help make sense of perception gaps.
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.
The Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) have published a survey showing MPs overestimate public opposition to onshore wind power. They report:
Just 8% of Members of Parliament know that onshore wind farms are now the cheapest way to add electricity generating capacity in the UK. For comparison, 12% believe that large nuclear power stations, like Hinkley Point C, provide the cheapest new capacity.
The poll also shows that MPs consistently overestimate opposition to onshore wind. The most recent Government survey shows that just 2% of the population strongly opposes the technology – but only 9% of MPs think that the figure is less than 5%. Over half of MPs (52%) believe the level of strong opposition to be above 20%.