Download Climate of Opinion

Climate
of
Opinion
2
• Background
• Methodology and data
• Climate change and voters in marginal
constituencies
• Framing climate policies
• Appendix on weighting
3
Background
• Climate change not a
priority issue for voters
• Firm opposition (60%+)
to higher environmental
taxes
• Hostile right-wing press
• Fear that strong climate
policies may be a vote
loser, especially for
swing voters
• How to best build
political space?
Background
• Environmentalist frame not effective for climate
change – aspiration and innovation frame instead
(Shellenberger and Nordhaus)
• Political and economic ‘convergence’ (Giddens) as a
route to political space
• Obama: ‘energy independence’, ‘clean energy
economy’
• In UK, all political parties experimenting with similar
concepts
• But lack of evidence on what will work in British
political context
5
• Background
• Methodology and data
• Climate change and voters in marginal
constituencies
• Framing climate policies
• Appendix on weighting
6
Methodology
• Survey testing views and frames, focused on
marginal constituencies, distinguishing swing
voters
• Draft questionnaire pre-tested through indepth interviews
• On-line survey of 3,032 people (from YouGov
panel) in 157 marginals.
• Fieldwork 16-18 September 2009 (preConference season)
7
Data weighting
• Weighted demographically to be
representative of the UK in terms of age,
gender and social class
• Past-vote weighted based on the type of
marginal constituency they reside-in (see
appendix)
• Turnout weighted to reflect their self-reported
likelihood of voting (see appendix)
• After weighting for turnout likelihood, the total
number of respondents falls to 2,291
Defining marginals
Con
7% or less
(102 seats)
5% or less
(19 seats)
7% or less
(29 seats)
Lib Dem
Lab
5% or less
(7 seats)
Defining swing voters
• Swing voters (weighted n = 1,165) defined as those
who:
– Chose a party in when asked which party they would vote for
if there were a general election tomorrow
OR
– Chose a party when asked a follow up question about which
party they would be most inclined to support
AND
– Who said there was a “Slight Chance” “Fair Chance” or
“Good Chance” of voting for one or both of the other two
main parties
10
• Background
• Methodology and data
• Climate change and voters in
marginal constituencies
• Framing climate policies
• Appendix on weighting
Only a small minority consider climate change/global
warming as the single most important issue
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
m
ca
re
Im
an
d
Pe
ns
io
ns
U
ne
m
pl
oy
m
en
t
an
d
th
e
ec
on
om
y
ig
ra
fo
C
tio
rt
rim
h
n
e
e
an
el
de
d
G
rly
an
lo
ba
tiTh
so
lw
e
ci
ar
N
a
m
H
l
be
S
in
g/
ha
Cl
En
vi
im
ou
er
at
gy
r
e
ch
an
an
d
pe
ge
tr
ol
co
st
s
Ed
uc
Fo
at
io
re
Tr
n
ig
an
n
sp
po
or
lic
ta
y
nd
tr
af
fic
C
hi
ld
ca
re
All
And which ONE of the following issues do you think will be the single most important to you in deciding who to vote for? Base – All (2,291)
11
Climate change is amongst the top 3-4
issues for 17%
% all
an
d
e
rim
C
U
ne
m
pl
oy
m
en
t
an
d
th
e
ec
on
om
an
y
tiTh
so
e
Pe
ci
N
al
ns
H
be
S
io
ns
ha
vi
an
ou
d
Im
r
ca
m
re
ig
En
ra
fo
tio
rt
er
n
gy
he
el
an
de
d
G
rly
pe
lo
ba
tr
ol
lw
co
ar
st
m
s
in
Ed
g/
uc
Cl
at
im
io
at
n
e
ch
Fo
an
re
ge
Tr
ig
an
n
sp
po
or
lic
ta
y
nd
tr
af
fic
C
hi
ld
ca
re
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Thinking about the next general election, which three or four of the following issues do you think will be most important to you in deciding
who to vote for? Base – All (2,291)
12
13
Top 3-4 issues for deciding how to vote
• Who chooses climate change/global warming
more?
– 18-34 year olds (26%)
– Lib Dems leaning (24%) and ‘Other’ leaning (27%)
• Who chooses climate change/global warming
less?
– 55+ year olds (11%)
– Cons leaning (11%)
A majority accept the existence of
man-made climate change
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
Climate change exists - the world
is getting warmer
Climate change is a result of
human activity
We can't be sure that climate
change is a result of human
activity
-60%
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (Base – All 2,291 for first, split samples
of c.800 for second and third)
A majority disagree that there’s nothing
they can do about climate change
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
40%
20%
0%
-20%
There is not a lot I can do about climate change
-40%
-60%
-80%
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (Base – All 2,291)
More people see the challenge as global
rather than national
Tend to agree
Tend to disagree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
Climate change is the biggest challenge the planet
faces
Climate changes is the biggest challenge Britain
faces
-40%
-60%
-80%
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (Base – All 2,291)
17
Views on man-made climate change
• Who is surer about man-made climate change, and
thinks it will have a bigger impact?
– Women
– Younger people
– ABC1s
– Lab and Lib Dems leaning
– Swing voters
• Who is less sure, and thinks it will have less impact?
– Men
– Older people
– C2DEs
– Cons and other leaning
Overall story on climate change and
voters in marginal constituencies
• Climate change is a big concern only for a small
minority (as in the country overall)…
• but figures more for younger LibDems/others
• A clear majority accept that man-made climate
change exists…
• but more see it as a global rather than a national
problem
• More convinced and concerned are: young, ABC1
women, Lab or Lib Dem leaning, and swing voters
• Less convinced and concerned are older C2DE men,
Cons leaning
19
• Background
• Methodology and data
• Climate change and voters in marginal
constitutencies
• Framing climate policies
– Expanding renewable energy
– Regulating for energy efficiency
– Finance for developing countries
• Appendix on weighting
Framing the renewables policy
•
•
•
We tested three different frames for the policy of
“getting 15% of our energy from renewable sources
like wind power and solar energy by 2015”:
– To help reduce our reliance on foreign oil and
gas we should …
– To help tackle climate change…
– To create new economic opportunities for
Britain…
We looked at the frames in two ways:
– How far people agreed with the policy
– Whether respondents would be more likely to
vote for a party that proposed that policy
We also looked at a series of arguments for and
against each proposition
The energy security frame was more powerful than either the climate
change or the economic opportunities frames – over 50% of
respondents say they agree strongly or very strongly with the policy
Disagree VERY strongly
Disagree Strongly
Agree VERY Strongly
Agree Strongly
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
For Oil - Renewables
-10
Base – split samples of c.750
Climate Change renewables
Economic Opps Renewables
For swing voters, the gap closes slightly between the climate
change and the energy security frames – but energy security
is still the clear winner
Disagree VERY strongly
Disagree Strongly
Agree VERY Strongly
Agree Strongly
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
For oil - All swing
-10
Climate change - All
swing
Economic Opps - All
swing
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Base – split
samples of c.300
Energy security is also the frame that has the biggest
impact in respondents’ likelihood of voting for a party
Less likely to vote for that
party
More likely to vote for that
party
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
Foreign oil and gas - all
Climate change - All
Economic Opps - All
-20%
You will now see some things that political parties have been saying are their priorities for Britain. For each
one, please tell me whether it makes you more likely or less likely to support that party, or if it makes no
difference Base – split samples of c.750
Women are generally more supportive of
renewables expansion regardless of the frame
Renewables policy - net strong or very strong agreement
60
50
%
40
Male
30
Female
20
10
0
Energy security
Base – split samples of c.750
Climate change
Economic opportunities
Older people are particularly unresponsive to
the economic frame for renewables
Renewables policy - net strong or very strong agreement
60
50
%
40
18-34
30
55+
20
10
0
Energy security
Base – split samples of c. 750
Climate change
Economic opportunities
Social classes C1DE are relatively more
responsive to the energy security frame
Renewables policy - net strong or very strong agreement
60
50
%
40
ABC1
30
C1DE
20
10
0
Energy security
Base – split samples of c. 750
Climate change
Economic opportunities
Tory voters relatively hostile to renewables, Labour voters
responsive to energy security, Lib Dems to climate change and
economic opportunities
Renewables policy - net strong or very strong agreement
70
60
%
50
Conservative
40
Labour
30
Lib Dem
20
10
0
Energy security
Climate change
Base – split samples of c. 750. Split by reported voting intention
Economic opportunities
For the energy security frame for renewables policy, the
strongest arguments for and against were:
“The era of cheap oil and gas is well and truly over - supplies
worldwide will begin to run out within a generation and that
means imported energy will become more expensive. We need
to make a start on renewable energy now as an alternative”
 net more supportive +71%
“The world's not going to start running out of oil, gas or coal for at
least half a century it's too early to be taking drastic action like
this”
 net less supportive -25%
But overall, the arguments for and against shift support for the
energy security-framed policy only slightly. Agreement and
disagreement both reduced slightly, with a slight rise in people
saying ‘neither’ or ‘don’t know’.
For the climate change frame for renewables policy, the
strongest arguments for and against were:
“Climate change means that we will need to rely heavily on green
energy in the future - we need to make a start now to develop
the technologies.”
 net more supportive +70%
“Wind turbines ruin the landscape for local people”
 net less supportive -19%
Again, the arguments for and against hardly shift overall support for
the policy framed in terms of tackling climate change, with a
slight reduction in support
For the economic opportunities frame for renewables
policy, the strongest arguments for and against were:
“Expanding renewable energy in the UK would create over 650,000
new job opportunities by 2015.
 net more supportive +65%
The argument that: “Other countries, like Germany, the USA and
even China are developing new renewable energy industries we risk getting left behind if we don't develop our own market”
also did well
“Even if we did invest in renewables, most of the jobs would go to
companies in other countries, not the UK”
 net less supportive -38%
Again, the arguments for and against had little effect on support for
the policy.
Language points
• “Middle Eastern and Russian” oil and gas rather than
“foreign” results in a 5% boost in net agreement with
the renewables policy
• “Wind and tidal power” rather than “Wind power and
solar energy” results in a 5% boost in net agreement
with the renewables policy
• Talking about “clean energy sources” rather than
“renewable sources” results in a 12 point boost in
agreement with the renewables policy
Overall story on framing
renewables policy
• Expansion of renewables is broadly popular
• Re-framing the policy as an energy security
issue increases support…
• but the economic opportunity frame does not
(except for Labour voters)…
• possibly because many people believe jobs
would go to other countries
• All the frames are quite robust to counterarguments
• Language makes a difference
Framing the “Energy efficiency” policy
•
We tested three different frames for the policy that “the
Government should require people to make their homes more
energy efficient. That means giving people financial help to do
things like insulate their homes or replace an old boiler and
penalties for those who fail to improve their homes”:
– To help reduce our reliance on foreign oil and gas we
should …
– To help tackle climate change…
– To make peoples homes warmer and more comfortable…
•
We looked at the frames in two ways:
– How far people agreed with the policy
– Whether respondents would be more likely to vote for a
party that proposed that policy
•
We also looked at a series of arguments for and against each
proposition
This policy receives less support across the board – and the
choice of frame makes little difference
Disagree VERY strongly
Disagree strongly
Agree VERY Strongly
Agree Strongly
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
For Oil - Energy eff.
Climate Change - Energy
Eff.
Warm Homes - Energy Eff.
-20
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Base – split
samples of c.750
This is also true of the impact that the policy has on
likelihood of voting for the party that proposes it
70%
Less likely to vote for that party
More likely to vote for that party
50%
30%
10%
Foreign oil and gas - all
Climate change - All
Warmer homes - All
-10%
-30%
You will now see some things that political parties have been saying are their priorities for Britain. For each
one, please tell me whether it makes you more likely or less likely to support that party, or if it makes no
difference Base – split samples of c.750
Women most responsive to energy security
frame for energy efficiency regulation; men to
warmth and comfort frame
Energy efficiency - net strong and very strong agreement
40
35
30
%
25
Male
20
Female
15
10
5
0
Energy security
Base – split samples of c.750
Climate change
Warmth and comfort
Younger people find energy security and
climate change frames for energy efficiency
more compelling than older people
%
Energy efficiency - net strong and very strong agreement
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
18-34
55+
Energy security
Base – split samples of c.750
Climate change
Warmth and comfort
ABC1 social classes more responsive to climate
change frame for energy efficiency
Energy efficiency - net strong and very strong agreement
40
35
30
%
25
ABC1
20
C1DE
15
10
5
0
Energy security
Base – split samples of c.750
Climate change
Warmth and comfort
Tory voters most sceptical of all frames, Labour voters
most responsive to energy security frame, LD voters to
warmth and comfort frame
%
Energy efficiency - net strong and very strong agreement
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Conservative
Labour
Lib Dem
Energy security
Climate change
Warmth and comfort
Base – split samples of c.750. Split by current voting intention
For the energy security frame for energy efficiency
policy, the strongest arguments for was:
“As we run out of North Sea oil and gas, we need to be sure that
the lights won't go out - saving energy will give us greater
control over our own economy”
 net more supportive +72%
None of the counter-arguments, including a “nanny state argument,
had any serious purchase
However, the arguments for and against slightly reduced net
support for the policy framed in terms of energy security
For the climate change frame for energy efficiency
policy, the strongest arguments for and against were:
“Using less energy is the cheapest and simplest way to cut carbon
emissions”
 net more supportive +72%
Again, none of the counter-arguments, had much force, the
strongest being:
“There is no point the UK taking action like this on climate change
while China is building a new coal-fired power station every
week”
 net less supportive -9%
The arguments for and against the policy framed in terms of climate
change had little impact – support remained stable
For the warmer and more comfortable homes frame for
energy efficiency policy, the strongest arguments for
and against were:
“A simple measure like loft insulation could cut heating bills by
£150, and would pay for itself within 2 years. Similarly, old
boilers waste a lot of energy - a modern system is up to 90%
efficient.”
 net more supportive +70%
“This is just another excuse for stealth taxes”
 net less supportive +27%
As a result of the arguments, support for the “warmer and more
comfortable homes”-framed efficiency policy saw a slight drop in
support (and a rise in those who felt strongly opposed)
Overall story on framing energy
efficiency policy
• Regulation for energy efficiency gets net
support but is less popular than renewables
• The way the policy is framed makes no
significant difference
• Counter-arguments get little agreement, with
the exception of ‘stealth taxes’
• Again, all the frames are quite robust to
counter-arguments
Framing the finance for developing countries policy
•
We tested four different frames for the policy that “the UK
should provide financial assistance to poor countries to help
them adapt to the impacts of climate change and to invest in
clean energy”:
– To help avoid threats to our security …
– To help save lives and protect the most vulnerable…
– To help prevent climate change from ruining the planet…
– We helped cause climate change so…
•
We looked at the frames in two ways:
– How far people agreed with the policy
– Whether respondents would be more likely to vote for a
party that proposed that policy
•
We also looked at a series of arguments for and against each
proposition
Overall the policy is neither widely popular
nor widely unpopular
Disagree VERY Strongly
Disagree Strongly
Agree VERY Strongly
Agree Strongly
80
60
40
20
0
Security - Aid
Help save lives - Aid
Climate Change - Aid
We caused it - Aid
-20
-40
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Base – split
samples of c.450
Little impact on respondents’ likelihood of voting for the party that
proposes it, regardless of frame. Net scores suggest that security
and ‘we caused it’ may actually repel voters.
60%
Net Less
Net More
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Help save lives - Aid
Climate Change - Aid
Security - Aid
We caused it - Aid
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
You will now see some things that political parties have been saying are their priorities for Britain. For each
one, please tell me whether it makes you more likely or less likely to support that party, or if it makes no
difference Base – split samples of c.450
Men more opposed to financial assistance;
security frame works best for both men and
women
Financial assistance - net strong and very strong agreement
10
5
%
0
Male
-5
-10
Historical
responsibility
-15
-20
Base – split samples of c.450
Climate change
Save lives
Security
Female
Older people more opposed to financial assistance and
most responsive to security frame; younger people most
responsive to climate change frame
Financial assiatance - net strong and very strong agreement
20
15
10
%
5
18-34
0
-5
Historical
responsibility
-10
-15
-20
Base – split samples of c.450
Climate change
Save lives
Security
55+
Social classes C2DE most opposed to financial
assistance, and are particularly unresponsive to
historical responsibility and climate change frames
Financial assistance - net strong and very strong agreement
10
5
%
0
-5
Historical
responsibility
-10
-15
-20
Base – split samples of c.450
Climate change
Save lives
Security
ABC1
C1DE
Tory voters most opposed to financial assistance, Labour
voters most supportive and responsive to security frame.
Climate change frame works best for Lib Dems
Financial assistance net stong and very stong agreement
30
20
%
10
Conservative
0
-10
Labour
Historical
responsibility
Climate change
Save lives
-20
-30
Base – split samples of c.450. Split by current voting intention
Security
Lib Dem
For the humanitarian frame for financial assistance
policy, the strongest arguments for and against were:
“Last year, 11 million people in East Africa - many of them children
- suffered from drought, which will become much more common
as climate change gets worse, unless we help”
 net more supportive +32%
“This would cost a huge amount - up to £4 billion or £140 per
taxpayer per year”
 net less supportive -29%
Also powerful was:
“The money will end up in the hands of corrupt leaders, not poor
people”
 net less supportive -26%
However, as a result of the arguments, the “saving lives” framed
financial assistance policy saw a 5% rise in support (and a
reduction in those who felt strongly opposed)
For the climate change/natural world frame for financial
assistance policy, the strongest arguments for and
against were:
“Forests soak up a lot of the pollution we emit. Unless we help
poorer countries protect them, they will be lost forever.”
 net more supportive +54%
“Most of the money will be wasted by corrupt leaders instead of
going into clean energy projects”
 net less supportive -24%
As a result of the arguments, the “climate-change”-framed Foreign
aid policy saw a 9% rise in support
For the security frame for financial assistance policy,
the strongest arguments for and against were:
“Climate change could cause major food shortages and drive up
food prices in the UK, unless we help countries that produce a
lot of food adapt to climate change”
and
“If we are to avoid threats to our security caused by climate
change, all countries need to invest in green energy and the
poorest ones will need help to do this”
 net more supportive +42%
“Most of the money will be wasted by corrupt leaders and so have
little impact”
 net less supportive -29%
As a result of the arguments, the “security”- framed Foreign aid
policy saw a 10% rise in support – mostly in the “agree very
strongly” category, and a similar-sized reduction in opposition
For the historical responsibility frame for financial
assistance policy, the strongest arguments for and
against were:
“Although developed countries caused the problem, the impacts of
climate change are being felt in the poor world first - almost all
of the half a million people who died in floods and storms in the
1990s lived in poor countries.”
 net more supportive +35%
“China is now the world's largest carbon emitter - why should we
pay them when they're the biggest cause of the problem?”
 net less supportive -12%
As a result of the arguments, the “we caused it”-framed Foreign aid
policy saw a 5% rise in support
Language points
Agree
Disagree
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
The UK should give poorer countries the financial
help they need to deal with the impacts of climate
change and invest in clean energy
The UK shouldn't deny poorer countries the
financial help they need to deal with the impacts of
climate change and invest in clean energy
-30%
-40%
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? .Base – split samples of c. 1000
Overall story on financial assistance for
developing countries
• Financial assistance for developing countries
receives least support, and brings the biggest
political risks
• Alternative framing makes little difference
• But making arguments in favour of the policy
does increase support
• Choice of language can help
57
• Background
• Methodology and data
• Climate change and voters in marginal
constituencies
• Framing climate policies
• Appendix on weighting
Appendix
•
Demographic weighting
– The data was weighted to be representative in terms of age, gender, socioeconomic grade and region.
•
•
Past vote weighting.
– Respondents were asked who, if anyone, they voted for in the last election.
– We compared these results with the average vote distribution across these
constituencies at the last election. We then weighted to the mid-point
between the declared past vote collected in our poll, and the average result
at the last election across the relevant seats, thereby assuming that 50% of
the difference is a product of political imbalance within our sample (which
we are accounting for through the weighting) and 50% is a product of faulty
recall on the part of the respondents (which we are not accounting for)
• Respondents in Labour-held seats and looking at the average 2005
vote share in those seats;
• Respondents in Lib Dem or Tory Held seats and looking at the average
2005 vote share in those seats
Weighting for turnout
– Respondents are asked how likely they would be to turn out at the next
election on a scale of 0-10, where 0 is definitely won’t vote and 10 is
definitely will. Responses are then weighted accordingly, so that someone
who is certain to turn out is counted as 1, and someone who is certain to
stay home is counted as 0, with a sliding scale for each point in between.
This project was funded by
For further information on the project contact
[email protected]