climate of opinion. 2 background methodology and data climate change and voters in marginal...

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?

• 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

Background

5

• Background





6

Methodology

• Survey testing views and frames, focused on marginal constituencies, distinguishing swing voters

• Draft questionnaire pre-tested through in-depth interviews

• On-line survey of 3,032 people (from YouGov panel) in 157 marginals.

• Fieldwork 16-18 September 2009 (pre-Conference 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

Lab

Con

Lib Dem

7% or less (102 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 tomorrowOR– Chose a party when asked a follow up question about which

party they would be most inclined to supportAND – 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





11Only a small minority consider climate change/global

warming as the single most important issue

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)

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

All

12Climate change is amongst the top 3-4

issues for 17%

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)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Unem

ploy

men

t and

the

econom

y

The N

HS

Crime

and a

nti-s

ocia

l beh

avio

ur

Imm

igra

tion

Pensi

ons

and c

are

for t

he eld

erly

Energ

y an

d pet

rol c

osts

Educa

tion

Glo

bal w

arm

ing/

Climat

e chan

ge

Forei

gn pol

icy

Trans

port

and tr

affic

Child

care

% all

13

• 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%)

Top 3-4 issues for deciding how to vote

A majority accept the existence of man-made climate change

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)

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Climate change exists - the worldis getting warmer

Climate change is a result ofhuman activity

We can't be sure that climatechange is a result of human

activity

Tend to agree Strongly agreeTend to disagree Strongly disagree

A majority disagree that there’s nothing they can do about climate change

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (Base – All 2,291)

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

There is not a lot I can do about climate change


More people see the challenge as global rather than national

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (Base – All 2,291)

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Climate change is the biggest challenge the planetfaces

Climate changes is the biggest challenge Britainfaces


17

• 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

Views on man-made climate change

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


• 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

Framing the renewables policy

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

Base – split samples of c.750-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

For Oil - Renewables Climate Change -renewables

Economic Opps -Renewables

Disagree VERY strongly

Disagree Strongly

Agree VERY Strongly

Agree Strongly

For swing voters, the gap closes slightly between the climate change and the energy security frames – but energy security

is still the clear winner

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

For oil - All swing Climate change - Allswing

Economic Opps - Allswing

Disagree VERY strongly

Disagree Strongly

Agree VERY Strongly

Agree Strongly

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Base – split samples of c.300

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

Energy security is also the frame that has the biggest impact in respondents’ likelihood of voting for a party

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Foreign oil and gas - all Climate change - All Economic Opps - All

Less likely to vote for thatparty

More likely to vote for thatparty

Women are generally more supportive of renewables expansion regardless of the frame

Renewables policy - net strong or very strong agreement

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Energy security Climate change Economic opportunities

%

Male

Female

Base – split samples of c.750

Older people are particularly unresponsive to the economic frame for renewables


0

10

20

30

40

50

60


%

18-34

55+

Base – split samples of c. 750

Social classes C1DE are relatively more responsive to the energy security frame


0

10

20

30

40

50

60


%

ABC1

C1DE

Base – split samples of c. 750

Tory voters relatively hostile to renewables, Labour voters responsive to energy security, Lib Dems to climate change and

economic opportunities


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%

Conservative

Labour

Lib Dem

Base – split samples of c. 750. Split by reported voting intention

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.”


“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.


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”


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 counter-

arguments• 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


-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

For Oil - Energy eff. Climate Change - EnergyEff.

Warm Homes - Energy Eff.

Disagree VERY stronglyDisagree stronglyAgree VERY StronglyAgree Strongly

This is also true of the impact that the policy has on likelihood of voting for the party that proposes it


-30%

-10%

10%

30%

50%

70%

Foreign oil and gas - all Climate change - All Warmer homes - All

Less likely to vote for that party

More likely to vote for that party

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Energy security Climate change Warmth and comfort

%

Male

Female


0

510

15

2025

30

35

4045

50


%

18-34

55+


Younger people find energy security and climate change frames for energy efficiency

more compelling than older people


05

101520253035404550


%

18-34

55+


ABC1 social classes more responsive to climate change frame for energy efficiency


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


%

ABC1

C1DE


Tory voters most sceptical of all frames, Labour voters most responsive to energy security frame, LD voters to

warmth and comfort frame


05

101520253035404550


%

Conservative

Labour

Lib Dem

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”


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”


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”


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.”


“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

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

Security - Aid Help save lives - Aid Climate Change - Aid We caused it - Aid

Disagree VERY StronglyDisagree StronglyAgree VERY StronglyAgree Strongly


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.

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Help save lives - Aid Climate Change - Aid Security - Aid We caused it - Aid

Net Less

Net More


Men more opposed to financial assistance; security frame works best for both men and

women

Financial assistance - net strong and very strong agreement

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

Historicalresponsibility

Climate change Save lives Security

%

Male

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

0

5

10

15

20



%

18-34

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

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10



%

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

0

10

20

30



%

Conservative

Labour

Lib Dem

Base – split samples of c.450. Split by current voting intention

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”


“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.”


“Most of the money will be wasted by corrupt leaders instead of going into clean energy projects”


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”


“Most of the money will be wasted by corrupt leaders and so have little impact”


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.”


“China is now the world's largest carbon emitter - why should we pay them when they're the biggest cause of the problem?”


As a result of the arguments, the “we caused it”-framed Foreign aid policy saw a 5% rise in support

Language points

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

The UK should give poorer countries the financialhelp they need to deal with the impacts of climate

change and invest in clean energy

The UK shouldn't deny poorer countries thefinancial help they need to deal with the impacts of

climate change and invest in clean energy

Agree Disagree

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





Appendix

• Demographic weighting– The data was weighted to be representative in terms of age, gender, socio-economic

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

http://www.ashdentrust.org.uk/index.html

For further information on the project contact [email protected]

climate of opinion. 2 background methodology and data climate change and voters in marginal...

Documents