Changing tack

We know what we need to do to slow and ultimately stop climate change: reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Net zero is not some abstract concept dreamt up by commune-dwelling progressive activists; it is a plan that sequences the solutions needed to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. It is, was and will be the only answer.

We also largely know how to reduce emissions: electrify as much as possible, supply that electricity with clean generation, and adapt some behaviours. Yes, there are still technological and capability gaps, including aviation and certain industrial processes, but these, by and large, are the last mile.

Yet despite the relative clarity of these solutions, political commitment has waned, and the public no longer seem to be pushing for action. Politicians on the left view net zero as an albatross rather than an advantage, while those on the right see it as the root of all evil. Against this backdrop, climate advocates’ strategy has been to retreat, desperately trying to maintain consensus, or to talk about something else altogether in the hope we can smuggle in emissions reductions.

Climate change itself is trying its best to be noticed. The UK now has a wildfire season. Once again, it is the hottest month, summer and year on record, following one of the wettest winters on record with widespread flooding. Net zero is part of the answer to these impacts. Their proximity, however, must lead to a change of strategy, moving beyond a world of political consensus and high salience.

The public likes net zero

Contrary to popular reports, support for net zero is far from dead: polling shows +33 per cent net approval. For context, Nigel Farage’s net approval is -46 per cent. Despite rising cost of living pressures and an increasingly insecure world, that support has remained relatively consistent. The public likes net zero for a variety of reasons. British people like our natural environment, are proud of it, and want to conserve it. They believe that this green and pleasant land should be preserved for future generations. People across the political spectrum also recognise the threat of climate impacts and favour renewables over fossil fuels.

It was this support that allowed the Conservative party to make significant progress, both domestically and internationally, on net zero. In fact, it was the Conservatives who enshrined net zero in law, increased its ambition, hosted a major international climate conference, rapidly lowered the cost of renewables and supported EVs and heat pumps with state funding. However, since the heydays of Cameron, Johnson and May, there have been three significant shifts in climate opinion.

Salience

Low salience is a killer for progress. At ‘peak Boris’, climate was consistently ranked as one of the top issues in the country. Now it tends to be seventh at best. Politicians no longer have to prioritise climate outcomes and they pay little political penalty for backtracking. Take the zero-emissions vehicle mandate, a rule which obliges UK vehicle manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of EVs. The automakers dislike it because it requires them to invest in modern technology rather than rely on increasingly uncompetitive old business models. In a world where the public was monitoring climate progress and marking government accordingly, political pressure would outweigh sectoral special pleading. But as public attention has faded, automakers have found it easier to frame their objections around cost or jobs. Worse still, it has become easier to blame complex problems – like the UK’s lack of industrial competitiveness – on a low-salience scapegoat like net zero.

We all hold a share of the blame for falling salience by failing to talk about climate change. Too often, advocates still communicate as though climate is top-of-mind for voters and we can ignore first order justifications in favour of associated benefits. Policies that reduce emissions are framed as good for jobs, growth or bills, out of a belief that people need to benefit materially to support action. We don’t try to argue for more NHS funding on the basis that it is good for growth because we understand that people care about health in its own right. Yet we continue to approach reducing emissions as though it can only be justified by its side products.

By focusing on co-benefits, we struggle to demonstrate progress. High bills and low growth are driven by myriad reasons beyond climate policies. Climate action alone cannot solve them and we should not pretend otherwise. It can certainly help, but every time we talk about jobs – a message that Public First, Steve Akehurst, Potential Energy and many others have shown the public has never cared about – we miss the opportunity to talk about climate change itself: the issue we are experiencing here and now.

Opponents are using low salience to undermine support

Lower salience means the public are more likely to follow cues from elites rather than investing time in making up their own mind. People are not flocking to Reform because of its net zero policies; they look to Reform because of immigration. Once aligned with the party, they end up adopting its views on net zero.

When a government is unpopular, and voters start to leave it – as Starmer’s was and voters did – its policies can become unpopular by association. In the abstract, renewable deployment is incredibly popular – it is seen as cheap, environmentally friendly and good for energy security. But it became less popular as Reform and the Conservatives framed it as Keir Starmer’s renewable deployment. This is one of the reasons that support for net zero on the right is trending down, quickly.

In response, many think we should stop saying net zero altogether. But the challenge is that our political opponents will not do the same; we will simply cede the term to those who only use it in a negative context. Net zero – which will always be the most important response to climate change – will become even more politically treacherous.

A new strategy

We need a change of tack to reflect a changed world. We need to increase salience so that the public are once again holding political parties accountable on their climate policy, using that pressure to drag the political conversation back towards action rather than hiding it or questioning it. Parties will only move when their policies are visibly harming their vote share.

Our changing climate also poses a time horizon challenge: the actions we take now will only pay off in the future. This is precisely why many argue that voters need to see tangible benefits from climate policy to maintain their support. Yet climate impacts are here and now, and while we may worry that focusing on adaptation will weaken support for mitigation, our research has shown the opposite is true. Just 4 per cent of the public think we should forget mitigation in favour of adaptation. The majority think, rightly, that we need both.

The government is not a passive recipient of public opinion. It has a megaphone. Talking about climate impacts, and potential solutions, increases the salience of net zero. Study after study shows that when elites acknowledge the role of climate in extreme weather support for climate policy increases. Yet how many times has government pointed to extreme heat and wildfires as justification for their clean power mission?

Protecting people now gives our long-term net zero plans legitimacy. Take air con as an example. It has long made environmentalists uneasy due to the energy it consumes, but making people safer and comfortable now demonstrates a direct dividend of new clean energy. It becomes a self-reinforcing justification for climate action.

This new approach would shift the political debate, painting opponents as a threat to people’s safety and security. Instead of being accused of pursuing lofty future goals at the expense of today’s challenges, we would turn the argument on its head, showing that our opponents have no answers to fire, drought, heat, flood or storm.

Conclusion

In a world of elite fragmentation and falling salience, we cannot continue with the same strategy. Despite having the technology we need to reduce emissions, we are struggling with outdated political technology. Politicians and advocates need to spend more time talking about the reality of climate change, its growing visibility, and the policies that help protect people from now. Only then will we have the political capital to tackle the problem over the long term by reducing emissions.

Image credit: Tom Fisk via Pexels