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
Since the earliest investigations into public opinion on climate change, it’s been clear that the public expect and want the government to take the lead on climate change.
Famously, the UK’s Climate Change Act was world-leading when it was first passed – and in 2019, the central target was upgraded from an 80% cut in emissions to net-zero emissions by 2050.
But although claims of political leadership have persisted – including around the UK’s hosting of the annual UN climate conference in Glasgow in 2021 – periodic assessments by the Climate Change Committee have in recent years highlighted a slowing of progress, and explicitly called for the UK to ‘regain its international political leadership’.
Set against historically low trust in politicians and widespread disengagement from the political system, people nonetheless consistently say that the government should be doing and spending more on climate change.
This thread brings together relevant opinion data around political leadership (from the public and MPs through our Climate Barometer tracker), set against key policy developments that help make sense of if, how and why opinion is changing.
Voters in all of More in Common’s Britain’s Choice segments (including the more socially conservative segments) are more likely to say the Government is doing too little, rather than not enough, according to polling by in August 2023.
Whilst delays to some near-term net zero policies are being considered by the government following the unexpected ‘hold’ by the Conservatives in the Uxbridge by-election in July (where opposition to the expansion of the ULEZ scheme was assumed to have played a role), this data from More in Common underscores the limited political capital to be made from rowing back on net zero.
In response to the government announcing changes to Net Zero policies (around the phasing out of petrol and diesel cars, and gas boilers), a survey asked people to select the words they would use to describe the government pushing back or scrapping key climate policies.
The most commonly selected word was “untrustworthy” (40%) – followed by “sensible” (29%) and chaotic (25%). Respondents said they’d describe Rishi Sunak as “reckless” (33%), “backwards” (31%), and “sensible (29%) if he were to push back these policies.
Whilst these findings suggest there’s no straightforward political capital in watering down Net Zero goals, the percentage of people selecting ‘sensible’ to both questions is also important. For some members of the public – concentrated among Conservative voters – there’s a sense of pragmatism in delaying Net Zero targets.
Wider research suggests, though, that the reason for this is important to take into account. Voters are not sceptical of green policies, but people don’t believe the government has a credible plan, that the infrastructure is ready, or that changes are currently being made affordable enough to undertake.
These are all issues that a bolder, fairer offer to voters on Net Zero could address.
Based on a set of interviews with 15 MPs, and a focus group with civil society representatives, new research – based on the findings of a collaboration between the Climate Citizens research group at Lancaster University, The Climate Coalition and the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations, and supported by Green Alliance – shows how the climate opinions of MPs have changed since 2018 when a previous round of research was carried out. The report states that:
MPs are now much more concerned about climate; for them, it’s become a mainstream issue, but they have specific concerns that were not so evident before, particularly around how to manage the complex process of change.
All the MPs interviewed stressed the importance of protecting people from potential negative impacts, such as higher costs or job losses in high carbon industries. They also fear a political backlash if climate action is seen as unfair.
The report shows how the political agenda has shifted over five years, from the need to ‘do something’ to the pace of change.
The mainstreaming of climate change in the political discourse over the past five years is important to recognise. But significant challenges remain in closing the gap between the political and the social mandate, with Climate Barometer tracker data showing that MPs continue to underestimate the salience of the environment among voters, to misjudge support for onshore wind, and to underestimate support for Net Zero (which outweighs opposition across society).
ACT Climate Labs have released a guide to rebutting the argument that there’s ‘no point’ in the UK reducing its emissions, when countries like China or India account for a higher proportion of global CO2.
Although this argument is prevalent among opponents of climate action, encouragingly Climate Barometer tracker data shows that only a minority of the public and MPs endorse it. Much larger numbers agree that the UK should be one of the most ambitious countries in the world on climate change regardless of what other countries are doing.
In its June 2023 progress report to parliament, the Climate Change Committee outlined how the UK government could regain a sense of leadership on climate change:
Stay firm on existing commitments and move to delivery. The Government has made a number of strong commitments, these must be restated and moved as swiftly as possible towards delivery.
Retake a clear leadership role internationally. The UK will need to regain its international climate leadership
Empower and inform households and communities to make low-carbon choices. Despite some positive steps to provide households with advice on reducing energy use in the last year, a coherent public engagement strategy on climate action is long overdue.
The Labour Climate & Environment Forum tested video clips of senior Labour figures, including Kier Starmer, talking about climate change. In findings that suggest there is space/an opportunity for a much clearer and bolder offer to voters on climate change, the authors report that:
Of people who saw Keir Starmer talking about climate, 53% said they intended to vote Labour compared to 47% who saw Starmer talking about a different issue and 45% who saw no video at all. Those who saw Starmer talking on climate were more likely to think that Labour is the best party on the economy by an increase in five and twelve percentage points compared with the no-climate video and no video respectively.
Polling by Omnisis around the time of COP27 in Egypt found that 53% of people in the UK did not think the event would do anything to speed up international action on climate change. Only 29% felt that it would speed up action.
In the wake of uncertainty about whether new Prime Minister Rishi Sunak would attend in person, discussion in the Conservative leadership election of rowing back on net zero commitments, and perhaps reflecting the dominance of protest coverage at COP26 (which challenged the legitimacy of COP negotiations), cynicism about the value of UN conferences seems to have increased from the relatively optimistic perspectives captured during COP26 in Glasgow.
According to polling by Omnisis, less than a quarter of the UK public (24%) think Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is showing leadership on climate change, in the context of hesitation around attendance at COP27.
This stands in contrast with the desire held by most Britons for the UK to show climate leadership and be one of the most ambitious countries in the world on climate change.
The same survey found broad support for the government funding climate action in less wealthy nations overseas.
When asked “Does the UK have a responsibility to fund climate action in poorer nations now suffering from climate-related extreme weather disasters?”, 49% said yes, while 31% said no. 29% say they did not know.
This aligns with data from our Climate Barometer tracker, which shows high levels of support for wealthy nations providing compensation to poorer countries for damages caused by the climate crisis.
Media analysis by Climate Outreach suggests that international negotiations are key events not only for policy, but in shaping public attitudes on climate:
“The annual UN conference provides a yearly focus point for climate media stories, events and activists. While the focus is on policy making, this can have a significant associated impact on how citizens view and understand the issues being discussed. For example the perceived failure of COP15 in Copenhagen is associated with a significant downturn in public climate concern. Understanding the interplay between different elements within the plethora of coverage is crucial for public engagement.
Our analysis indicates that publics in general were engaged by COP26 and the majority felt more optimistic about chances of dealing with the climate change challenge by the end. Yet it is noticeable that there were marked differences in the dominant narratives between traditional media and those most loudly heard on social media and at cultural events. Does this matter? One possibility is that it doesn’t – and that as the climate conversation grows, it’s natural and right that differences of opinion will remain. But from a communications perspective, mixed messaging may impact on how people understand and relate to climate change – which could undermine effectiveness.”
In analysis by Kantar, coverage of protests at COP26 was found to have outstripped coverage of the conference itself (in traditional media).
On social media, Geta Thunberg was one of the biggest presences on Twitter, driving engagement with traditional coverage of COP26 protests.
What the public ‘sees’ at climate conferences can shape wider climate beliefs – and although there was small but significant increase in public optimism during the course of COP26, the dominance of protests in traditional and social media is likely to have conveyed an overall impression of the conference as a ‘problem’ (to be protested against) rather than part of the solution.
Research by Climate Outreach with Loyal Nationals around COP26 pointed to scepticism about whether global leaders could genuinely be trusted to cooperate. Patriotic Loyal Nationals have a high level of concern about climate change, but are distrustful of government, big business and major ‘multilateral’ political meetings like COPs.
Climate Outreach report that Loyal Nationals are cynical about whether UK leadership is achievable at COP26, and are sceptical that leaders can genuinely cooperate and represent their people, concluding that:
Engagement needs to counter the fact that many people do not understand what COP is about, and when they do they are often sceptical about what it could achieve, or believe it should be conducted online rather than in person.
Polling by Global Scan, which carried out surveys in 31 countries ahead of COP26, found that:
Research by the Development Engagement Lab found that around the time of COP26, held in Glasgow:
A report and guide produced by Climate Outreach ahead of COP26 presents a set of insights for engaging the public around international negotiations. Drawing on analysis with two key audience groups (Loyal Nationals and Civic Pragmatists, two of More in Common’s ‘British Seven’), the report notes that:
“Messaging that speaks to the need to protect nature, and that frames climate change as a shared global crisis and a shared global responsibility, is likely to resonate.
Language around the benefits from green investments and jobs is effective, but not when it seems to undermine the idea of global cooperation.
Engagement needs to counter the fact that many people do not understand what COP is about, and when they do they are often sceptical about what it could achieve, or believe it should be
conducted online rather than in person.Communications should be confident in framing climate change as a shared global crisis and a shared global responsibility. There is no need to overly explain the global context or cater to a misplaced sense of isolationism.”
In new research written up in a commentary for The Conversation, the risk of political leaders’ high carbon lifestyles could undermine the credibility of the messages they convey on climate change. Whilst the research focuses specifically on political leaders, the same arguments apply to a wide range of individuals and organisations who deliver climate messages (including the climate movement itself).
“The public fully understand political leaders have tight schedules and their activities inevitably involve plenty of high-carbon activities such as air travel.
But people are also very sensitive to the details of each specific situation and alert to signals and behavioural cues from leaders. Context is crucial.
If our leaders are not perceived as fully committed, will they be able to take the public with them as the need for behaviour change becomes more and more pressing?”