Public attitudes towards the environment are complex and often contradictory. We know there is broad acceptance that climate change is man-made. We know that concern about the environment has grown significantly in the last three years. We know parents worry about the impact of climate change on their children. It is almost certain that green issues will play a more central role in the next general election campaign than ever before.
Yet levels of environmental concern are lower now than in the late 1980s. When the public are asked which issue is the most important facing the country, the environment routinely comes a poor seventh, lagging behind immigration, the NHS, crime, defence, education and housing. And though the vast majority of us say we are willing, in principle, to make green lifestyle changes, only relatively small minorities agree with specific policies like road pricing or paying more to insulate our homes.
Any sensible reading of both recent and historical poll data leads to two firm conclusions. First, the next general election will not be won and lost on environment policy. Few swing voters in marginal constituencies decide how to vote by comparing parties’ green manifestos. Second, policies involving increased green taxes are more likely to lose votes than to win them. People support policies that tax the perceived abuses of others (the SUV drivers of Richmond-on-Thames, for instance), but not their own.
In many Labour circles there is a feeling that the green agenda has been surrendered to the huskies and hybrid-Lexus-driving onslaught of David Cameron. Recent polls do not support this view. When asked who has the best policies on the environment, Gordon Brown enjoys a small lead over David Cameron. In a recent ICM/Guardian poll more people (41 per cent) thought Labour would put more effort into fighting climate change than the Conservatives (31 per cent). The prime minister’s response to the summer floods was effective and sure-footed; the leader of the opposition’s was a disaster all of its own.
There is no doubt that the Conservatives have cut Labour’s lead on green issues and there is no room for government complacency. However, we must remember that the green agenda plays a different role in the positioning of the two parties. Historically, the public expect Labour (and the Liberal Democrats) to care about the environment, but they need convincing that the ‘nasty party’ really gives a fig for the planet. Environmental policy is crucial to the Conservative strategy of occupying the centre ground. If Cameron stops talking about the environment, it will be interpreted as a lurch to the right. Labour simply does not have this problem.
Of course, even given this context, the green agenda matters and has to be addressed by Labour. To ensure public support and public action, future policy needs to be developed with three key issues in mind. First, recent flooding not withstanding, most people see climate change as a long-term issue. They assume that they will escape its worst effects for a long time to come. The case for acting now needs to be made more forcibly.
Second, people understand that climate change is a global problem requiring a global response. Many focus group respondents do grasp the importance of CO2 emission forecasts for China and India. This leads to scepticism about the effectiveness of UK-only policy, just as there is scepticism about whether an individual can have any impact on a big global issue. Therefore the case for individual and UK action needs to be made. If we can make a difference as individuals and as a country, people need to be told how and by how much. Effective policy must be communicated by explaining the global (or very local) context.
Finally, there is the issue of fairness. People often ask why they should change their lifestyles when others refuse to change. The public can see that government, consumers and business all have an obligation to act. However, they feel that the majority of action should be down to the government initially. They want the government to take the lead to ensure fairness and an equitable distribution of lifestyle change and disruption.