The challenges of communicating about climate to citizens and the concerns among investors that corporates are all talk and no transition when it comes to net-zero. By David Burrows
Tales of the near-death of net-zero have been exaggerated, it seems, with polling showing that the UK Government’s dream of a “humming, futuristic net-zero economy” has the public’s backing. But they are not sure Ed Miliband is the man to deliver it, which has led to wider attacks on the energy and net-zero secretary from the Conservatives and Reform.
This conflict shines a light on a confusing feature of British politics when it comes to climate change, noted Politico: that is, a misalignment between the stories politicians want to tell about efforts to stop climate change, and stuff the public actually care about.
“Our concern for climate change and nature doesn’t automatically translate into support for detailed policies,” noted Climate Outreach, an NGO, and think tank Morein Common in the fifth edition of their Britain Talks Climate & Nature reports.
For example, people feel sad and concerned about the impact we are having on the environment and the natural world. Their worries about climate change are strong and enduring, despite competing concerns: a cost of living crisis, health worries, international conflicts, and a deep and pervasive sense that our country “is in a very bad way”.
“… people struggle to trust approaches to tackling climate change, or see the positives or benefits that will come from them,” the report reads.
And that has led to the proportion of people who think net-zero is good for the UK declining over the past year. Fears about costs are playing into this, and so too is“increasingly organised and vocal opposition” (which “should not be underestimated”).
The research this year found overwhelming evidence that “getting the story right” has never been more crucial, with politicians, businesses and activists urged to “connect with people’s realities and aspirations” which will “build strong and almost universal support for bold action on climate change”.
Ministers mistrusted
The likes of Miliband, Sir Keir Starmer, the prime minister, and the newly appointed environment secretary Emma Reynolds may well be those with the biggest job on their hands. “Politicians are not well trusted to speak about climate,” Climate Outreach said in an analysis shared with Politico. In fact, elected leaders were the least trusted carriers of the climate message — beneath also-lowly ranked protesters and energy company executives.
“The good news is that people across the board are with us when our communication is clear and inviting,” the report notes. “They respond enthusiastically to policies when they’re translated and brought to life. We see huge increases in support for action when we explain why it matters and what it means for people’s lives.”
For example, they want to hear “tangible examples” of where the government is cracking down on polluters, rather than letting the unsustainable status quo prevail. Regulations to reduce plastic packaging, for example, or to clean our rivers and seas of pollution will resonate. Politicians who have their ears regularly bent by food industry groups complaining of ‘higher costs’ to implement such regulations should take note.
“I congratulate the many, many businesses in the UK who advocate for clean energy and climate action,” Miliband told Edie.net at the Climate Outreach event. “What they are doing across the country is creating jobs and showing that this transition is the biggest economic opportunity of our time.”
He also called on others not to be unnerved by the narrative around net-zero not being for now. “Social change is never achieved without a fight, and some people in politics have chosen not to support this agenda,” he explained. “We shouldn’t be intimidated by that. We’re going to win this fight.”
Natural choice for net-zero
Scientists have also thrown punches in the direction of the Science-based target initiative (SBTi) this month. Some 125 experts urged the SBTi to put nature-based carbon removals front and centre of immediate efforts to tackle climate change.
“Temporary carbon removals provide measurable near-term climate value by reducing peak warming and buying crucial time for longer-duration solutions to scale,” they wrote in an open letter to the SBTi expert working group and Article 6.4 supervisory body. “Delaying intervention based on permanence criteria alone is therefore scientifically and ethically unjustifiable.”
The warning comes as SBTi grapples with the concept of ‘permanence’ in relation to carbon credits and its revision of the corporate net-zero standard. As CSO Futures noted, the standard-setters and policymakers are flustered by the potential of wildfires and extreme weather to accelerate nature loss and ‘reverse’ the impacts of climate solutions like forest carbon credits.
However, framing “permanence” as a binary threshold – either 1,000 years or failure – does not serve climate science or policy, the scientists from universities, NGOs and research centres wrote. “Temporary sequestration of CO2 delivers real climate benefit during the period of storage, especially if it helps flatten peak atmospheric concentrations or delays crossing dangerous tipping points,” they added.
Sticking with SBTi we turn to the organisation’s annual ‘trend tracker’, which shows “science-based corporate climate target-setting is stronger than ever in both depth and scale”. Nearly 11,000 companies have either already set greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets with the SBTi or have committed to set them the six-page report reads; and the number of companies with validated targets has jumped 97% since late 2023.
All talk and no transition
In recent months corporate climate targets have been attracting headlines for the wrong reasons. Companies like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Diageo have come under pressure for revising ESG targets, including those relating to greenhouse gas emissions reductions. No need to go there again (for now), because setting a credible target is arguably just the first step.
“At a time of increasing transition headwinds, rigorous and transparent analysis is more critical than ever,” explained Ali Amin, policy fellow at the TPI Global Climate Transition Centre at LSE said as he launched the ‘State of corporate transition 2025’ report. The analysis of over 2,000 publicly listed companies found they “lack the core components of credible climate transition plan”.
The LSE experts aimed to cut through the rhetoric by assessing the ‘management quality’ (MQ) of companies across 23 indicators of climate governance, including board oversight, disclosure, target-setting, risk management, lobbying and capital allocation. The average score was 3 out of 5 – which “means that companies are integrating climate change into operational decision-making (level 3) but it leaves them well short of making a strategic assessment of climate risks (level 4), and transition planning and implementation (level 5). Investors are unlikely to be impressed.
Food producers were this year included in the assessment, with 80 assessed on MQ and 57 on carbon performance, which focuses on benchmarking the emissions reduction targets of companies against Paris Agreement goals. Just four of the 57 are aligned to 1.5°C in the short-term, with another three aligned to ‘below 2°C’ and seven not aligned at all. The other 42 didn’t disclose the information or what they do offer is “unsuitable”. The story was fairly similar in relation to medium-term alignment, though there are eight food producing companies aligned with 1.5C in the long-term.
The authors detailed how the picture has improved since they started doing this in 2020 but the following line stands out like a sore thumb: Assessed companies are collectively set to overshoot their 1.5°C emissions intensity budget by 61% and their 2°C budget by 13% between 2020 and 2050. Ouch. “It is important to focus on what companies are doing, not only what they are saying,” noted David Russell, chair at the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI) in his foreword. “In the future,” he added, “investors will undoubtedly require deeper assessments of how companies are implementing their own transition plans, coupled with evidence of the effectiveness of those transition plans”.
Investors, much like The Notebook when there is enough time and caffeine, may want to dig deep into the detail of climate targets, planning and financing – but communicating this to citizens requires a different approach. And food companies should take note of the first recommendation (of seven) in that Climate Outreach report in particular: “Translate and explain, don’t assume or assert.”
For instance, 50% support the use of technical terms like ‘net-zero’ but they want the jargon cut and stats dialled down. So, a message about setting a net-zero target will gain more support if there is a basic explanation added about what this means – more security for farmers for example. Offering up a “vision of better” – like healthier food options – sees that support grow to 78%.
Worth noting, too, is the recognition that we depend on nature. The researchers offered up the following message to those surveyed: “If we damage the natural world, we damage ourselves, because every breath of air and every mouthful of food and water comes from nature.” Three quarters found it interesting, while 83% found it convincing and relevant.
Banknotes and nature
We wonder what the results would be if food and drink companies were asked the same question? Nature loss and climate change come hand in hand but when it comes to the risks many heads – despite noises of regeneration and resilience and revenue risks – remain buried in the dried out dirt. So, consider this:
Under a business-as-usual path, the five key drivers of nature loss have the potential to cost the food sector $253bn (£185bn) annually, while food retailers and restaurants would have to suck up $54.2bn as ecosystem services such as biomass provisioning, rainfall regulation, and pollination decline. And those estimates are “conservative”, according to Ceres, which conducted this first of its kind analysis.
