The failure of Copenhagen and the climate science scandal offer an opportunity to advance new approaches for action on climate change says the author as he discusses some of the new approaches.
While we have been trying to avoid catastrophic climate change, have we walked straight into catastrophic climate change politics?
First there was the failure of the international negotiations in Copenhagen. Not even the attendance of over 100 World leaders was able to deliver a binding international agreement to reduce emissions, let alone a fair and ambitious one.
In addition there have been the revelations of potentially disingenuous behaviour by climate scientists at UEA and the identification of a glaring error in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent assessment on the science of climate change. While these events in no way undermine the scientific basis for man-made climate change, they have had a detrimental impact on public belief in the scientific basis. According to one recent poll In the UK there has been an increase of 10% in the people who think climate change isn’t taking place, and of those that do think climate change is taking place a 15% decrease in those that believe it is largely man made.
In the absence of an international deal on emissions reductions, and with little to no prospect of one on the horizon, it is critical that decisive action is taken by national governments. The recent rise in climate scepticism is likely to make this task harder for governments – although possibly not as much as it might at first seem.
Traditionally it has been presumed that if people understand the scientific nature and scale of climate change they will recognise the urgent need for action, adopt lower carbon behaviours and support the Government to introduce ambitious policies. However, in practise this just hasn’t been the case. While a majority of the UK public has consistently accepted that climate change is man-made, a consistent majority has also been opposed to specific climate change policies, such as taxes on fuel or air travel. Arguably it is not climate change scepticism that is the problem; rather it is the lack of support for bold climate change policies.
Climate change, as a long-term mostly invisible issue, the worst and most immediate effects of which will occur elsewhere, is simply not that motivating for most people. Since the 1990s, tracking polls have consistently shown that the proportion of the UK public that sees the environment as the most important issue facing Britain is within the 5 – 10 per cent range, with a brief spike at the time of the Stern Review. This level falls far below that for most other issues, such as health, education, crime and the economy.
We must get better at winning public support for climate change policies, which ultimately we are going to be asking the public to pay for. One way of doing this is to reframe policies in ways which resonate more with people.
ippr recently investigated how this might work. We conducted a poll of voters in swing constituencies and found general support for an expansion of renewable energy but more when it was framed as an energy security policy (over 50% supported) than as a climate change (42%) or economic development (38%) policy. For our respondents having a secure energy supply, in particular one that was insulated from the whims of volatile foreign countries, was a stronger motivator than combating climate change.
All of the political parties are beginning to grasp the benefits of this approach, although the case with the Conservative Party is perhaps the most interesting.
When David Cameron became leader he went to great lengths to portray the party as being distinctly ‘green’, including making strong personal commitments to advancing action on the environment. Recently it has emerged that Cameron’s commitment is not shared by many Conservative MPs. A recent poll found that Conservative MPs ranked reducing Britain’s carbon footprint as bottom in a list of 19 potential policy priorities. Another found that of the main political parties the Conservatives had the highest number of MPs who were sceptical about the science . In recent times the Conservative framing of climate change policy has moved away from an environmental focus and very strongly towards energy security and economic development opportunities. It appears the Conservative leadership has adopted a framing of climate change policy that is more likely to galvanise support from across their party’s MPs.
There is often very little to choose between the parties in terms of their climate change policies. It is only really in the policy detail and in their capacity to deliver on their promises that the main differences can be found. The Committee on Climate Change’s first annual report to Parliament stated that a ‘step change’ is needed in the UK’s efforts to reduce emissions if we are to reach our first national emissions reduction target, as specified by the Climate Change Act. Whatever the outcome of the election we are going to need the Government to not only adopt ambitious policies but also communicate these policies effectively to the public.
The failure of Copenhagen and the climate science scandal have put the climate change policy world on the back foot. Now is a good time to reflect on what has been working, and what hasn’t, so that we can build a far broader base of support for action as we seek to build momentum again. To do that reframing climate change policies in ways that resonate with people will be essential.