Climate policies: The swing group that decides over their fate

The climate measures currently in place are unlikely to meet Paris Climate Agreement targets. Whether further political measures can move closer to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees and combating climate change depends heavily on public opinion and political support. Researchers from the EU Capable project conducted a large-scale survey in 13 EU countries to find out which measures are more and less politically acceptable, and why. 

The study aimed not only to gauge the opinions and attitudes of the population, but also to accurately capture the fundamental stance of participants towards climate policy. This resulted in four profiles: supporters, neutrals, opponents, and a crucial block, which this study calls the “conditional middle”. Amongst those surveyed, 36 percent are supporters, in favour of most climate proposals, and 21 are opposers, largely against climate proposals. People with neutral opinions to climate proposal make up the remaining 10 percent of respondents.

A large group - 33 percent - formed the conditional middle. People in this group are much more flexible, form their opinion based on the individual climate policy itself, and do not have a predetermined disposition for or against it. Accordingly, the study therefore focuses on this critical swing group to understand what shapes their climate policy preferences, and what this means for voting behaviour

The most decisive factors in determining whether the conditional middle group will support a policy is their personal cost-benefit calculations. Across Europe, people prefer policies that make it easier for people and businesses to make pro-climate changes, like government support and subsidies, over those that have more visible financial impacts such as consumer-facing taxes, or behavioural restrictions. This is particularly the case for the conditional middle, where the expected costs and benefits are at the forefront of what drives their policy preferences, overriding commonly discussed factors such as party affiliation, climate attitudes, and socio-demographic factors such as income, place of residence or level of education.

People are enthusiastic about policies that support making pro-climate adjustments, rather than complete bans. For example, a proposed general ban on cars with combustion engines was rejected by 73 percent of the conditional middle. However, if the proposal is worded in such a way that replacement with synthetic fuels is possible, the rejection rate drops to only 39 percent. Keith Smith, one of the study’s lead authors, says that elasticity amongst this group is very notable and highlights how crucial the proposal specifics can be in determining its acceptance by the public.

Climate funds: People want visible benefits

The study also shows that the population would prefer to see revenue generated from climate funds, such as the EU Emissions Trading System, invested in adaptation projects, like investments in green technologies or low-emission transport services, and compensation measures for individual households.

Surprisingly, compensation payments for workers at risk from climate change are considered less important. This is particularly noticeable among the conditional middle group, which prefers to invest the funds in visible and public services.

Reason for hope

The authors further investigated the potential impact of small, and plausible, shifts within the conditional middle group. If the share of the conditional middle that were “unsure” about a policy shifted toward “support”, the number of proposals with majority backing could rise substantially — from 4 out of 15 to 10 out of 15. For Smith, these findings illustrate the influence of the conditional middle group on the feasibility of climate proposals across Europe. "If even a smaller portion of this group can be won over, we can find majorities for a range of concreate climate policies in Europe," says Smith.