Submission by the CAST Centre (Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations)
The CAST Centre is a partnership between the University of Bath, Cardiff University, University of Manchester, University of York, University of East Anglia, and Oxford-based charity Climate Outreach. We are environmental psychologists, environmental social scientists, political scientists, and public engagement and communications experts working on climate change. We have answered the questions where we have current, cutting-edge evidence and expertise.
We have answered questions 4, 9 and 16.
4. Given that the Government should apply a behavioural lens to policy—which involves people making changes to their everyday lives, such as what they purchase and use—is there a role for clearer communication of the case for EVs from the Government? If so, who should take the lead on delivering that?
We will answer this question in two sections where we have detailed knowledge:
In our survey research, when asked about specific policies to reduce travel-related emissions, 46% of survey respondents expressed support for phasing out petrol and diesel cars in favour of electric or hybrid cars, whereas 26% were opposed and 24% neither supported nor opposed.[1] Research by Climate Assembly UK found greater support for phasing out of petrol and diesel cars, where 53% of respondents rated this policy as their first-choice preference for quickly moving to low carbon vehicles.[2] This may be because deliberative processes tend to lead to higher policy support.
There is evidence from a range of studies that show various benefits of shifting away from car use in general. Our work with the Scottish Government to embed behaviour change throughout their policies to reduce car use identified that public opinion speaks to broad support for car use reduction, so long as it is aligned with improvements with public transport and economic incentives to ensure no one is left behind.[3]
However, other CAST focus groups and workshops with the public show that people struggle to imagine a future where car ownership is not a dominant approach to travel.[4] Electric cars are therefore considered essential and are enjoying a high level of acceptance already (albeit being unaffordable for most). Smaller cars are also seen as a viable – and more affordable – option. Having access to a car, even if most travel is done by other modes, may be an important condition for public acceptance of alternative low-carbon mobility futures. People will have to be convinced that public transport or other forms of travel can provide the same level of freedom, flexibility and security associated with car ownership. At the moment, this is still a long way off.
Together with Ipsos, we have carried out detailed research about the public acceptability of climate policies, including subsidies for electric vehicles. Below we present extensive insights into some important factors that affect support for such policies. These findings and charts are taken from the report Net Zero Living that the CAST centre published in collaboration with Ipsos in 2022.[5]
Subsidies on electric vehicles (EVs) are a familiar policy for people in the UK. These were available for consumers until June 2022, when the plug-in car grant scheme closed to new orders. Our research first tested general support for EV subsidies. We then tested support when the trade-offs of such policies are considered, specifically when people incur costs, or their lifestyles are affected.
The precise wording of these variations was:
According to our results, EV subsidies initially received a high level of public support (62%), with only 19% opposing them (see figures 3.1 and 3.6). This majority support is despite the policy wording noting that these subsidies ‘…may be paid for by increasing fuel duty on petrol and diesel cars’. This high support may be because the public tends to prefer ‘pull’ (supportive) policy measures such as financial incentives, rather than ‘push’ (restrictive) measures. This reflects the importance of perceived fairness and personal cost in shaping public support for policies, as explored further below. Further, as shown in figure 3.12, when asked to choose amongst various net zero policies, electric vehicle subsidies are most popular.
Our research shows that the health benefits of decreased air pollution resonate with the UK public as a co-benefit of such a policy. We also see this when looking at convincing arguments for EV subsidies – see below.
The UK public still supported EV subsidies more than opposing it even if they had a more limited choice when buying a car. Yet, once the personal financial trade-off of paying more to drive their petrol or diesel car was introduced, more opposed this policy than supported it. In addition, more switched from supporting to opposing the policy after seeing the financial trade-off (15%), than did so after seeing the lifestyle trade-off (7%).
People who voted for Labour (73%), the Liberal Democrats (71%) or – in this case – the SNP (77%) showed higher support for EV subsidies. This was also the case for people who are more engaged with climate change issues (82%), as well as those from the least deprived households (69%). People from the southeast (68%) and larger regional cities across the UK (69%) were particularly supportive of the policy too; likewise, those in large regional cities were more supportive. Age was also relevant: younger age groups favoured EV subsidies more than older groups.
We tested which arguments work with the public both in support and opposition to EV subsidies.
Unsurprisingly given the inherent financial benefit to individuals of EV subsidies, the public found the arguments for this policy, such as improving air quality and cutting the health risks of air pollution, and creating jobs in the electric vehicle sector, more convincing than the arguments against it. The arguments in favour of this policy were rated overall the most convincing by the public of those for any of the eight policies tested.
It is nonetheless worth noting that certain groups – the over 55s, Conservative supporters, and those who are not worried about climate change – remained less likely to rate these arguments as convincing. It is also important to understand which arguments against EV subsidies resonate with the UK public, as these may prove barriers to policy adoption. Chief among these is infrastructure: more than four in five (83%) found the argument that there is not currently adequate infrastructure and charging stations to support this policy convincing.
This argument has universal resonance, with groups that otherwise tend to be convinced by the benefits of net zero policies - such as Labour or Liberal Democrat supporters and those who are worried about climate change – finding it almost as convincing as those who are typically unconvinced by net zero policies do. The cost for those who may be left behind by this policy was also an argument that resonated with the public: two thirds (68%) found the argument that EV subsidies will make it too expensive to run a petrol or diesel car convincing. Women, older people, and those living in rural areas were particularly likely to find this argument persuasive. The same proportion (68%) found it convincing that such subsidies will not help people who cannot afford to buy a car.
Our findings indicate that policy and decision-makers cannot rely on the public being motivated enough by climate concerns to take action. Rather, communication needs to capitalise on the additional benefits of climate action that resonate with the public. These include health, safety, fairness, active travel and job creation benefits.
Key points:
Our findings show that net zero policies are not seen as fair by most of the UK public, both in terms of outcomes (who is impacted and how) and process (considering views of all those affected). Since fairness is important for policy acceptance, there is a clear scope to develop policies that are fairer in terms of procedure and distribution – that is, that do not discriminate against distinct groups or exclude people from the decision making process.
People who rated a policy as fair were more supportive of this policy and this was true for all measures of fairness. For example, between 77% and 88% of people who perceived the policy as giving a fair outcome to everyone affected also supported each policy, whilst amongst people who are less convinced of the distributional fairness only 40% to 60% expressed support.
For EV subsidies, only 34% were confident they would give a fair outcome to everyone affected (Figure 5.1). Similarly, only 34% felt confident it would not be biased towards any particular group, and 29% that the policy would take into account the views of everyone affected. Of the groups affected by this policy (Figure 5.4), the most common groups thought to be positively impacted were people who live in towns and cities (63%) and higher income households (53%), while lower income households (55%) and those living in rural areas (43%) were seen as most negatively impacted. Motorists were thought to be both positively (36%) and negatively (23%) impacted. Young people were thought to benefit more (24%) than older people (20%).
(p75)
Source Page 82.
A large proportion of the UK’s net-zero emission reductions depend on action from individuals and households. Achieving these reductions will require widespread buy-in, knowledge, and cooperation from the public. This is the case for the uptake of electric vehicles. However, research from the CAST Centre and elsewhere shows that, while climate concern is at an all-time high, the public are not aware of the scale of changes that will be required or how best to make changes.[6],[7] Without this information, support for policies related to electric vehicles may not be as acceptable to the public compared to if they are coupled with a public engagement campaign, part of which explains how policies are fair.
Overall, the government’s current strategy related to public engagement to achieve net zero is primarily focused on public acceptance of new technologies, such as electric vehicles. However, beyond accepting new technologies, the public engagement strategy is weak and does not acknowledge the wide-reaching social and lifestyle changes that will be required to reach net zero, for example by reducing car use overall. The UK government should play a much more active role in providing an overarching narrative around net zero, of which electric vehicles form a part, and coordinate public engagement across different levels and actors (e.g., individual, community, business, civil society, local, regional and national). People appear willing to support policies, such as those related to electric vehicles, and take personal action but need to know that there is a clear vision and strategy in place to collectively achieve the net zero goal.[8]
Further, recent research has highlighted that people look to the government to show leadership in addressing climate change and provide an overarching strategy that represents long-term planning for a low-carbon future. Research indicates that individual low-carbon behaviour from politicians, business leaders and celebrities, such as using electric vehicles or public transport, signals commitment and competence to the public, increasing public willingness to adopt behaviour changes and fostering a sense of collective effort. As such, visible low-carbon leading by example can be considered a form of public engagement. In contrast, if leaders do not model low-carbon behaviour that is consistent with their climate messaging, this harms public willingness to make low-carbon choices[9].
Government should therefore provide clear leadership on what needs to be done to achieve the UK’s net zero emissions targets. Citizens and businesses need to understand the changes taking place throughout society, and how individuals’ behaviours can contribute. This should be supported by a clear public engagement strategy, as advocated by Climate Assembly UK. Public engagement can involve informing people and raising awareness, but it can also consist of dialogues and participatory techniques exploring how net zero targets can be reached.[10],[11] There should be clarity on what has and what hasn't worked to date and what are effective ways to reduce carbon emissions from individual lifestyles as well as business practices, so that people and institutions can learn from mistakes.
9. What are the main consumer barriers to acquiring an EV, either through purchasing, leasing, or other routes?
Our research indicates that there remain barriers to buying an EV. In a new survey we conducted with residents in Cornwall, we found 32% are considering buying an EV (7% have one already); but others are put off by barriers, particularly cost but also insufficient charging infrastructure (see figure). High income households perceive the cost of an EV to be less of a barrier, whereas women consider both cost and a lack of charging points to be deterrents. There was no difference based on other grouping variables such as age, location or climate concern.[12]
16. What is the value and role of alternative transport models such as car clubs and micro mobility vehicles in the Government achieving the 2030 phase out date, and how should the Government consider their roles and opportunities for use in transport decarbonisation?
In our research with the public, car clubs were viewed positively. However, in practice, it is not a strategy that was engaged with much because of practical barriers, particularly for those living in rural areas[13].
References
[1] Steentjes, K., Poortinga, W., Demski, C., and Whitmarsh, L., (2021). UK perceptions of climate change and lifestyle changes. CAST Briefing Paper 08.
[2] Climate Assembly UK. 2020. The path to net zero. [online] Available at: <https://www.climateassembly.uk/report/>
[3] Prosser, A., Thorman, D., Mitev, K., Whitmarsh, L., Sawas, A., (2022). Developing an evidence-based toolkit for car reduction. CAST Centre and Climate Outreach.
[4] Demski, C., Cherry, C., Verfuerth, C. (2022). The road to net zero: UK public preferences for low-carbon lifestyles. CAST Briefing Paper 14.
[5] IPSOS and CAST Centre (2022). Net Zero Living. Available at <https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/publication/documents/2022-06/net-zero-living-ipsos-cast-2022.pdf>
[6] Demski, C et al. (2022). The road to net zero: UK public preferences for low-carbon lifestyles. CAST Centre. https://cast.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/CM_UOB_49-CAST-Report_v5_FINAL_27.9.22.pdf
[7] UK Climate Assembly. (2020). The Path to Net Zero. https://www.climateassembly.uk/recommendations/www.climateassembly.uk/report/
[8] Demski, C. (2021) Net Zero Public Engagement and Participation: a research note. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/969428/net-zero-publicengagement-participation-research-note.pdf
[9] Westlake (2022) The power of leading by example with high-impact low-carbon behaviour: emulation, trust, credibility, justice. PhD Thesis. https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/159995/
[10] Climate Assembly UK. 2020. The path to net zero. [online] Available at: <https://www.climateassembly.uk/report/>
[11] Capstick, S., Demski, C., Cherry, C., Verfuerth, C. and Steentjes, K. (2020). Climate Change Citizens’ Assemblies. CAST Briefing Paper 03.
[12] Wilson, M., and Whitmarsh, L., (2023). Cornwall Council behaviour change and engagement programme – survey of residents. CAST Centre report.
[13] Demski, C., Cherry, C., Verfuerth, C. (2022). The road to net zero: UK public preferences for low-carbon lifestyles. CAST Briefing Paper 14.