Would the public support a new wind farm being built on their doorstep? According to MPs, no. A survey of MPs last year found that they were twice as likely to think their constituents would oppose a wind development (43%) than support it (19%).

Yet when you ask the public themselves you get a dramatically different answer. More than three quarters (77%) of voters across the UK say they would support a local wind development, including 73% of 2019 Conservative voters.

I was reminded of this example of disconnect between actual and imagined public opinion by the dramatic response to the Uxbridge by-election. Labour’s narrow failure to take the seat has been widely blamed on the planned expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). That result has now led to both government and opposition parties scrambling to turn their back on environmental policies they see as vote losers – and a truly ludicrous front page promising a “retreat from green policies” nestled beside an image of the mass evacuation of tourists due to Greek wildfires. 

Yet – just as in the case of the imagined wind development – those affected by ULEZ are actually supportive. Polling shows that the existing ULEZ is very popular with Londoners (58% support vs. 24% oppose), and the planned expansion has narrower but still significant support (47% vs. 32%). So why are we seeing such an overreaction?

The Goodwin curve

The transport academic Phil Goodwin gave us a very useful tool to think about this. Goodwin looked at how public opinion reacted to road pricing schemes like ULEZ over time, and found a consistent pattern. As the public identifies a problem with congestion or air quality, support for action rises. Rising support leads to plans for road pricing (like a congestion charge). As implementation nears, and scrutiny becomes more acute, support falls in the short-term – but then rebounds once a scheme is implemented and people feel the benefits. This pattern is known as the Goodwin curve. 

As commentators have argued, the Uxbridge by-election happened to fall at precisely the wrong point of the Goodwin curve – as implementation loomed and fears over its potential impact were most acutely felt. 

Backlash can happen – and we need to understand why

The dynamics of the Goodwin curve can be seen across a lot of policy areas – think of something like the indoor smoking ban, which was hugely controversial ahead of implementation but would be unimaginable to reverse now. 

But it would be complacent to imagine that the public will get behind any environmental measure once it’s in place. And the pushback ahead of implementation can be strong enough to delay or derail policies in the first place – see Scotland’s deposit return scheme or highly protected marine areas. In the immediate aftermath of the by-election a snap YouGov poll found that nationally, 51% would oppose an ULEZ-style scheme in their area, with only 34% in favour. 

In Europe, the rapid rise of an anti-environmentalist farmers party in the Netherlands, tensions in Germany over environmental policy, and the partially successful industry pushback to the EU Nature Restoration all point towards environmental policy becoming increasingly high-profile and contested ground.

But none of this changes the fundamental fact that the public are deeply worried about the environment and overwhelmingly supportive of Net Zero ambitions. Ipsos Mori has consistently found that around 85% of the UK public are concerned about climate change, with over half supporting faster emissions reduction targets. And this Yougov tracker shows that the environment is ranked as one of the most important issues facing the country and that this trend has significantly increased over the past decade. 

The central challenge for policymakers and environmentalists is in translating this widespread support in principle into action that carries public support in practice. The defining political issue over coming decades is likely to be “who pays?” as we mitigate and adapt to climate change. We urgently need a popular political programme for the environment – a subject this newsletter will return to.