Why some climate policies are more popular than others – a psychologist explains

Wouter Poortinga, Professor of Environmental Psychology, Cardiff University

Despite growing concern about climate change, many countries have seen backlashes against certain environmental policies, often because they are seen as costly, restrictive or unfair.

In France, an attempt to introduce a fuel tax was shelved after the yellow vests protests. In Germany, a proposed gas boiler ban was watered down after fierce resistance.

And in the UK, low-traffic neighbourhoods have sparked strong opposition in some areas. Even non-existent measures, such as a proposed meat tax, triggered online outrage.

These reactions may give the impression people do not really want bold action on climate change. But that is not quite true. Research by the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformation and marketing research company Ipsos has found widespread support for many climate policies, including ambitious measures such as a frequent flyer levy.

Vocal opposition

Vocal opposition can distort perceptions: it gives the impression that they some policies are less popular than they actually are. This, in turn, can make politicians reluctant to act.

Recent polling by the insights platform Climate Barometer highlights that, while a great majority (73%) of people support local renewable energy projects, MPs think only 16% of their constituents do.

However, not all climate policies are popular with the general public and how measures are designed really matters.

In a UK-wide study, my team and I asked more than 2,000 people what they thought about 12 different climate policies that focused on diet, home energy and transport. These included “push” measures such as taxes and bans that aim to discourage carbon-intensive behaviour, and “pull” measures such as subsidies and support that encourage lower-carbon alternatives.

We found that most people strongly favour pull measures, such as subsidies for low-carbon heating or building EV charging infrastructure. Push measures, particularly those affecting diet, were far less popular.

For example, while nearly 80% supported low-carbon heating in new builds, only 21% backed restrictions on meat and dairy in catering facilities. But support is not just about the topic or the tool, but also about how policies are perceived.

Fair and effective

Our research found a clear pattern: policies that are seen as fair and effective get more support. People want to know that a policy will actually reduce emissions. They also care deeply about how its benefits and costs are shared. Taxes and restrictions often fail both these tests: they are seen as neither effective nor as fair.

We also investigated how much people think others support or oppose a policy. We found that people consistently underestimate how much others support climate action. This phenomenon is known as “pluralistic ignorance”. On average, respondents underestimated support by 18%, and overestimated opposition by 16%. This creates a kind of shared illusion that climate policies are less popular than they actually are.

Perception is pivotal

That matters. When people think they are in the minority, they are less likely to speak up or challenge misinformation. Policymakers then may pick up on this silence and think that the public does not care.

But here is the twist: the perception gap was smaller for the less liked push policies, meaning that people are more accurate about minority support for less popular options such as taxes than about majority support for more popular measures such as subsidies.

So climate policy success depends not just on what the policy does, but also on how it is perceived. If a measure is seen as unfair or ineffective, support collapses. And if people think others don’t like a policy, they may stop speaking up.

To create successful climate policies, policymakers need to communicate clearly and credibly about public support for climate measures. People who support these measures need to know they are not alone. However, this may only work for more popular policies and is unlikely to be enough for tougher, less liked measures. Yet such measures are likely to be needed to have a realistic chance of reaching ambitious climate targets.

Simply hoping they will be accepted by the public probably won’t do the trick. These policies need to be designed with fairness in mind: people back policies they see as just, especially if they account for different abilities to pay or access alternatives.

Climate action does not just need good policy, it also needs good psychology. Understanding and addressing how people perceive climate measures is essential to avoid backlash and build lasting public consent.

This article was first published on The Conversation