The general public does not associate green policies with fuelling the cost of living crisis, research by thinktank Onward has found.
The thinktank’s report Hotting Up follows last week’s speech by Rishi Sunak in which the prime minister watered down a number key government climate change commitments in order to ease cost of living pressures on households.
However, polling carried out for the report indicates that the public does not link the two.
The polling shows that there is strong support (56%) for meeting the headline 2050 net zero emission target.
This includes 2019 general election Conservative voters with half supporting the policy far outweighing the one in 10 who oppose it.
Out of 11 reasons offered for the recent increase in the cost of living, the UK trying to become more environmentally friendly was voted in last place.
Just 14% of those polled chose this reason, ten percentage points behind the next option, increased taxes at 24%.
Even amongst 2019 Conservative voters, environmental policies were rated joint-ninth with increased taxes at 21% each.
Net zero was also ranked last when the public was asked to list factors behind high taxes.
More than half (53%) of voters aged under 44 said that scrapping the 2050 net zero target would make them less likely to vote for the political party that did it, compared to 44% of those 45 and over.
Conservative voters felt that a political party, which got rid of net zero target would be both “stupid” instead of “sensible” and “short” rather than “long sighted” by the same 10% margin.
Half of Conservative voters also felt that dropping the net zero target would be “embarrassing” compared to 21% that did not. Among the general public, 57% felt it would be embarrassing, while 14% disagreed.
However, more than a quarter (27%) of 2019 Tory voters felt that ditching net zero would demonstrate the government is taking the current cost of living crisis seriously.
The report acknowledges that the primary public concern about net zero is the upfront costs of switching to green technologies and home insulation, which makes people “feel they will be forced to change before they are financially ready”.
Both the general public and 2019 Conservatives ranked the threat of climate change as the fifth most significant issue facing the UK.
Adam Hawksbee, deputy director of Onward, said: “There’s no political reward from pausing net zero, and the prime minister was right to reject those siren calls in his speech. But he needs to back up his approach with popular policies to help people insulate draughty homes, move to renewable energy and afford electric vehicles.”
Simon Clarke MP, former secretary of state for levelling up, said: “The public overwhelmingly supports net zero, and we Conservatives must lead efforts to tackle climate change.
“As Onward‘s research shows, voters want to see government action to build renewables, help people insulate homes and make electric vehicles more affordable. Delivering on these popular policies would show that our party is committed to tackling climate change, securing new clean industries, and protecting our planet for future generations.”
The Onward report has been published as the House of Commons energy security and net zero committee (ESNZ) has expressed concerns that Sunak has undermined the cross-party consensus on climate change and risks turning the issue into a “party political football”.
In a letter to Claire Coutinho, the recently appointed secretary of state for energy security, the committee’s chair Angus MacNeil MP has raised questions over the PM’s stance that back-pedalling on net zero measures will ease cost of living pressures on households.
He writes: “It would seem that costs are simply being delayed, possibly to a time when those costs will be higher. Indeed, part of the reason for pushing green industries in the UK and facilitating switching to net zero alternatives, at scale, is to reduce the costs to consumers.”
Responding to Sunak’s stated desire to see increased transparency around the drive to reach net zero, MacNeil’s letter highlights the PM’s decision to leave the announcement until Parliament had broken up for its conference recess.
“Should he have given his statement to the House, only 24 hours earlier, then he would have achieved his aim of bringing this kind of debate to Parliament rather than during a recess when Parliament would not be able to examine or analyse his proposals for almost three weeks,” he adds.
The ESNZ committee chair asks Coutinho whether the government has conducted any analysis of both the cost implications of delaying net zero policies and how the changed timescales will reduce the impacts upon individual households.