Climate and the million dollar questions – a population survey

How can we prevent climate policy from becoming an issue fuelling a new Kulturkampf and class  struggles? Where are social barriers lurking and how can different milieus be activated? Friedrich Ebert-Stiftung's Climate & Social Justice Competence Centre commissioned a population survey in 19  European and North American countries guided by these questions. The goal is to analyse which social milieus are (especially) amenable to climate policy measures and which ones are critical,  hesitant or opposed to them - and how they could still be persuaded.  

The population survey carried out by the Sinus Institute for the FES explored the following areas: 

• awareness of the importance and relevance of climate issues;  

• attitudes, motivators and barriers to climate and environmentally aware behaviour; 

• assessments of and attitudes towards changes in lifestyle and the economy, including  endorsement or rejection of specific political measures;  

• interest in information and the level of knowledge about climate and policy measures;  

Around 80% of respondents are anxious when it comes to climate change. However, almost two thirds also agree with the statement that there are more pressing problems in their country than  climate change. This means that rising temperatures are competing for importance with other issues.  At the latest when climate policy measures are perceived as exacerbating problems that are  considered more important, anger and aggravation can be expected.  

In general, milieus belonging to a lower and middle social status attach significantly less importance  to the issue of environmental, nature and climate protection than milieus with a higher-level social  status. In order to gain acceptance for the reform agenda it will be necessary to more effectively  reach out to those who are not convinced yet.  

This is even more apparent when it comes to the question of whether policy measures to bring about  a change in the direction of a more climate and environmentally friendly economy have been  sufficiently explained and clarified from the respondents' point of view. 69% state that this is not the  case, while 31% agree with the statement. Here as well, the differences between milieus are  substantial.

The results produced by this representative survey suggest there is a clear mandate for  policy-makers to announce climate policy measures in a more comprehensive manner, to explain  them in terms of their practical consequences and then implement them with a reliable planning  time frame and in comprehensible steps. 

A fifth of all respondents fully concur with the statement that the notion of a fundamental change in  our economy and way of life causes them concern, as they know from experience that many people  will be worse off afterwards than before. Interestingly, percentages are lower in Eastern Europe, with  its recent experience of transformation, than in Western Europe. There are considerable differences  between milieus on this question as well.  

The transformation will not be free of charge for the state – the results of the survey leave no doubt  about this. In view of the limited financial latitude and considerable additional expenditures in other  policy areas such as security and defence or care and education, the state may well face conflicts of interest. At the same time, the results make it very clear that those surveyed believe that social  cushioning and a state-supported structural policy are a must.  

While financial support or compensation, be it for individuals or business enterprises, elicits  considerable support, bans or higher prices are not particularly popular. When asked how the  heating transition should take place, only 8% of respondents (bans) and 6% (higher prices),  respectively, see it as the best way to combat climate change. At any rate, almost three-quarters of  respondents agree with the statement that they find others telling them how they should live  annoying. With 73% agreeing with this statement, this form of perceived paternalism would appear  to be the number one barrier to climate-conscious behaviour.  

The results make it abundantly clear that the focus must also and especially be on (highly) uncertain  and critically reserved milieus. Uncertainty is increasingly swelling there; the idea of a "great  transformation" is triggering growing fears of decline and what the future has in store. The young,  modern middle class – described by the Sinus Institute as "Adaptive Navigators" – plays a central role  in all this.

This milieu is open-minded, purposeful, well-educated, flexible, willing to adapt and  generally open to new things and thus "actually" easy to enlist for the goal of a sustainable society.  Despite their fundamental openness to climate issues, however, they currently perceive the personal  disadvantages of the approaching transformation first and foremost.

For climate policy, this means  that perceptions of trade-offs need to be allayed, doubts about the feasibility of necessary measures  must be dispelled and immediate personal benefits should be underscored along with aspects  relating to the common good.  

Read more about the report here.