Politicians are retreating from net zero because they think the public doesn’t care. But they’re wrong | Rebecca Willis
THere is Grand-Chose which currently unites our fracture from the House of Commons. But on a question, the politicians of all the parties seem to agree: the general British public does not really want ambitious action to achieve zero net goals. They can agree on this – but they are wrong.
To the right of the spectrum, opposition politicians sounded a quick retirement from the Net Zero target. In doing so, they break with a strong conservative tradition – Theresa May signed the target in 2019, with inter -party support. The elections of the Council this spring have seen victories for Reform UK, which opposes most zero net policies and plead for an economy based on fossil fuels. Meanwhile, the Labor government is zero zero as one of its five missions, but it also seems reluctant to plead positive for action to fight against the climate crisis. He worries, there will not be enough support for policies such as the replacement of gas boilers or the management of the flight demand, and he was still intimidated by unnecessary votes from former Prime Minister Tony Blair.
In a democracy, politicians should aim to represent people’s opinions. Of course, the climate threat is urgent and the United Kingdom has international commitments to meet. But given our fragile economy, is there an argument that a slower rate of change is justified for the moment, if this is what people want?
It seems plausible for some, but there is a catch: this is not really what people want at all. Our research with politicians and citizens show that politicians constantly underestimate public support for climate action. Over the past decade, my colleagues and I have followed the understanding of politicians thanks to detailed interviews with deputies. We have found that politicians on all sides are hesitant to defend ambitious measures because they think that the public will not support them. However, this is not confirmed by opinion polls and social research, which show constantly high levels of concern concerning the climate crisis and support for action.
There is a fundamental disconnection between what politicians believe that the country thinks, and what evidence shows is reality on the ground. The survey by the climatic barometer points to a “perception gap”, half of the deputies underestimating the levels of public support for the zero net target. And while 72% of people say they would support lots of onshore winds built in their region, with 17% opposite, deputies assume the opposite. They estimate public support at only 19% and the opposition at 39%.
Why are politicians if they are? The answer lies in who they hear. Think of public opinion on the climate and some caricatures are likely to jump into your head. The demonstrators and climate activists, some have so much committed that they are ready to risk a prison sentence. And at the other end of the spectrum, an equally noisy minority that calls into question climate science, or expresses a deep skepticism about solutions, whether ragic, heat pumps or electric vehicles. These opinions are amplified by certain societies which believe that they could lose from the net zero transition, and the voices of the media attract controversy. These voices can be noisy, but they are not representative of the population. However, they have a disproportionate socket on political imagination. Imagine if, in the conception of education policy, we have just heard those who have had trouble at school and who did not leave without qualifications, alongside people with third cycle diplomas. Hearing these two groups is important, but they are not representative. For most people, education is a backdrop of their lives, not a decisive feature.
This is why, in our research on the climate crisis, we adopt a different approach. We want to hear everyone. We summon the panels of citizens, whose members represent the population as a whole, in terms of factors such as age, sex, income and education, as well as political attitudes and levels of concern concerning the climate crisis. When we come together for the first time, our participants often tell us that they were surprised that they were selected, because they have no firm views or expertise to offer. We tell them that that’s exactly why we want to hear them.
As a general rule, our participants tell us that they are worried about the climate emergency, but it is not in mind for them, given the concerns of daily life, such as bringing children to school, working pressures or femblling a tight income. They want to contribute, but they believe that what they can do for themselves is limited. As a result, they have clear ideas about what they want from the government. They are not satisfied with the way things are right now. They do not hear enough leaders, and the less they hear, the less they are convinced that the plans are credible and they lose confidence. They want politicians to open the way, explaining what is necessary and develop policies that facilitate and cheaper to do the right thing.
Of course, not everyone thinks. Some want to go further and faster, and others will remain firmly opposed. But for most people, there is a way to pass, if you listen.
Increasingly, politicians and political decision -makers understand the importance of this listening. More than 30 areas have now held citizens’ assemblies to contribute to local climate strategies. The climate change committee, which I advise, summoned a panel of citizens to discover how people wanted to shape policies in fields such as food choices, transport options and domestic heating, with its most recent projections incorporating the results of the panel alongside the usual number of crisis and economic analysis.
All this indicates a path to politicians on the left and right. Although different governments will have different priorities, the basic formula is clear. Tell people that you share their concerns about the urgency of the climate and that you want to facilitate the game to be part of the solution. Do not assume that high concerns will result in supporting specific policies. Direct with initiatives that improve people’s lives, such as better public transport, financial support for heat pumps and insulation, and encourage investments in clean industries in the fields where jobs are necessary. Make sure people get their say in decisions and local populations benefit from projects such as wind seeds or grid upgrades. At the national level, a panel of permanent citizens could advise Parliament or the government on a continuous basis, so that people’s priorities are reflected in politics.
It is far from inevitable that climatic problems are caused by polarized policy. This is not what people want. But unless politicians keep supposing and starting to listen to, this is what can happen.
