Public perceptions about climate change are pretty clear: it’s a massive concern. But how much people are willing to pay to actually address it is far less clear cut.
To paraphrase an old adage, nothing in life worth having comes free. This is particularly true of the energy transition and the globe’s gradual shift towards sustainability.
Switching from polluting fuels to clean energy means making huge investments in all the infrastructure needed to achieve net zero. By some estimates, that means additional worldwide spending of trillions of dollars every year.
But the cost of not doing this is equally if not even more gargantuan. The United Nations concluded this week that if current trends continue, average temperature increases will reach 2.8 degrees, blasting through the 2 degrees limit set by the Paris Agreement.
A two degree world is already a scary prospect, as stark warnings about ecosystem collapse, desertification, crop failures, extreme weather events and many other catastrophic impacts have been made by the scientific community.
Every fraction of a degree on top of that makes the situation worse still.
Public acceptance of the science behind climate change, despite the noise made by a loud minority, is widespread. There is also a lot of support for measures and policies designed to combat climate change.
But as a new survey shows, when you start talking about the money needed to do something about our warming world, the issue becomes more complicated.
More than 80% of Europeans surveyed said climate action is important. But when a choice between fast decarbonisation and keeping costs down was presented, 65% said they would prioritise affordability.
Dig a little deeper into the data of this fascinating snapshot of public perceptions and you’ll see that again there is widespread acceptance that renewable energy technologies like wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuels.
On the face of things, that’s a great outcome for clean energy, which has been struggling over the last decade to make the money argument work. Here in black and white is proof that it has finally cut through.
But only 27% of those surveyed said they expect the transition to actually lower their bills, while nearly 40% believe that governments and businesses will simply absorb any savings generated by the technologies.
Essentially, there’s a picture emerging that suggests the public at large is at this time not willing to pay any kind of green premium. Affordability and cost of living concerns absorb so much bandwidth that it’s crowding out the sustainability argument.
That is despite the growing body of evidence that clean energy is the sound financial choice in almost all scenarios, especially when you factor in health benefits and the cost of inaction, which is often difficult but not impossible to quantify.
However, although a green premium seems like a more difficult sell at the moment, a so-called ‘security premium’ is proving to be more popular.
Nearly half of people that expect lower bills would be willing to shell out €25 extra a month to increase energy independence, while a third of those that do not expect the transition to reduce bills would be willing.
Green and security often go hand-in-hand, as domestic energy generation like offshore wind and solar are seen as powerful alternatives to imported, volatile and expensive fuels like fossil gas and oil.
This is not the first time that climate action progress may be achieved thanks to public support that goes beyond environmental considerations. In Poland, for example, concerns about air quality and health have triggered decarbonisation measures in large cities.
The quest for energy independence may well have a similar effect.
Want more updates and analysis of what is happening in the world of energy and climate? Interested in finding out more information about public tenders and consultations? Sign up to our Energy Rundown newsletter here!
