Ordered to be printed 7 September 2022 and published 12 October 2022 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords

Environment and Climate Change Committee The Environment and Climate Change Committee was appointed by the House of Lords in each session to consider the environment and climate change. The Members of the Environment and Climate Change Committee Lord Browne of Ladyton Baroness Northover Lord Cameron of Dillington (until 19 January 2022) Bishop of Oxford Baroness Chalker Baroness Parminter (Chair) Lord Colgrain Duke of Wellington (from 19 January 2022) Lord Grantchester (from 19 January 2022) Lord Whitty Lord Lilley Baroness Young of Old Scone A full list of Members’ interests can be found in the Register of Lords’ -and-interests/register-of-lords- All publications of the Committee are available Live coverage of debates and public sessions of the Committee’s meetings are available Further information about the House of Lords and its Committees, including guidance to witnesses, details of current inquiries and forthcoming meetings is available The staff who worked on this inquiry were Connie Walsh (Clerk), Oliver Rix (Policy Analyst) Laura Ayres (Committee Operations Officer) and Jo Herschan (POST Fellow). All correspondence should be addressed to the Environment and Climate Change Committee, Committee Office, House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW. Telephone 020 7219 6798. Email You can follow the Committee on @HLEnviroClimate We would like to dedicate this report to Lord Puttnam, the celebrated film producer, educationalist and environmentalist, who participated in the work of our Committee and the wider House until he retired on 27 October 2021. Chapter 2: Behaviour why, what and who 10 Why is behaviour change needed? 10 What kinds of behaviour change are needed? 11 engagement in the Sixth Carbon Budget 13 Who needs to change behaviour? 15 Chapter 3: Current position of the public 18 Tracking public attitudes and behavioural trends 22 Chapter 4: Theories, drivers and levers of change 24 Theories, models and drivers of behaviour 24 Chapter 5: Learning from other policy areas 31 Smoking, obesity and pensions 31 Chapter 6: Delivering behaviour change in partnership 35 Civil community groups, charities and faith groups 35 Box 1: Examples of civil society action 36 Box 2: Examples of local authority action 39 Box 3: Examples of business action 42 Devolved governments and administrations 44 Chapter 7: Challenges and opportunities in key behaviour Chapter 8: Communications, public engagement and education 74 The information environment 81

Chapter 9: The Government’s approach and role 90 The Government’s overall approach 90 Coordination within Government 96 Coordination of other actors 102 Summary of conclusions and recommendations 104 Appendix 1: List of Members and declarations of interest 116 Appendix 2: List of witnesses 118 Appendix 3: Call for evidence 126 Appendix 4: High-level summary of engagement activity in Appendix 5: Minutes of proceedings on the report 131 Evidence is published online at work/1621/mobilising-action-on-climate-change-and-environment- behaviour-change/publications/ and available for inspection at the Parliamentary Archives (020 7219 3074). Q in footnotes refers to a question in oral evidence. The twin crises of climate change and nature loss demand an immediate and sustained response. The Government has committed to reaching net zero by 2050 and to leave the environment in a better condition for future generations. People power is critical to meet those targets. Analysis by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) suggests that without changes to people’s behaviours now, the target of net zero by 2050 is not achievable. Drawing on the CCC’s assessment, we have identified that 32 per cent of emissions reductions up to 2035 require decisions by individuals and households to adopt low carbon technologies and choose low-carbon products and services, as well as reduce carbon-intensive consumption.1 In our inquiry, we looked at evidence about the ways in which people can be encouraged to change their behaviours and the action the Government has been taking to do that. Whilst the Government has introduced some policies to help people adopt new technologies, like electric cars, these have not been replicated in other policy areas and there is a reluctance to help people to cut carbon-intensive consumption. Time is not on our side, and there is too great a reliance on as yet undeveloped technologies to get us to net zero. Polling shows the public is ready for leadership from the Government in this space. People want to know how to play their part in tackling climate change and environmental damage, and the Government is in a unique position to guide the public in changing their behaviours. The Government should provide clarity to individuals about the changes we need to make, in how we travel, what we eat and buy, and how we use energy at home, and should articulate the many co-benefits to health and wellbeing of taking those steps. A public engagement strategy, both to communicate a national narrative and build support for getting to net zero, is urgently required. Behavioural science evidence and best practice show that a combination of policy levers, including regulation and fiscal incentives, must be used by Government, alongside clear communication, as part of a joined-up approach to overcome the barriers to making low-carbon choices. A behavioural lens must be applied consistently across all government departments, as too many policies, from planning and building standards to advertising regulations, are still encouraging high carbon Fairness is key to effective behaviour change and now more than ever must be at the heart of policy design. As the country faces a cost-of-living crisis, the Government must tailor behaviour change interventions to avoid placing a burden on those who can least afford it. The Government must also work with the many groups and organisations at different levels of society who have a critical role in securing behaviour change for climate change and the environment. Businesses are in a position to enable behaviour change through increasing the affordability and availability of greener products and services and engaging customers and employees, but need direction from government if they are to act against their immediate financial interests.
Numerous civil society organisations and local authorities work tirelessly to deliver behaviour we adopted a narrower focus on individual and household-level behaviour change compared to the CCC’s Sixth Carbon Budget and 2022 Progress Report. change projects on a local level, and their efforts should be both supported and celebrated better by central Government. Lessons can be learned from both successful and unsuccessful behaviour change interventions in other policy areas. Most notably, the widespread behaviour change brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. We recognise that the changes demanded by the pandemic were seen as a short-term response to a short-term emergency, nonetheless it will be a major missed opportunity if the Government does not seize the chance to evaluate behaviour change interventions implemented during the pandemic and apply lessons learned. The machinery of government through which climate and environment policy, including behaviour change, is designed and delivered lacks transparency and clarity. The current system relies on a muddle of groups, boards and committees whose remits and relationships with one another are opaque. Behaviour change interventions will not be effective nor consistent unless existing structures for cross-government coordination of climate and environment policy are overhauled and made more transparent and accountable to parliament and the The Government’s approach to enabling people to change behaviours risks a failure to meet statutory climate change and environment goals. Swift action to rectify the approach is required. • Behaviour change is essential for achieving climate and environment goals, and for delivering wider benefits. • The Government’s current approach to enabling behaviour change to meet climate and environment goals is inadequate to meet the scale of the • The public want clear leadership on the areas of behaviour change they should prioritise, and they want the Government to lead a coordinated approach to help them adapt by making change easier and fairer. • Priority behaviour change policies are needed in the areas of travel, heating, diet and consumption to enable the public to adopt and use green technologies and products and reduce carbon-intensive consumption. • There is a need for greater leadership and coordination across Government departments and with wider society on behaviour change for climate and • The Government needs to provide a positive vision and clear narrative on how the public can help achieve climate and environment goals, and to • Information is not enough to change behaviour; the Government needs to play a stronger role in shaping the environment in which the public acts, through appropriately sequenced measures including regulation, taxation and development of infrastructure. • Fairness is key to effective behaviour change. • Businesses have a critical role to play in enabling behaviour change through increasing the affordability and availability of greener products and services, and engaging customers and employees. • Government should also support and celebrate civil society organisations, faith communities and local authorities delivering local behaviour change • Government should learn from examples of where it has effectively enabled behaviour change, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as

In our behaviour change for climate and environmental goals 1. In June 2019, the Government enshrined the net zero target in law, requiring a 100 per cent reduction of UK greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.2 The Government has also committed to cut these emissions by 78 per cent by 2035: just 13 years away.3 2. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) 4 was clear in its advice for the 2035 target that “more than ever before, future emissions reductions will require people to be actively involved. This need not entail sacrifices. Many people can make low-carbon choices, about how they travel, how they heat their homes, what they buy and what they eat.”5 3. The CCC was also clear on the focus and leadership required from the Government in all areas, including behaviour “The utmost focus is required from government over the next ten years. If policy is not scaled up across every sector; if business is not encouraged to invest; if the people of the UK are not engaged in this challenge—the UK will not deliver Net Zero by 2050. The 2020s must be the decisive decade of progress and action.”6 4. Alongside legally binding targets to reduce emissions, the UK has—and is due to establish—long-term environmental goals and targets. The Government set out goals to achieve clean air, use resources from nature more sustainably and efficiently, and minimise waste in the 25 Year Environment Plan in 2018.7 At the time of writing the Government is developing long-term targets for environmental improvement in air quality, water, biodiversity and resource efficiency and waste as required under the Environment Act 2021.8 2 The Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019 3 The Carbon Budget Order 2021 article 2 4 The CCC is the Government’s statutory adviser on climate change established by the Climate Change 5 CCC, The Sixth Carbon The UK’s path to Net Zero (December 2020), p 13: org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2020/12/The-Sixth-Carbon-Budget-The-UKs-path- to-Net-Zero.pdf 7 The plan includes goals to achieve clean air, clean and plentiful water, thriving plants and wildlife, a reduced risk of harm from environmental hazards such as flooding and drought, using resources from nature more sustainably and efficiently, and, enhanced beauty, heritage and engagement with the natural environment. It also includes goals to manage pressures on the environment by mitigating and adapting to climate change, minimising waste, managing exposure to chemicals, and, enhancing biosecurity. Defra, A Green Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment (January 2018), p 10: /system/uploads/attachment_data/file /693158/25-year-environment-plan.pdf [accessed 7 June 2022] 8 At the time of writing the Government’s consultation on proposed targets under the Environment Act had recently closed. The Act requires one or more draft statutory instruments setting the targets to be laid before Parliament on or before 31 October 2022. Environment Act 2021, section 1, 4

5.
In this inquiry we set out to review the evidence about how and why people change their behaviours and to explore the Government’s approach to enabling individuals, households and communities to adopt the changes anticipated by the CCC and others to meet net zero, as well as changes to meet the UK’s environmental goals. We used a broad definition of behaviour change which includes individual and household choices made as a result of government policies—ranging from communications to regulation and taxation—as well as changes brought about by shifts in social and cultural norms. We considered how individuals and households are being supported to adopt new technologies, switch to more sustainable products and services, change travel modes and reduce carbon-intensive consumption. 6. We found that we cannot rely on large-scale and unproven technologies alone to achieve the transition to net zero. Behaviour change is also needed. We have worked with the CCC to calculate that 32 per cent of emissions reductions up to 2035 relies on decisions by individuals and households, while 63 per cent relies on the involvement of the public in some form.9 This means the whole country needs to be engaged in this immense challenge— every government department, every layer of devolved and local government, every business, every charity, civil society group and faith community, and every household. Leadership and coordination from the Government are 7. We launched our inquiry on 15 November 2021. We held 13 evidence panels, involving 34 witnesses, and two ministerial sessions, and we received 112 written submissions. We also met with four participants from Climate Assembly UK and students from the six schools on our youth engagement programme, on which more information is available in the public engagement section of Chapter 8 and the appendices. 8. During the course of the inquiry, we took evidence from ministers and departments from the Government led by Prime Minister Johnson. On 6 September 2022, Liz Truss became Prime Minister. We hope the new Prime Minister and her Cabinet find this report useful. 9. Ewa Kmietowicz, a long-time staff member at the Committee on Climate Change who gave evidence to the Committee at the beginning of this inquiry, died earlier in 2022. We extend our deepest sympathies to her family, friends 10. This report is structured as • Chapter 2 explores the rationale for behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals, what kinds of change are required and the extent to which different individuals and groups need to, and are able 9 In this report we are concerned with behaviour change by individuals and households, which is a narrower focus compared to the CCC’s important consideration of related decisions by businesses and public authorities and of changes requiring public engagement and consent. 63 per cent statistic is an updated estimate of the statistics given for the two behaviour change-related categories in the CCC’s written evidence and in CCC, Progress in reducing 2022 Report to Parliament (June 2022), p 447: .theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Progress-in- reducing-emissions-2022-Report-to-Parliament.pdf [accessed 7 September 2022]

• Chapter 3 assesses the implications for government policy of the UK public’s level of concern and understanding about climate change and the environment, and people’s appetite for changing behaviour. • Chapter 4 discusses how research on theories, drivers and levers of behaviour change can inform policies. • Chapter 5 considers lessons that can be drawn from successes and failures in behaviour change interventions in other policy areas including the COVID-19 pandemic, smoking, obesity and pensions. • Chapter 6 looks at how change can be delivered in partnership with civil society, including faith groups, as well as local government, businesses and devolved governments and administrations. • Chapter 7 explores the challenges and opportunities of delivering behaviour change in the key areas of travel, food, energy use at home • Chapter 8 assesses how information communicated by the Government, the wider media and education can influence everyday behaviours and considers the role of public engagement in supporting effective and publicly accepted behaviour change interventions. • Finally, Chapter 9 evaluates the Government’s overall approach to behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals and considers how coordination can be achieved within Government and with other groups and organisations. “The reality is that behaviour change is a part of reaching net zero. It is Sir Patrick Vallance, Government Chief Scientific Adviser Why is behaviour change needed? 11. Behaviour change10 across the whole population is essential to meet net zero and reduce environmental harms. Government policy and engagement are critical to achieving this level of change, which will produce many other benefits to health and wellbeing. 12. Many witnesses told us behaviour change is needed to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 and to comply with international obligations under the Paris Agreement. 11 Sir Patrick Vallance, Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA), “The reality is that behaviour change is a part of reaching net zero. It is unarguable.” 12 Dr Viktoria Spaiser and Professor Cristina Leston-Bandeiras, both at the University of Leeds, pointed to the gap between estimates of the current average UK individual lifestyle carbon footprint, 8.5 tonnes CO2 per year, and footprints consistent with emissions reduction targets for 2030 (2.5 tonnes) and 2050 (0.7 tonnes) (as shown in Globally uniﬁed targets for the lifestyle carbon footprints 0.7 2.5 tonnes CO2e / capita / year Food 1.8 1.6 Transport 3.7 1.4 1.2 Total 9.7 tonnes CO2e / capita / year 14.2Food 2.3 Housing 3.1 Transport 5.0 Goods 2.5 1.4 Transport 3.3 Food 1.6 Housing 1.9 1.0 .8 8.5 Food 1.4 Housing 2.4 2.0 1.0 1.2 8.1 Written evidence from Dr Viktoria Spaiser and Professor Cristina Leston-Bandeiras ( CCE0016). * Average lifestyle carbon footprint of country estimated as of 2019. The vertical hatching indicates 1.5°C lifestyle footprint targets for 2030 and 2050 (1.5°C without/less use of CCS). 10 Witnesses advised the Committee to focus on behaviour change as an outcome or set of outcomes. We discuss this further in the ‘What kinds of behaviour change are needed?’ sub-section.
11 Written evidence from Carbon Copy ( CCE0008), Climate Outreach ( CCE0111), the UCL Centre for Behaviour Change ( CCE0033), One Home ( CCE0045), and Q 14 (Rob Hopkins). For more information on the Paris Agreement see House of Commons Library, ‘The Paris Climate Change Conference’ (27 September 2016): uk/research-briefings/cbp- 7393/ [accessed 7 September 2022] 12 Q 111 (Sir Patrick Vallance)

13. Witnesses said behaviour change is also needed because future technological innovations cannot be relied upon to deliver all the necessary emissions reductions.13 Sir Patrick Vallance told “Dreaming that something brand new will appear and save us by 2050 is not sensible.”14 14. We heard that if efforts to reduce emissions fail, behaviour changes will still be required. Tim Lord, Associate Senior Fellow at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, “There is not a counterfactual where we carry on as we are and everything is okay. A world of 2.5, 3 or 3.5 degrees of warming will also require significant behavioural changes in other respects.” 15 15. Environmental degradation—including biodiversity losses and water and air pollution—can be reduced through behaviour change in certain sectors. Henry Dimbleby, author of the UK’s National Food Strategy, told “The food system is by far the largest cause of damage to nature. It is the biggest cause of biodiversity collapse, freshwater pollution, freshwater scarcity, deforestation, and clearing out of the oceans.” 16 Others pointed to the reductions in air pollution which could be achieved by supporting public transport use and active travel.17 16. The benefits beyond reductions in emissions and environmental impacts which these kinds of changes would bring are often referred to as ‘co-benefits’. Witnesses emphasised that dietary change and increased active travel would deliver health improvements and reduce the burden on the NHS.18 Professor Dame Theresa Marteau DBE, Director of Behaviour and Health Research Unit at the University of Cambridge, told “With effective changes to behaviour, not only would we start to tackle climate change and be on the path to net zero by 2050, but, because of shared drivers, we would also be improving health and reducing inequalities, and tackling some of the major challenges to population Energy efficiency improvements help reduce household bills, but support has to be provided to help with upfront costs. Other changes which we go on to discuss could deliver local economic benefits.20 What kinds of behaviour change are needed? 17. Behaviour change is often characterised as voluntary changes promoted by information-sharing measures.21 We were advised instead to define behaviour change as an outcome or set of outcomes. Prof Dame Marteau told “When I say behaviour change by intervention I am thinking of any intervention … 13 Written evidence from Dr Viktoria Spaiser and Prof Cristina Leston-Bandeiras ( CCE0016) and Q 128 14 Q 111 (Sir Patrick Vallance) 17 Written evidence from Humanist Climate Action ( CCE0071) 18 Q 3 (David Joffe), Q 80 (Angela Terry), Q 12 (Dr Shanon Shah) 19 Q 41 (Prof Dame Theresa Marteau) 20 Written evidence from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) ( CCE0089) and Green Alliance (CCE0051), Q 21 (Sally Copley), Q 21 (Ugo Vallauri) and Q 110 (Tim Lord) and written evidence from the IPPR (CCE0089) and the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048) 21 The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee’s 2011 report on Behaviour Change referred to “a range of non-regulatory interventions” or “nudge interventions” which were especially popular for promoting behaviour change at that time. See House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, Behaviour Change (2nd Report, Session 2010–12, HL Paper 179). that changes behaviour. I am not using it to define the intervention but rather the outcome.”22 Toby Park, Head of Energy, Environment & Sustainability at the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), agreed and told “We are talking about something more akin to building a world in which low-carbon choices and behaviours can flourish.”23 18. The CCC have distinguished between the two broad types of behaviour change that are needed to achieve emissions (1) adopting and using new technologies and (2) changing consumption behaviours including by reducing demand. The CCC’s 2022 Progress Report described two types of behaviour change and their contributions to emissions reductions as • “Choices that involve both the demand and supply sides : consumers and businesses making lower-carbon choices that involve new low-carbon technology such as driving an electric car or installing a heat pump instead of a gas boiler. These choices comprise 47 per cent of abatement in 2035 in our Balanced Pathway. • Primarily demand-side choices that go beyond a switch to low- carbon technologies, such as shifting towards healthier and lower- carbon diets, reducing growth in aviation demand, shifting to lower- carbon goods and choosing products that last longer and therefore improve resource efficiency. This category contains 15 per cent of abatement in 2035 in our Balanced Pathway.”24 19. The combined contributions of these two types of behaviour change to reductions delivered by individual and household-level decisions is 106MtCO2e/year or 32 per cent of all abatement up to 2035. Abated emissions (MtCO2e/year) Small businessPublic AuthorityIndividual Written evidence from the Climate Change Committee ( CCE0112) 22 Q 35 (Prof Dame Theresa Marteau) 24 Committee on Climate Change, Progress in reducing 2022 Report to Parliament (June 2022), p 447: content/uploads/2022/06/Progress-in-reducing-emissions-2022 -Report-to- Parliament.pdf [accessed 7 September 2022]

20. Others similarly suggested that adopting low-carbon technologies, shifting to low-carbon services or modes (i.e., taking a train instead of a plane) and reducing consumption are the main types of behaviour change that are needed to reduce emissions and environmental impacts.25 21. There is a widespread consensus that the key areas where behaviour change would help the UK to meet climate and environmental goals relate to how we travel, what we eat and buy, and energy use at home. emissions reductions and which require some consumer engagement.
ULEV [ultra-low emissions vehicles] - cars 56.8 Demand reduction international flights 11.3 Electrification in manufacturing and construction 9.4 ULEV - vans small business 8.4 ULEV - vans large business 8.1 Diet change and food waste reduction 7.4 Heat pumps in owner occupied houses 7.3 CCUS [carbon capture, use and storage] in manufacturing and construction Biodegradable waste landfill ban, reductions in food Resource efficiency and material substitution in manufacturing and construction Fuel supply sector fuel switching 5.1 Heat pumps in new residential buildings 4.4 Energy efficiency in non-residential buildings 3.8 Reduce methane leakage in fuel supply 3.6 Electric compressors in fuel supply 3.4 Energy efficiency in manufacturing and construction 3.3 Reduced consumption of new resources in manufacturing and construction Written evidence from the Climate Change Committee ( CCE0112) * These are the top 20 actions within the CCC’s two behaviour change categories set out in paragraph 18. 25 Written evidence from Dr Viktoria Spaiser, and Prof Cristina Leston-Bandeiras ( CCE0016), Climate Outreach (CCE0111) and Dr Caroline Moraes ( CCE0019)

can be delivered through adopting ultra-low emission cars, installing heat pumps, reducing international flights, dietary change and reducing food 24. Paula Lehtomäki, Secretary General of the Nordic Council, and others told us behaviour changes related to personal travel, food and household energy use could have the largest impact. 26 Witnesses also said what we buy and the reduction, reuse and recycling of products should be considered a priority,27 and some singled out fashion in particular. 28 Dr Rachel Harcourt and Professor Suraje Dessai from the University of Leeds explained that behaviour change would also be needed to adapt to climate change, for example households installing flood prevention measures for their private 25. The scale and urgency of the changes required was another point highlighted by witnesses. Professor Tim Lang, Emeritus Professor of Food Policy at City University, told “It is population change or bust. Trying to appeal to individuals to do that, or to do a little tweak here or there, will not address the enormity, the scale of change that has to be done if we are to take public health seriously and environmental health seriously.” 30 While Sir Patrick Vallance “The reality is if most things are not done in the next five or six years, it is very difficult to start making the 2050 target.” 31 26. When asked about particular areas where behaviour change may be needed to meet net zero, the Rt Hon Greg Hands MP, then Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, told “ I would highlight travel, our homes, how we save our money, how we heat our homes, et cetera.”32 27. There is a widespread consensus that—if the UK is to meet its climate and environmental goals—we will need to change how we travel, what we eat and buy, and how we use energy at home, including through adopting new technologies and reducing carbon-intensive consumption. Making these changes will bring multiple health, social 28. The UK has made welcome progress in reducing emissions through technological innovations and their uptake by industry with little visible impact on the public. This must continue but the Government must also devote much more attention to making it easier for individuals, households and communities to adopt new technologies, change consumption patterns—including by reducing demand—and shift travel modes, if we are to achieve net zero and the UK’s long- 26 Q 49 (Paula Lehtomäki), Q 75 (Prof Ken Peattie) and written evidence from the CAST Consortium (CCE0048), Dr Viktoria Spaiser and Prof Cristina Leston-Bandeiras ( CCE0016), Oxfordshire County Council (CCE0103) and the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions ( CCE0069) 27 Written evidence from the UCL Centre for Behaviour Change ( CCE0033), Humanist Climate Action (CCE0071) and n0co2.org (CCE0020) 28 Written evidence from Hubbub ( CCE0060) and Q 75 (Prof Ken Peattie) 29 Written evidence from Dr Rachel Harcourt and Prof Suraje Dessai ( CCE0044) 30 Q 98 (Prof Tim Lang) and Dr Shanon Shah made a similar point ( Q 14). 31 Q 109 (Sir Patrick Vallance)

29. The Government should focus as a priority on enabling the most impactful behaviour changes that will be needed to meet climate and environmental goals adopting ultra-low emission vehicles; installing home insulation and low-carbon heating technologies; taking fewer long-haul flights; changing of diets; and generally reducing carbon and resource-intensive consumption and Who needs to change behaviour? 30. This report focuses on behaviour changes by individuals, households and communities. We explore the roles of civil society, local authorities, businesses, devolved governments and the UK Government in enabling these changes in Chapters 6 and 9. 31. We heard that not all households will need to—or be able to—adopt behaviour changes to the same extent, and that policies should take into account the needs of different groups and fairness. 32. Mr Lord told “In the UK, the wealthiest 10 per cent have a carbon footprint more than double the national average and more than four times that of people at the lower end of the income distribution.”33 Other witnesses noted this unequal distribution of emissions across UK households as well as globally, and suggested high-income households have a greater responsibility 33. We heard that policies could have the greatest impact by targeting households with higher emissions. Greater Manchester Combined Authority Health and Social Care Partnership told us, “It is with these higher income groups that behaviour change approaches may offer the most immediate promise,” but also “Policies need to be inclusive of lower income groups to prevent a widening of inequalities.”35 34. Witnesses said behaviour change policies should account for low-income households both having been and continuing to be contributors of fewer emissions and pollution and being less able to manage any increases in costs.36 Further, Dr Caroline Moraes, Reader in Marketing and Consumer Research at the University of Birmingham, said, due to increasing rates of poverty, solutions should be sought which do not raise costs for end consumers.37 35.
It is harder for some groups to make changes and they may be affected differently by behaviour change policies. Professor Wouter Poortinga, Professor of Environmental Psychology at Cardiff University, and Dr Emily Gray, Managing Director at Ipsos MORI Scotland, both noted that limited travel options in rural areas make changes for those living there more challenging.38 Stephen Edwards, Chief Executive Officer of Living Streets, highlighted that “disabled and visually impaired people experience our 34 Written evidence from Dr Viktoria Spaiser and Prof Cristina Leston-Bandeiras (CCE0016), One Home (CCE0045) and Picture Zero Productions ( CCE0055) and Q 105 (James Hand). 35 Written evidence from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority Health and Social Care 36 Written evidence from Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation ( CCE0012) 37 Written evidence from Dr Caroline Moraes ( CCE0019) 38 Q 68 (Prof Wouter Poortinga) and Q 71 (Dr Emily Gray)

streets very differently from the way we do, and we need to ensure that we do not exclude people when we are introducing changes”.39 36. Several witnesses highlighted that to take into account the needs of different groups in designing behaviour change policies requires fairness and actively engaging people. 40 Fairness and a ‘just transition’ were seen as essential for public acceptance of policies. 41 Further, the Climate Assembly UK— which was commissioned by six House of Commons select committees and involved a representative group of UK citizens exploring how to reach net zero—emphasised in their final report the importance of fairness as an underpinning principle for the path to net zero.42 37. When asked about ensuring behaviour change is fair for lower-income “You absolutely have to carry people with you in this, which means keeping it affordable and thinking all the time about how people are being pressed, particularly this year … The last thing they would want to see is the Government coming along and adding massively to that 38. As the Committee concluded this inquiry, the cost-of-living crisis was deepening with energy and food prices rising to put a growing strain on many household budgets. While much of our evidence-gathering occurred before prices had reached current levels, witnesses noted affordability as a barrier to some kinds of behaviour change and emphasised how financial support mechanisms could help in some cases.44 We note this in the relevant chapters and our conclusions and recommendations are informed by the challenges many households face at the time of writing. 39. Witnesses were clear that the UK’s path to net zero should be a fair one. Everyone will need to make some changes, but higher income households which typically have a larger carbon footprint must take correspondingly larger steps to reduce their emissions. 40. The barriers to changing behaviour to reduce emissions and environmental impacts and to adapt to climate change vary across the population. Policies will have to address the needs of different households including people on low incomes, people living in rural areas and people with disabilities. We welcome the Minister’s recognition of the importance of affordability in the transition to net zero. The growing cost-of-living crisis strengthens the need for behaviour change policies that support lower-income households. 40 Written evidence from Duggan ( CCE0023), Trafford Council ( CCE0096) and the UCL Centre for 41 Q 49 (Secretary-General Paula Lehtomäki) and written evidence from Green Alliance ( CCE0051) and the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056) 42 Climate Assembly UK, The Path to Net Climate Assembly UK Full Report (September 2020), p 12: pdf [accessed 7 June 2022] 44 Written evidence from More in Common ( CCE0050), Midlands Connect ( CCE0075), Which? (CCE0039), the Institute of Grocery Distribution ( CCE0099), the IPPR ( CCE0089), South Cambridgeshire District Council ( CCE0105) and Energy Saving Trust ( CCE0047) and Q 110 (Sir Patrick Vallance), Q 38 (Prof Theresa Marteau) and Q 119 (Tim Lord), written evidence from the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions ( CCE0069), the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048)

41. Fairness should be a central aspect of government policies on behaviour change to meet net zero and long-term environmental goals, including by helping low-income households with costs where

“We know that the public are keen to play their part. The BEIS Public Attitudes Tracker shows that 85 per cent of the public are concerned or, indeed, very concerned about climate change. That number has doubled since 2016.” The Rt Hon Greg Hands MP, then Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, 42. A wealth of research has explored the UK public’s levels of concern and understanding about climate change and the environment, as well as people’s appetite for changing behaviour and related policies. 43. Many studies and polls suggest the UK public’s concern about climate change and the environment has been increasing in recent years and is high.45 The Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST) Consortium told “Concern about climate change has steadily risen over the past decade, and stands at an all-time high, with 45 per cent of the British population saying they are very or extremely worried about it. This is an increase from 39 per cent in 2020 and 25 per cent in 2016.”46 Dr Gray “Overall concern about the environment and climate change has been on the rise among the public for the last four years or so and it rose particularly in 2019 and early 2020, before the pandemic hit.” 47 She added that while concern had fallen somewhat in the months after COP26 and as other pandemic-related developments rose up the public agenda, “evidence will point to greater public concern about this issue being here to stay.”48 44. Dr Harcourt and Prof Dessai also noted high levels of concern about the local impacts of climate change and suggested this provides “a window of opportunity” for the Government “to raise awareness of adaptation options and to secure public support for government-led adaptation measures and 45.
In his evidence to the Committee, Mr Hands noted the level of concern among the public regarding climate “We know that the public are keen to play their part. The BEIS Public Attitudes Tracker shows that 85 per cent of the public are concerned or, indeed, very concerned about climate change. That number has doubled since 2016.”50 46. Differences across the UK public in the degree of concern reported are smaller than they were, but most witnesses said they still exist. Dr Gray said that concern about climate change is now much more mainstream, but added socio-economic status still makes “a big difference” to people’s level of concern.51 Others noted high levels of concern in general but pointed to 45 Written evidence from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) ( CCE0074), Natural England (CCE0034), Green Alliance ( CCE0051), British Psychological Society ( CCE0090) and Picture Zero 46 Written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048) 49 Written evidence from Dr Rachel Harcourt and Prof Suraje Dessai ( CCE0044)

differences in the strength of feeling by age, gender, socio-economic status, and political party affiliation. 52 47. Some witnesses highlighted emerging evidence of wider emotional responses to climate change and the environment. Dr Elizabeth Marks, Senior Lecturer at the University of Bath, and colleagues referred to recent surveys focused on children, young adults and other age groups where respondents reported feeling a range of challenging emotions regarding climate change, such as fear, anxiety and anger. 53 The Office for National Statistics (ONS) shared results from their October 2021 Opinions and Lifestyle Survey showing more than 40 per cent of UK adults reported feeling somewhat or very anxious about the future of the environment.54 48. We heard from Which?, the consumer organisation, that people “don’t always understand what they can most effectively do to reduce their own impact”.55 Other witnesses agreed.56 Dr Gray told “The evidence suggests that we tend to overestimate how much of a difference to carbon emissions lower-impact actions such as recycling and so on will make. We underestimate the impact of higher-impact actions that will make more of a difference to reducing carbon emissions in the UK, such as taking fewer flights or living car-free.” 57 Several other witnesses made the same point. 58 Witnesses singled out food as an area where there is especially low awareness of its impacts on climate change and the environment. 59 South Cambridgeshire District Council suggested the UK public’s predominant focus on recycling shows what has been achieved by “relatively clear and consistent messaging for decades on recycling backed up by the provision of physical assets (separate bins)”.60 They added that a similar level of awareness could be achieved for wider climate change action, “If similar messaging and practical aid could be provided.” 61 49. There is limited understanding of the scale of change that may be needed to address and adapt to climate change. Dr Jan Eichhorn, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy at the University of Edinburgh, explained that when asked about the impact of climate change on their lives by 2035 if no action were taken, 18 per cent of people in the UK surveyed thought their lives “would not be affected negatively at all” and 45 per cent of people thought their lives “would just change somewhat requiring some adaptation”. 62 Dr Gray told 52 Written evidence from NIHR Public Health Policy Research Unit ( CCE0024), the CAST Consortium (CCE0048), Prof Alison Anderson ( CCE0058) and Natural England ( CCE0034) 53 Written evidence from Dr Elizabeth Marks, Dr Panu Pihkala, Caroline Hickman and Elouise Mayall 54 Written evidence from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) ( CCE0074) 55 Written evidence from Which? ( CCE0039) 56 Written evidence from One Home ( CCE0045) and WRAP ( CCE0003) 58 Q 1 (Toby Park), Q 117 (Tim Lord) and written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048) and Aldersgate Group ( CCE0113) 59 Q 99 (Henry Dimbleby), Q 60 (Dr Emily Gray) and written evidence from Which? ( CCE0039) and 60 Written evidence from South Cambridgeshire District Council ( CCE0105) 62 Written evidence from Dr Jan Eichhorn ( CCE0022)

“Awareness of the extent of the transformation that will be needed in 50. Most of the UK public support some form of action by the Government and other actors to address climate change and environmental issues. Dr Gray noted, “Around half of the UK public tell us that they would like the UK to get to net zero sooner than 2050,”64 while Dr Eichhorn told “The majority of people … wants action to be taken against climate change, but to a varying degree.” 65 As we discuss in Chapter 9, there is a widely-held perception, which is held by several students on the Committee’s youth engagement programme, that the Government should be taking a greater leadership role on climate change than is seen to be the case. 51. However, there is mixed evidence of people’s appetite to make changes themselves. The CAST Consortium told us, “People across the UK express a significant willingness to take on lower carbon lifestyles,” 66 and Dr Marks and colleagues referred to survey results suggesting that seven in ten people “see climate change and other environmental issues are large enough to justify significant changes to people’s lifestyle”. 67 They “A similar number indicate they are willing to make such changes to their own lifestyles.” 68 In contrast, Mr Lord “Most people think they do as much as they can at the moment to address climate change … they think they do enough but the rest of the public do not do enough.”69 52. While willingness or desire to make changes varies depending upon the behaviour in question, the evidence is mixed on which changes the UK public are most willing to make. The appetite for policies about behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals also varies for different policies. 53.
Several witnesses including Midlands Connect and the Institute for Grocery Distribution (IGD) referred to recent survey findings indicating a willingness or desire among a majority or significant minority of respondents to undertake certain changes across consumption, travel, energy use and diet.70 However the CAST Consortium urged caution when interpreting these results, “It is not yet clear if this willingness will lead to behavioural changes without concerted support from government, business and society.”71 Furthermore, the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University “Extensive evidence from the Social Sciences and Humanities indicates that consumer attitudes are not a good predictor of the potential for change towards greener (i.e. lower carbon) products and services.”72 There is a body of research exploring the gap between people’s expressed intentions and their environmental behaviours in practice, which 65 Written evidence from Dr Jan Eichhorn ( CCE0022) 66 Written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048) 67 Written evidence from Dr Elizabeth Marks, Dr Panu Pihkala, Caroline Hickman and Elouise Mayall 70 Written evidence from Hubbub ( CCE0060), the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048), Midlands Connect (CCE0075) and the Institute of Grocery Distribution ( CCE0099) 71 Written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048) 72 Written evidence from The Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056)

54. Dr Gray explained that with respect to different types of policies, “People are more likely to support policies that incentivise or support them to change their behaviours and help to put the infrastructure in place for them to do that rather than policies that are more restrictive.” 73 This finding is broadly consistent with the recommendations made by Climate Assembly UK.74 Prof Poortinga made a similar point and noted that policies expected to affect costs for consumers tend to be less “So-called pull measures— measures that make positive behaviours more attractive—are supported and liked much more than punitive measures that make the polluting options more expensive.” 75 However, he suggested that where public support is limited this might be understood in some cases as a “perception problem”, since certain policies would only affect households producing the highest “When you are talking about a carbon tax, for example, a lot of people do not like the idea, simply because it is labelled as a tax, whereas it would have an impact only on those who are high emitters. There is a 55. We heard from the CAST Consortium that, when surveyed, the majority of the UK public support a range of specific policies while other policy measures are less popular. The most popular include a levy applied to frequent flyers, subsidies for home insulation and regulations requiring products to be more reusable, repairable and recyclable. Less popular policies include financial measures to increase the price of meat and increased road charges.77 Regarding adaptation to climate change, Dr Harcourt and Prof Dessai told us surveys in recent years “have found support for spending money now to prepare the country for impacts”, but they also noted that a more granular picture is not available because there has not been a detailed survey of UK public attitudes towards climate adaptation for some years.78 56. Some ongoing trends also give an indication of the potential for voluntary behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals. Professor Ken Peattie, Professor of Marketing and Strategy at Cardiff Business School, noted a change in consumer purchasing “Household spending in the UK roughly doubled between 2010 and 2020 on goods and services that people are consuming on the basis of buying sustainable options. Within that, the big categories are things such as food and household products.” 79 Regarding diet, Sir Patrick Vallance told us, “Meat consumption has reduced by about 17 per cent in this country over the last decade,” 80 and in the area of travel, Mr Lord noted that in recent months, “The highest selling model in the UK is an electric vehicle. We now have around 500,000 on the roads and you have an exponential rise in the purchase of electric vehicles.” 81 He “The challenge now is to replicate that in other areas.”82 74 Climate Assembly UK, The Path to Net Zero (10 September 2020): report/read/final-report-exec-summary.pdf [accessed 15 September 2022] 75 Q 71 (Prof Wouter Poortinga) 76 Q 70 (Prof Wouter Poortinga) 77 Written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048) 78 Written evidence from Dr Rachel Harcourt and Prof Suraje Dessai ( CCE0044) 80 Q 111 (Sir Patrick Vallance)

57. The UK public are concerned about climate change and the environment and there is a widespread desire for action to be taken. There are several positive trends such as shifts in diets, purchasing behaviours and the growing uptake of electric vehicles. However, most of us do not know what the most effective actions are that we can take to reduce our emissions and environmental impacts, nor do we appreciate the scale of change that will be needed to reach net zero or adapt to climate change. The appetite of people across the UK for these actions and for the policies needed to enable them is mixed. The public want clear leadership from government and a coordinated approach from government to help them adapt. 58. The Government must be more open about the changes to behaviour that will be needed to meet the UK’s climate and environmental goals. We call on the Government to develop a public engagement strategy by April 2023 (1) communicate and fill the gaps in understanding about the types of changes needed to reach net zero, reduce our environmental footprint and adapt to climate change, and (2) initiate a dialogue with the public about which policies can best enable change and how. Tapping the potential in public concern about climate change and the environment could help accelerate the transition to a greener UK. Conversely a lack of communication and engagement from government risks a delayed and disorderly transition. We offer further recommendations on public engagement Tracking public attitudes and behavioural trends 59.
Recent waves of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Public Attitudes Tracker, which was referred to by Mr Hands in his evidence to the Committee, 83 include questions on awareness of the shift to low-carbon heating systems, whether people might install rooftop solar panels and what actions people take to save energy in the context of energy bills.84 The tracker does not consistently include questions covering whether people would like to, or are, taking actions across each of the key behaviour change areas we identify in Chapter 2, nor the reasons behind people’s 60. The ONS told us that ahead of the COP26 climate conference they gathered new data on public attitudes to climate change and behaviours including “actions taken or not taken”. 85 They also launched as a prototype the UK Climate Change Statistics Portal , which brings climate change-related statistics from across government “together in one place for the first time”. They “We are continuing to develop the portal.” 86 In his evidence to the Committee, Sir Patrick Vallance referred to an ONS dashboard and explained that while he was not sure of the exact content, he was focused on ensuring it is “as complete as can be” and noted the usefulness of capturing trends like changes in meat consumption.87 At present the ONS UK Climate 83 QQ 148, 157 (Greg Hands MP) 84 Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, BEIS Public Attitudes Tracker (Spring 2022): /file/1082723/ BEIS_PAT_Spring_2022_Questionnaire.pdf [accessed 15 September 2022] 85 Written evidence from Office for National Statistics (ONS) ( CCE0074) 87 Q 116 (Sir Patrick Vallance)

Change Statistics Portal also does not include statistics relating to all of the key behaviour change areas identified in Chapter 2. 88 61. Emily Cattell, Deputy Director, Office of the Director of Analysis for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), told us the Government’s public opinion trackers—including Defra’s survey on attitudes to the environment, the People and Nature Survey, and the BEIS Public Attitudes Tracker— “provide those really important trends across a whole range of policy areas. That allows us then to dive into specific areas we might want to pick up in the department”.89 62. Public attitudes towards climate change and the environment have evolved significantly in recent years. There is a rich body of evidence on some aspects of public attitudes and willingness to adopt behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals, but gaps in the data exist. We welcome the Office for National Statistics’ prototype UK Climate Change Statistics Portal , however neither this portal nor the BEIS Public Attitudes Tracker consistently include statistics relating to the key behaviour changes needed to achieve the UK’s climate and environment goals. 63. The BEIS Public Attitudes Tracker or the Office for National Statistics UK Climate Change Statistics Portal should regularly monitor whether people would like to or are making changes in how they travel, use energy at home and what they eat and buy, and the reasons behind people’s willingness to change. 88 HM Government, ‘Climate change statistics’: [accessed 15

“For a new behaviour to arise, people generally need to have sufficient capability to enact the behaviour, which the physical capability to do it, the means, the time and so on; the opportunity to do it—in other words, whether that choice is readily available to them, socially normative and so on; and the motivation to do it. Do they want to do it?” Toby Park, Head of Energy, Environment & Sustainability, the Behavioural Insights Team 64. There is a rich body of research upon which policies for behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals can draw to inform the drivers of behaviour they target and the policy levers to be used. 65. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Policy Research Unit argued that interventions informed by theory and applied research have higher chances of “It is important that [behaviour change interventions] are robustly developed, based on appropriate theoretical frameworks, and informed by research. Such research can identify barriers and facilitators to change and can test and refine different intervention approaches before implementation, ensuring that interventions have a better chance of Theories, models and drivers of behaviour 66. Theories and models of behaviour include psychological models, which focus on drivers of individual decision-making, and others which take broader social, structural or systems perspectives. 67. Psychological models include COM-B (capability, opportunity, behaviour), which was developed as a synthesis of other models by Susan Michie and colleagues from University College London (UCL) and was referred to by several witnesses. 91 Mr Park explained the core tenets of the “For a new behaviour to arise, people generally need to have sufficient capability to enact the behaviour, which the physical capability to do it, the means, the time and so on; the opportunity to do it—in other words, whether that choice is readily available to them, socially normative and so on; and the motivation to do it. Do they want to do it?”92 The British Psychological Society (BPS) suggested analysis of these factors can be used to “inform the most appropriate intervention”.93 68. Another psychological model is the Theory of Planned Behaviour, which suggests behavioural intentions are influenced by attitudes, social norms and perceived and actual control over actions.
Like ‘capability’ in COM-B, control “emphasises that we can only adopt (new) behaviours that are actually possible/available in a given context”.94 However, a limitation of the 90 Written evidence from the NIHR Public Health Policy Research Unit ( CCE0024) 91 Written evidence from Midlands Connect ( CCE0075), Hampshire County Council ( CCE0009), Oxfordshire County Council ( CCE0103) and Aldersgate Group ( CCE0113) 93 Written evidence from the British Psychological Society ( CCE0090) 94 Written evidence from Dr Viktoria Spaiser and Prof Cristina Leston-Bandeira ( CCE0016)

Theory of Planned Behaviour is its focus on intentional rather than habitual behaviour.95 Indeed, we heard that many behaviours relevant to this inquiry are routine and habitual, so are less able to be predicted by intentions than 69. Both COM-B and the Theory of Planned Behaviour shed light on a recognised gap between people’s intentions and their environmental behaviours in practice—which is often known as the “value-action gap” or “attitude-behaviour gap”—because wider social or physical factors prevent people acting on their values or attitudes. 97 Prof Dame Marteau told “People want to do the right thing, but life gets in the way.”98 70. However, some witnesses argued that a greater focus is needed on how structural factors and the wider environment evolve to inform behaviour than psychological models permit. 99 Prof Lang said cultural factors that shape aspirations and demand are key, 100 while the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University, proposed the use of “whole-system approaches that recognise that people’s actions are rooted in habits, social norms, and the opportunities and limitations that are created by physical environments, financial incentives and regulations”. 101 71. In this vein, witnesses referred to sociological models like Social Practice Theory (SPT), or ‘practice approaches’ as they are sometimes referred to, which see conventions and routines as properties of the interplay of social and physical factors the meanings associated with a behaviour; competences and skills; and the materials which make a practice possible. 102 “Driving might involve meanings such as freedom and mobility, being able to perform daily duties such as taking children to school and being able to get to work on time; it requires competences such as passing a written and practical driving test, being able to drive on busy roads; and it requires materials like a car or having access to car rental or car These sociological models explore the purposes of consumption and how they can be achieved in different ways.104 72. Somewhat similar to SPT, Governor Yuriko Koike, Governor of Tokyo, told us about a Japanese martial arts-inspired behaviour change model that focusses on mind (mindset), skill (technologies) and body (institutions and regulations).105 Governor Yuriko Koike said these three elements should be implemented “at the same time and comprehensively”.106 95 Written evidence from the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056) 96 Q 127 (Dr Kris De Meyer) and Q 59 (Prof Wouter Poortinga) 97 Written evidence from Prof Miles Richardson ( CCE0001), Dr Caroline Moraes ( CCE0019), Prof Alison Anderson ( CCE0058) and Q 59 (Prof Wouter Poortinga) 98 Q 35 (Prof Dame Theresa Marteau) 99 Written evidence from the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056) and the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions ( CCE0069) 101 Written evidence from the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056) 102 Written evidence from Dr Caroline Moraes ( CCE0019) 104 Written evidence from the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056) 105 Q 44 (Governor Yuriko Koike)

73. Further, we heard from several witnesses that individual factors, such as knowledge, tend to be less influential than wider social or physical factors.107 Mr Park explained this with reference to BIT’s upstream-downstream “Changing the choice environment to change behaviour—such as making the green choices cheaper and more available—is often more effective than trying to change what is inside people’s heads and hearts and persuading them to make different choices that are currently difficult, expensive, unfamiliar, and so on. We refer to this as acting 74. This ‘upstream’ approach in BIT’s model contrasts with ‘midstream’ and ‘downstream’ interventions. Upstream approaches work by “incentivising businesses to provide low-carbon options, which Government could achieve through fiscal opportunities; procurement strategies; aligning market competition with Net Zero; and leading by example”. 109 Midstream approaches “create an enabling environment so that behaviour change becomes the default where possible” including by making net zero choices more accessible, affordable and easier. 110 Downstream approaches involve encouraging individuals and include building positive narratives and public 75. Witnesses referred to several other models and how they can inform interventions, including the BIT’s ‘EAST’ model, which states behaviour change should be made easy, attractive, social and timely, 112 ‘nudge’ approaches, which encompass a range of methods for altering the attractiveness and prominence of behavioural options without constraining choice,113 and the five ‘E’s framework—encouragement, education, enforcement, environment, evaluation—applied by some local authorities.114 76. While several government departments discussed using the COM-B model and referred to other models (e.g., SPT and EAST) in their submissions to the Committee, the policies to enable behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals which departments described suggest that theories of behaviour are not consistently used.115 77. Beyond the theories and models discussed above, we heard that various factors drive changes to behaviours in the scope of this inquiry.116 Witnesses singled out individual knowledge, values and emotions—such as hope, pride and 107 Q 35 (Prof Dame Theresa Marteau), Q 127 (Kris De Meyer) and written evidence from the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions ( CCE0069), the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056), and the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048) 109 Written evidence from Midlands Connect ( CCE0075). The BIT’s upstream-downstream model was also set out in the October 2021 paper ‘Net principles for successful behaviour change initiatives’, which was commissioned by BEIS but only published by the Government temporarily before being withdrawn. The model has also been outlined in other BIT publications.
110 Written evidence from Midlands Connect ( CCE0075) 112 Written evidence from The National Lottery Community Fund ( CCE0031) 113 Written evidence from Understanding Society, the UK Household Longitudinal Study ( CCE0013) 114 Written evidence from Trafford Council ( CCE0096) and the Greater Manchester Directors of Public 115 Written evidence from the Department for Education (CCE0066), Defra (CCE0068), the Department for Transport (CCE0062), the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office ( CCE0064) and the Department for Health and Social Care ( CCE0061) 116 Q 49 (Secretary-General Paula Lehtomäki)

guilt117—and social factors—such as norms, group identity and community solidarity118—though practical factors were the most commonly mentioned including price, ease and functionality. 119 The influence of different factors varies across individuals and groups and, as we noted in Chapter 2, not all households will need to, or be able to, adopt behaviour changes to the same extent due to variation in consumption patterns and the barriers faced. 120 78. Our understanding of behaviour change continues to evolve. Across the range of behaviour change theories there are some consistent findings including that human behaviour is motivated by multiple factors, such as knowledge, values, social norms, price, ease and functionality. Several of these factors are structural and contribute to the wider environment within which behaviour takes place. 79. While some departments refer to behaviour change theories and models, we are not convinced that these are being used routinely and consistently by policymakers when approaching the societal aspects of achieving climate and environmental goals. 80. There are a range of policy levers available to the Government and other organisations and groups to enable behaviour change, which • informational tools and social approaches which aim to increase understanding and change attitudes or social norms; • public engagement to inform policy development and build consensus; • regulatory and financial (dis)incentives which alter the availability and • development or adaptation of physical infrastructure and the choice environment to change the context within which behaviour takes place. 81. Sir Patrick Vallance told us information is important as “individuals need to know what is expected of them and what they can do”. 121 Several witnesses said gaps in knowledge are hindering behaviour change to meet climate and 117 Written evidence from Dr Caroline Moraes ( CCE0019), Prof Miles Richardson ( CCE0001) and Dr Elizabeth Marks, Dr Panu Pihkala, Caroline Hickman and Elouise Mayall ( CCE0017) 118 Written evidence from Dr Rachel Harcourt and Prof Suraje Dessai ( CCE0044), the Advertising Association (CCE0037) and Dr Caroline Moraes ( CCE0019) 119 Q 109 (Sir Patrick Vallance), Q 5 (David Joffe), written evidence from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority Health and Social Care Partnership ( CCE0109), Q 81 (Hugo Spowers), QQ 2, 7 (Toby Park), Q 2 (Ewa Kmietowicz), written evidence from Hampshire County Council ( CCE0009), Which? (CCE0039), Dr Adam Whybray (CCE0002), the Institute of Grocery Distribution (CCE0099), Q 94 (Prof Jillian Anable), Q 85 (Chris Boardman), the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions (CCE0069), Dr Sean Field, Dr Mette High, Dr Emilka Skrzypek, Centre for Energy Ethics (CCE0053), Sustrans ( CCE0070), Q 115 (Tim Lord), Q 127 (Kris De Meyer), Q 3 (Toby Park) and 120 Written evidence from the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056) and Q 98 (James Hand), written evidence from Dr Claire Hoolohan and Dr Alison Browne ( CCE0029), Understanding Society, the UK Household Longitudinal Study ( CCE0013) and Dr Sara Collins and 121 Q 111 (Sir Patrick Vallance)

environmental goals. 122 However many witnesses suggested information by itself is insufficient to change behaviour and yet it is too often relied on by the Government and other groups and organisations. 123 The impact of awareness-raising approaches alone are often limited because “our actions do not automatically follow facts” and the environment may prevent behaviour change,124 as we discussed earlier in this chapter. 82. Dr Spaiser and Prof Leston-Bandeira argued that “without a change in norms, it is unrealistic to expect behavioural and institutional change”. 125 Social approaches can help normalise low-carbon choices and change consumption norms. These include community activities through which people take action locally and the roles social influencers and early adopters can play to inspire people to change their behaviour.126 83. Public engagement was felt by many witnesses to be vital. 127 Green Alliance “To be successful, lifestyle changes must chime with people’s values … Carefully testing future propositions by engaging with people early, and addressing their concerns and motivations, will expand the range of policies the government can use.”128 Engagement can build trust and willingness to participate in change. 129 Natural England argued that bringing in “voices of young people” is “especially important”. 130 We explore the role of public engagement in more detail in Chapter 8. 84. Witnesses said regulation and financial (dis)incentives can be used to make green choices easier and cheaper and to decrease the availability and affordability of carbon and resource-intensive products. 131 Regulation was argued by many to be a highly effective tool for behaviour change by consumers and industry and is often seen by the public as fairer and more acceptable than economic interventions. 132 Financial measures can be used to ensure the price of products and services better reflect their environmental costs.133 However, while affordability is very important, witnesses said cost is not always the biggest factor driving consumer decision-making.
134 122 Q 78 (Angela Terry), Q 115 (Tim Lord), written evidence from Dr Rachel Harcourt, Prof Suraje Dessai ( CCE0044), Q 60 (Dr Emily Gray), Q 2 (Ewa Kmietowicz), written evidence from Lorna Benton, Naomi Fallon, Paula Feehan and Alicia Walker ( CCE0046), Manchester City Council and Manchester Climate Change Agency ( CCE0102) and Q 2 ( Toby Pa rk) 123 Q 98 (Prof Tim Lang) Q 35 (Prof Dame Theresa Marteau) and written evidence from the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056) 124 Written evidence from Mr Per Grankvist, Chief Storyteller at Viable Cities ( CCE0079) and WinACC Winchester Action on the Climate Crisis ( CCE0006) 125 Written evidence from Dr Viktoria Spaiser and Prof Cristina Leston-Bandeira ( CCE0016) 126 Written evidence from Carbon Copy ( CCE0008), Dr Viktoria Spaiser and Prof Cristina Leston- Bandeira (CCE0016) and the Institute of Grocery Distribution ( CCE0099) and Q 84 (Angela Terry) 127 Written evidence from Trafford Council ( CCE0096) and the UCL Centre for Behaviour Change 128 Written evidence from Green Alliance ( CCE0051) 129 Written evidence from More in Common ( CCE0050) 130 Written evidence from Natural England ( CCE0034) 131 Written evidence from the UCL Plastic Waste Innovation Hub ( CCE0032), UK100 ( CCE0108), n0co2.org (CCE0020), Henham Strategy (Getir) (CCE0072) and Q 35 (Prof Dame Theresa Marteau) 132 Q 120 (Sir Patrick Vallance), Q 105 (Prof Tim Lang) and written evidence from Aldersgate Group (CCE0113), Dr Viktoria Spaiser and Prof Cristina Leston-Bandeira ( CCE0016), the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions ( CCE0069), the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056), the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) ( CCE0101), Tesco PLC (CCE0106), the British Retail Consortium ( CCE0042), Natural England ( CCE0034), WRAP (CCE0003) and Bright Blue (CCE0043) 133 Q 80 (Prof Ken Peattie), Q 49 (Secretary-General Paula Lehtomäki) and written evidence from Understanding Society, the UK Household Longitudinal Study ( CCE0113) and WSP (CCE0087) 134 Written evidence from Climate Outreach ( CCE0111)

85. We also heard that modifying the physical and choice environment can play a key role in enabling behaviour change, particularly infrastructure in the case of transport,135 and making sustainable options more prominent (or the default choice), attractive and easier to access through ‘nudging’.136 However, others noted that nudges alone would be inadequate to achieve the scale of 86. Many witnesses argued that multiple levers will be needed to achieve environmental and climate goals. 138 The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry on Behaviour Change in 2011 reached a similar conclusion that a range of policy tools, including regulatory and non-regulatory measures, are needed to enable behaviour change more widely.139 The sequencing of these different measures may influence their effectiveness and public acceptability. Green Alliance “It may be the case that investment is needed to create zero-carbon alternatives before taxes are introduced to enable them to be effective. At the same time, taxes can prompt the development of alternatives.”140 87. We also heard that different levers are appropriate for different contexts and that evidence on the barriers faced by individuals and groups should inform the choice of intervention.141 More widely, witnesses advocated more comprehensive piloting and testing, monitoring, assessment and evaluation of behaviour change interventions to ensure learning from theory and from 88. We consider the case for the use of these levers in several key areas requiring behaviour change in more detail in Chapter 7 and touch on how they can be used effectively in other chapters, especially Chapters 8 and 9. 89. Awareness-raising measures, while important, are insufficient to enable behaviour change. Policies and initiatives will need to use multiple levers that focus on the environment within which behaviour takes place and the affordability and availability of products, services 90. We call on the Government to develop and publish guidance to inform policy-making on behaviour change to meet climate and 135 Q 13 (Rob Hopkins), written evidence from the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056), The Local Government Association ( CCE0035), Q 94 (Stephen Edwards), written evidence from Sustrans ( CCE0070), the Advertising Association ( CCE0037) and Midlands 136 Q 17 (Sally Copley), Q 89 (Chris Boardman), written evidence from Hubbub ( CCE0060) and 137 Written evidence from the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions ( CCE0069) 138 Written evidence from Hubbub (CCE0060), Dr Catherine Butler Dr Karen Parkhill (CCE0054), Q 63 (Prof Wouter Poortinga), Q 117 (Sir Patrick Vallance), Q 98 (Prof Tim Lang), written evidence from Humanist Climate Action ( CCE0071), the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University (CCE0056), Sustrans (CCE0070), Green Alliance ( CCE0051) and n0co2.org (CCE0020) 139 House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, Behaviour Change (2nd Report, Session 2010– 140 Written evidence from Green Alliance ( CCE0051), 141 Q 35 (Faisal Naru) and written evidence from Dr Caroline Moraes ( CCE0019), Dr Claire Hoolohan and Dr Alison Browne ( CCE0029) and Hubbub (CCE0060) 142 Written evidence from Green Alliance ( CCE0051), Carbon Copy ( CCE0008), Duggan ( CCE0023), Q 35 (Faisal Naru), written evidence from Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University (CCE0056), the UCL Centre for Behaviour Change ( CCE0033), Compass Group UK & Ireland (CCE0084), Trafford Council ( CCE0096), the UCL Centre for Behaviour Change ( CCE0033) and Oxfordshire County Council ( CCE0103)

environmental goals. The guidance should cover the theories, drivers and levers of behaviour change and methods for using behaviour change frameworks in policy design and evaluation. We talk about this and a wider package of proposed guidance in Chapter 9. 91. Departments from across government should use the full range of policy levers—including regulatory and financial (dis)incentives, the development and adaptation of physical and choice environments, and communication and engagement—to enable changes to the most impactful climate and environmental behaviours. “COVID messaging on the first lockdown across society shows what a successful public communications campaign looks like for behaviour change.” One Home, consumer awareness platform for clean technology and climate adaptation 92.
Lessons can be drawn from successes and failures in behaviour change interventions in other policy areas. These include public health, such as efforts to reduce levels of smoking and obesity, and actions to curb the spread of COVID-19 during the pandemic. 93. Previous interventions to reduce the prevalence of smoking in the UK were successful because they involved a range of policy levers and actors.143 NIHR Public Health Policy Research Unit described the effectiveness of a multi- lever framework to reduce demand for tobacco products, including tax and price measures; regulation of the contents of products; regulation of product disclosures; packaging and labelling of products; education; communication and public awareness; and advertising, promotion and sponsorship.144 94. The CAST Consortium echoed the view that smoking interventions demonstrated a package of policy measures is required for behaviour change, “The main lesson to be learned is that significant lifestyle change is highly unlikely to be achieved solely with ‘soft’ informational or educational measures. The UK’s success in reducing smoking rates was down to its holistic approach, which included sticks as well as carrots—restrictive measures as well as encouragement.”145 The CAST Consortium also emphasised the importance of the use of a range of measures to promote cultural change, arguing that it is not possible to achieve adequate levels of behaviour change without changes to social 95. Previous public health interventions to tackle obesity are largely perceived to have been unsuccessful, primarily due to a failure to use several policy levers at the same time. Often, obesity-related interventions failed because they lacked upstream measures and relied excessively on individuals deciding to make dietary and lifestyle changes. Mr Park emphasised the importance of upstream or systemic changes in shaping the environment within which individuals make choices. 147 Meanwhile, Faisal Naru, Executive Director, Policy Innovation Centre, RPA/NESG, and Prof Dame Marteau told us previous obesity policies failed because they were too focused on raising awareness through communications campaigns, rather than changing behaviours with other policy levers. 148 Mr Naru used the “five fruit and vegetables a day” campaign in the US as a case study, explaining that because 143 Written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048), the NIHR Public Health Policy Research Unit (CCE0024) and Manchester Climate Monthly, Climate Emergency Manchester ( CCE0030) 144 Written evidence from the NIHR Public Health Policy Research Unit ( CCE0024) 145 Written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048) 147 Written evidence from the Soil Association ( CCE0014) and Q 1 ( Toby Pa rk) 148 Q 34 (Faisal Naru) and Q 34 (Prof Dame Theresa Marteau)

the campaign was focused on information provision, understanding of the need to eat more fruit and vegetables increased but consumption did not.149 96. There has often been greater success in changing behaviours where upstream measures have formed part of interventions to tackle obesity. For example, research by the University of Cambridge shows the amount of sugar purchased by households in soft drinks reduced by 10 per cent within one year of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy Regulations 2018 being introduced.150 97. Beyond public health, a notable example of a successful behaviour change intervention characterised by shaping the choice environment is automatic enrolment into a pension scheme brought about by the Pensions Act 2008.151 The Act changed the system to require employees to opt out of an occupational pension plan from their employer, rather than opt in. Mr Park described pension auto-enrolment as “a simple and elegant solution”. 152 He argued interventions like pension auto-enrolment could be “easily replicated” in the context of environment and climate change, suggesting that auto-enrolment into green pensions could be an option for further consideration.153 98. Successful examples of enabling behaviour change in public health have relied on a package of policy measures. Interventions using solely awareness-raising measures—such as the ‘five-a-day’ fruit and vegetable campaign—have largely failed to deliver sustained behaviour change. The pensions auto-enrolment intervention has been successful because Government shaped the choice environment, rather than relying on individual action or information provision. 99. Corporate influence played a role in delaying interventions on smoking and obesity. Witnesses told us the Government can learn from the role played by lobbying in the development and delivery of smoking and obesity policies and apply lessons to policies for behaviour change to meet climate change and environmental goals. Prof Dame Marteau suggested corporate interference “comes often in [the form of] delaying effective policies”. 154 This point was echoed by Manchester Climate Monthly in the context of smoking, who said there was “an extremely effective campaign of delay and systematic creation of doubt” around smoking interventions.155 Prof Dame Marteau emphasised an important part of the Government’s leadership role in behaviour change across all areas is “to protect public policy from corporate interference”.156 100. The effectiveness of policies aimed at improving public health has historically been undermined by lobbying by parts of the tobacco and food industries. There is a risk that parts of the food and fossil fuel industries, as well as heavy users of fossil fuels, similarly seek to undermine the policies needed to enable behaviour change to meet 150 Q 35 (Prof Dame Theresa Marteau), see also BMJ, Changes in soft drinks purchased by British households associated with the UK soft drinks industry controlled interrupted time series analysis (10 March 2021): [accessed 15 September 2022] 154 Q 37 (Prof Dame Theresa Marteau) 155 Written evidence from Manchester Climate Monthly, Climate Emergency Manchester ( CCE0030) 156 Q 37 (Prof Dame Theresa Marteau)

101. The Government should apply the lessons from successful and unsuccessful attempts to drive behaviour change in other policy fields to its efforts to enable behaviour change to meet the UK’s climate and environmental goals. Key among these lessons is that coherent packages of policy measures must be deployed to enable the most impactful behaviour changes that will be needed. Measures should also be put in place to ensure the effectiveness of policies is not undermined by corporate lobbying. 102.
Many witnesses drew attention to the COVID-19 pandemic as an important learning opportunity. During the pandemic, the Independent Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B) advised the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) on behavioural science considerations and, in turn, SAGE advised ministers and officials. 157 The minutes and papers from SAGE meetings were made public; and speaking on this point Sir Patrick Vallance emphasised the importance of “making sure that information was available to everybody” during the pandemic. 158 More broadly, Sir Patrick Vallance stated that providing the public with clear information about a situation using independent data can be effective for “We saw over the pandemic that we had legions of armchair epidemiologists who got quite interested in seeing what was going on. The same is if the data is made available with completely independent, objective and robust information, it will help people to understand how we are doing, and it can link to the clarity of messaging around what He said a lesson learned from the pandemic was that “society was pretty smart about knowing what to do”, suggesting, irrespective of the speed at which government guidance changed, through providing clear information people felt empowered to make changes to their behaviours in a timely 103. Some witnesses also told us lessons can be learned from government communications during the pandemic. One Home “COVID messaging on the first lockdown across society shows what a successful public communications campaign looks like for behaviour change.” 161 The transferable lessons that can be learned from government-led communications, public engagement and education during the pandemic are explored in more detail in Chapter 8. 104. There are similarities between the specific challenges faced during the pandemic and those that may be faced in behaviour change for climate and environmental goals, such as the widening of inequalities and the spread of misinformation. Sir Patrick Vallance told us COVID-19 “both fed off inequality and fed inequality” and expressed concern that the same is probably true in the context of climate change and environmental damage, “It is worse for those who are poorer, disadvantaged and marginalised. It will 157 Q 108 (Sir Patrick Vallance) 159 Q 110 (Sir Patrick Vallance) 160 Q 111 (Sir Patrick Vallance) 161 Written evidence from One Home ( CCE0045)

make that gap wider if it is not handled properly.” 162 During the pandemic, Ofcom applied rules on harmful content in the Broadcasting Code to COVID-19 misinformation, and Carnegie UK suggested that Ofcom could use the same approach in the context of misinformation about climate change 105. However, there are some clear distinctions between behaviour change in the pandemic and behaviour change required to meet climate and environmental goals, and the consequent limits to transferable learning. In particular, Mr Lord emphasised behaviour change for climate change and the environment would need to be “sustainable and sustained”, whereas the pandemic required time-limited actions. 164 Sir Patrick Vallance echoed this concern from an organisational point of view, explaining SAGE and SPI-B are set up for “specific emergency situations”, suggesting this structure is not necessarily appropriate for longer term emergencies. 165 Furthermore, levels of perceived personal responsibility and personal efficacy differ in relation to the pandemic and climate change. Prof Poortinga described the results of a study comparing responses to COVID-19 and climate change, which found that in the pandemic there was “a clear shared responsibility between individuals and government”, and that “people felt that their own actions would be effective”. In the context of climate change, respondents saw the responsibility as “clearly for government” and felt their own individual actions would be less effective.166 106. The COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions put in place to curb the spread of the virus brought about huge changes to everyday life across the population. The individual’s choice environment was changed, and people had to form new habits and routines to adapt to the changing circumstances. We recognise that the changes demanded by the pandemic were seen as a short-term response to a short- term emergency, nevertheless, as we emerge from the pandemic, the Government has an opportunity to reflect on lessons learned about behaviour change from COVID-19 and consider applying such lessons to wider policy contexts. 107. The Government should seize the opportunity to evaluate behaviour change which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand the theory, drivers, and levers behind the changes, with a view to applying lessons learned to other critical policy areas, including climate change and the environment. The evaluation should include an assessment of the effectiveness of principles behind COVID-19 behaviour change interventions, such as open information, clear messaging about personal action, delivery of messages by both politicians and scientists, clarity about the role of government in relation to the role of individual action, and the use of an independent advisory structure through SAGE and SPI-B. The evaluation of lessons learned from behaviour change during the pandemic should be included in the package of guidance for departments working on policy development and implementation, which we discuss further in Chapters 8 and 9. 162 Q 119 (Sir Patrick Vallance) 163 Written evidence from Carnegie UK ( CCE0010) 165 Q 108 (Sir Patrick Vallance) 166 Q 60 (Prof Wouter Poortinga)

“All individual behaviour is local … harnessing the power of community groups to influence both local people and local policies will be central to changing Winchester Action on the Climate Crisis “Local authorities, working with all the stakeholders in their area, are better able to design and implement effective adaptation measures, as these are very “Business is critical to enabling and inspiring many people to take action across “The Scottish Government understands that the changes needed to reach net zero will require significant behavioural changes at both societal and individual Kersti Berge, Director of Energy and Climate Change, the Scottish Government 108. Civil society, including faith groups, as well as local government, businesses and devolved governments and administrations are all playing distinct roles to enable behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals.
We heard many examples of action being taken by these groups and organisations, the challenges they face and how the Government could better work with and 109. We explore the overarching role of central government in coordinating organisations and groups to support behaviour change in more detail in Civil community groups, charities and faith groups 110. Community groups, charities and faith groups are supporting behaviour change at a local level and there is enthusiasm from many groups and 111. Winchester Action on the Climate Crisis, a local community group, emphasised the potential role they and similar groups could play given the local aspect of behaviour “All individual behaviour is local … harnessing the power of community groups to influence both local people and local policies will be central to changing behaviours across the board.”167 112. Community groups, charities and faith groups are a source of expertise and are often seen as trusted messengers by the communities they work within.168 They can help to fill knowledge and skills gaps, normalise behaviours associated with reduced impacts on climate change and the environment, and 167 Written evidence from Winchester Action on the Climate Crisis (WinACC) ( CCE0006) 168 Written evidence from WRAP ( CCE0003), South Cambridgeshire District Council ( CCE0105) and

tailor behaviour change interventions. 169 We also heard that engaging civil society and community groups is a means to increase public participation in climate and environment-related decision-making and can add momentum to the delivery of long-term changes.170 Box 1: Examples of civil society action Witnesses highlighted initiatives and campaigns driven by civil society which support individuals, households and communities with behaviour change in energy, diet, travel and waste. Behaviour change activities are being delivered through partnerships between charities, communities and • Ugo Vallauri, Co-Founder and Policy Lead at the Restart Project, described community repair ‘Restart Parties’ initiated by the organisation for people to repair products, supporting prolonged product lives. • Sustrans outlined increases in walking and cycling achieved through active travel schemes run by the charity in Stockton-on-Tees and the London • We heard about an award programme run by the Soil Association which promotes “healthy and sustainable food in the dining room, food and nutrition on the curriculum and encourages learning through activities such as farm visits, growing, cooking and sensory tasting classes” and which, evaluation has shown, results in increased fruit and vegetable consumption in participating schools. • Humane Society International UK similarly described their work with major caterers supporting chefs to develop menus and market options which produce fewer emissions. • The National Lottery Community Fund told us how a network of 70 community fridges set up by Hubbub redistributes food and reduces food waste and described a separate community-owned renewable energy generation scheme in the Inner Hebrides, supported by lottery funding, which provides renewable energy as well as supporting social cohesion and We also heard about several community-driven • Rob Hopkins, co-founder of the Transition Network, told us about a “street-by-street behaviour change” model where neighbours work together to review and reduce their emissions and which has also delivered cost savings and community cohesion. 169 Written evidence from Dr Viktoria Spaiser and Prof Cristina Leston-Bandeira ( CCE0016), South Cambridgeshire District Council ( CCE0105) and Winchester Action on the Climate Crisis (CCE0006) 170 Written evidence from the IPPR ( CCE0089) and Q 92 (Stephen Edwards), Q 21 (Fiona Richards)

• Pam Warhurst, founder of Incredible Edible, described projects where residents use local spaces to grow food and, through the process, have also created a sense of social cohesion. • Dr Shanon Shah, Director of Faith for the Climate, shared examples of faith groups reducing waste through behaviour change. He described initiatives in the Muslim and Hindu communities respectively to reduce use of single-use plastics in mosques and pick litter and mentioned Faith for the Climate’s work with Christian, Buddhist and Sikh communities. Written evidence from Dr Viktoria Spaiser and Prof Cristina Leston-Bandeira ( CCE0016), South Cambridgeshire District Council ( CCE0105) and Winchester Action on the Climate Crisis ( CCE0006 ) also Q 17 (Ugo Vallauri), Q 11 (Rob Hopkins), Q 12 (Pam Warhurst), Q 12 and Q 14 (Shanon Shah), Q 17 (Sally Copley), and written evidence from Sustrans ( CCE0070), the Soil Association (CCE0014), the Humane Society International UK ( CCE0057), The National Lottery Community Fund ( CCE0031) 113. Witnesses suggested that access to continuous and adequate funding for community groups to drive behaviour change is often lacking. 171 Fiona Richards, Operations Director England North, the Conservation Volunteers (TCV), said sustainable funding was needed to ensure lasting impacts from projects.172 We also heard that national guidance and regulation and good local governance structures are needed to support community groups to deliver behaviour change. 173 Ashden and n0co2.org suggested that local authorities should act as an interface between central government and civil society organisations, 174 however, as we discuss in the following local government sub-section, resource constraints in local authorities can delay project approvals for community groups. 114. Mr Vallauri highlighted limits to the impact that community activities can have where the scale of issues faced is “We also need to be aware of the size of the challenge. If we are talking about the UK being the second largest per capita producer of electrical waste at 24 kilograms per person per year, between 20 and 40 kilograms of waste might be prevented at each one of these events—and they happen in each community once a month—while waste is generated 115. Community groups, charities and faith groups are delivering reductions in emissions and environmental impacts and adaptation in communities across the UK, often while responding to other local needs. While behaviour change on the scale needed to meet the UK’s climate and environmental goals requires action from the Government and other organisations, community-level behaviour change can make an important contribution . 116.
The Government should take a holistic view of the benefits of climate and environmental activities delivered by community groups, charities and faith groups and recognise and celebrate the 171 Q 18 (Sally Copley) and written evidence from South Cambridgeshire District Council ( CCE0105) 173 Written evidence from WinACC Winchester Action on the Climate Crisis ( CCE0006) and Sustrans 174 Written evidence from Duggan ( CCE0023) and n0co2.org (CCE0020)

life-enhancing change they achieve. Government policies should harness the many contributions of civil society and seek to unblock 117. While the powers and responsibilities of local government bodies 176 vary, many have influence in areas where behaviour change can contribute to climate and environment goals such as transport, buildings, energy and 118. Dr Spaiser and Prof Leston-Bandeira argued that the scale of change needed to meet climate and environmental goals means “policies and interventions need to be national”, but local government bodies “can be crucial partners” for implementing national policies as they “have a better sense of what can work at the local level”. 178 Others similarly referred to local government’s ability to tailor interventions to the local context,179 and Carbon Copy “Local authorities, working with all the stakeholders in their area, are better able to design and implement effective adaptation measures, as these are 119. Local government is performing a range of roles and activities to deliver behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals, • promoting understanding by providing information and running • organising and implementing specific behaviour change interventions using various levers including incentives; • providing infrastructure and setting rules for how it is used; • engaging residents, with one function of this being to ensure all voices • working in partnership with community groups, including through 176 We received evidence from local bodies and representative organisations at different levels including unitary authorities, London boroughs, metropolitan boroughs, county councils, district, borough and city councils, parish and town councils. 177 Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, Local government and the path to net zero (Fifth Report, Session 2021–22, HC 34), pp 7–8 and 11. See also National Audit Office, Local government and net zero in England (Session 2021–22, HC 304), pp 8 and 20–21. Written evidence from 178 Written evidence from Dr Viktoria Spaiser and Prof Cristina Leston-Bandeira ( CCE0016) 179 Written evidence from South Cambridgeshire District Council ( CCE0105) 180 Written evidence from Carbon Copy ( CCE0008) 181 Written evidence from Swale Borough Council ( CCE0100), Hampshire County Council ( CCE0009), the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) ( CCE0093), the Greater Manchester Combined Authority Health and Social Care Partnership ( CCE0109), Manchester City Council and Manchester Climate Change Agency ( CCE0102), Oxfordshire County Council ( CCE0103), Local Government Association ( CCE0035), Sustrans ( CCE0070), District Councils’ Network ( CCE0107) and South Cambridgeshire District Council ( CCE0105)

Box 2: Examples of local authority action We heard examples of local government supporting behaviour change through cross-cutting initiatives and campaigns as well as specific measures focused on • Manchester City Council told us one of the five workstreams in their current climate change action plan is “dedicated solely to influencing behaviour across the organisation and within the city”. A range of projects including ward-level climate action plans and a climate assembly are being delivered by three specially appointed neighbourhood officers. The Council has also rolled out carbon literacy training to staff. • Hampshire County Council said similarly that behaviour change “forms a key component” of their climate change strategy and described a cross- cutting social media campaign the Council has run “showing residents where they can go on holiday locally, find local produce in Hampshire and find second-hand items within local communities or online”. • In Bath, residents of the new Bath Riverside development were incentivised to use lower-carbon transport modes through a free one-month bus pass, free car club membership and a £100 cycle voucher. • Dr Catherine Butler, Senior Lecturer in Human Geography at the University of Exeter, and Dr Karen Parkhill, Senior Lecturer in Human Geography at the University of York, described the Greater Manchester Cycling Hub scheme which has encouraged cycling in the city by providing dedicated cycle parking spaces and ensuring workplace locker and shower • East Lothian Council told us about a 20mph speed limit trial it introduced to encourage active travel by making streets quieter and safer, which has received positive feedback from residents, while Oxfordshire County Council explained that they are supporting villages and parishes to similarly reduce local speed limits to support active travel. • Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation welcomed London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) and clean air zones in Bath and Birmingham which have reduced vehicle traffic. • Local government bodies are encouraging take-up of electric vehicles (EVs) through charger installation programmes, and, alongside doing this, Oxfordshire County Council ran a communications campaign to promote take-up and provided residents with opportunities to test drive EVs. Gloucester City Council and Stroud District Council are working to • The City of London Corporation described several initiatives it has run including a scheme for residents and workers to return electronic equipment to be reused, recycled or repurposed, a community exchange of unwanted items and a campaign whereby local businesses sign-up to remove single-use plastic items from their internal catering facilities. Written evidence from Manchester City Council and Manchester Climate Change Agency ( CCE0102), Hampshire County Council ( CCE0009 ), the Local Government Association ( CCE0035), Dr Catherine Butler and Dr Karen Parkhill ( CCE0054), East Lothian Council (CCE0098 ), Oxfordshire County Council (CCE0103), Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation ( CCE0012), The District Councils’ Network (CCE0107) and The City of London Corporation ( CCE0038)

120. Many witnesses told us resource limitations—including funding and staffing—restrict the ability of local government to deliver behaviour change policies and initiatives.
182 Oxfordshire County Council suggested that “intermittent and competitive funding not only puts a strain on council resources but also fails to deliver the necessary system-level change”.183 Gareth Ellis, Project Director at The Green Valleys which develops community projects around renewable energy, energy efficiency and biodiversity, explained that local authority staffing constraints delayed approvals for their “When we need the necessary support from local government in particular, or other statutory bodies, we increasingly find that their limited resources—particularly in staff time—mean that particular projects can be marginalised or brushed aside because the officers do not have time to deal with them, or they simply go into a queue.”184 We heard that funding and resources for the evaluation of behaviour change interventions are especially limited.185 Swale Borough Council explained that the resulting lack of data “reduces the ability to provide a strong business case for funding for these types of projects”.186 121. Witnesses suggested the relationship between local authorities and central government could be more collaborative. 187 Manchester City Council and Manchester Climate Change Agency emphasised the need for “better joined-up approaches between the Government and local authorities”,188 and Oxfordshire County Council similarly suggested the Government should consider launching “fully integrated behaviour change campaigns in which the upstream and downstream elements come together” for local authorities 122. We also heard that there are limits to what local government bodies can achieve given their powers and the policy environment they operate within.190 UK100 made this point with reference to the example of emissions from “Whilst local authorities can have significant influence over the emissions related to new buildings in their area, they have more limited powers to affect the energy performance of existing buildings. Therefore, the role that they can play in enabling behaviour change where it would have the most impact—in people’s homes—is limited.”191 182 Written evidence from Manchester City Council and Manchester Climate Change Agency (CCE0102), Dr Viktoria Spaiser and Prof Cristina Leston-Bandeiras ( CCE0016), Sustrans ( CCE0070), National Association of Local Councils ( CCE0093), East Lothian Council ( CCE0098), Trafford Council (CCE0096), Greater Manchester Directors of Public Health ( CCE0097) and Swale Borough Council 183 Written evidence from Oxfordshire County Council ( CCE0103) 185 Written evidence from East Lothian Council ( CCE0098), Greater Manchester Directors of Public Health (CCE0097) and Trafford Council ( CCE0096) 186 Written evidence from Swale Borough Council ( CCE0100) 188 Written evidence from Manchester City Council and Manchester Climate Change Agency ( CCE0102) 189 Written evidence from Oxfordshire County Council ( CCE0103) 190 Written evidence from Trafford Council ( CCE0096), Oxfordshire County Council ( CCE0103) and the District Councils’ Network ( CCE0107) 191 Written evidence from UK100 ( CCE0108)

UK100 went on to argue that with “more enabling powers, supported by the skills, knowledge, and capacity to use them well, local authorities can deliver more impact on a significant proportion of UK emissions”. 192 The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) made a similar point.193 123. In their submission, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) said the Net Zero Forum announced in the Net Zero Strategy would create “a formal mechanism to facilitate ongoing discussion between national and local government” through which the Government and local authorities in England will work towards establishing “clearer expectations about the role of local government in achieving net 124. Local government bodies are in a central position to deliver change through place-based solutions due to their proximity to individuals, households and communities and their ability to work with civil society and to tailor interventions to specific groups. However, despite many brilliant examples of local government bodies supporting residents and communities to reduce emissions and environmental impacts, and a desire from many to do more, they often lack the necessary funding and staffing and face many other pressures. The absence of consistent policies and communications from central government also hinders their ability to deliver change. 125. The Government should use the Net Zero Forum announced in the Net Zero Strategy to work through the challenges faced by local government in delivering behaviour change interventions— including insufficient funding and resources—and ensure the forum meets local government’s expectations for a more collaborative and joined-up relationship with central government. 126. Several submissions stressed the central role businesses can play to enable behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals. The British Retail Consortium said, “The retail industry has a key role to play to help the UK decarbonise,”195 and IKEA UK & Ireland told “Business is critical to enabling and inspiring many people to take action across society.” 196 The Aldersgate Group, a coalition including some of the UK’s largest businesses, and John Lewis made a similar point.197 127. Businesses can develop products and services with lower carbon and environmental footprints and make them more affordable and available. Sir Patrick Vallance “The private sector will be a major part of the technology innovation and the ability to make that technology innovation affordable and applicable.”198 Witnesses described the role of businesses to improve product design to promote durability, reuse and recycling,199 develop 192 Written evidence from UK100 ( CCE0108) 193 Written evidence from the IPPR ( CCE0089) 194 Written evidence from the DLUHC ( CCE0063) 195 Written evidence from the British Retail Consortium ( CCE0042) 196 Written evidence from IKEA UK & Ireland ( CCE0104) 197 Written evidence from Aldersgate Group ( CCE0113) and John Lewis ( CCE0092) 198 Q 120 (Sir Patrick Vallance) 199 Written evidence from Aldersgate Group ( CCE0113)

new retail finance products such as green pensions, 200 create product-as-a- service models whereby customers can hire goods rather than own them, 201 and provide infrastructure, like EV charging points, for customers. 202 128. Businesses can promote behaviour change among their customers through specific campaigns, for example to shape product use and disposal. 203 We discuss the wider role that advertising can play in Chapter 8. 129. Witnesses also highlighted how businesses can influence workplace behaviour and suggested these behaviours can sometimes spill over into households.
Mr Naru described changing behaviour in organisations as a “hidden accelerator for climate change”.204 Others made similar points, 205 and James Hand, Co-founder of Giki, a tech organisation which has developed digital tools promoting sustainability including for organisations, “People are much more willing to change when those around them are changing. By “communities”, we do not just mean your local community. We have seen very effective change in companies.”206 Box 3: Examples of business action We heard examples of businesses supporting behaviour change through developing and offering different products and services and delivering behaviour • The Aldersgate Group explained that some of their retail members “sought to put in place circularity principles for product design and business models”, including by using lower impact raw materials, designing for longevity by increasing quality thresholds and providing consumers with information on product care and extended life guarantees. John Lewis, IKEA UK & Ireland and Amazon UK also referred to commitments and activities in some of these areas. • Several witnesses referred to new products developed by major food businesses including plant-based versions of the sausage roll, meatballs • Businesses, including Compass Group UK & Ireland, have been providing more local, seasonal and plant-based options on catering and restaurant menus to support a reduction in the carbon and environmental impacts of the food purchased. Prof Dame Marteau described such an initiative in University of Cambridge cafeterias which resulted in an estimated 33 per cent reduction of emissions of the food served. • Carmel McQuaid, Head of Sustainable Business at Marks & Spencer, described behaviour change initiatives run by the retailer around food waste, plant protein consumption, reuse and recycling of clothes and 200 Q 2 (Toby Park) and written evidence from the UK Sustainable Investment and the Finance Association (UKSIF) ( CCE0028) 201 Written evidence from the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056), and 202 Written evidence from John Lewis ( CCE0092) and McDonald’s UK&I ( CCE0007) 203 Written evidence from WRAP ( CCE0003), Hubbub ( CCE0060) and Dr Viktoria Spaiser and Prof Cristina Leston-Bandeiras ( CCE0016) 205 Q 128 (Steve Smith), written evidence from Aldersgate Group (CCE0113) and John Lewis (CCE0092)

• IGD described trials it had run with retailers, manufacturers and the University of Leeds to test how changes at the point of sale could “shift consumers towards making healthier, more sustainable food and drink • John Lewis referred to a communications campaign it ran around COP26 with messages on food waste and noted trialling new propositions including • Hubbub described their work with several businesses including IKEA UK & Ireland to support customers to reduce resource consumption and waste, and Tesco similarly mentioned Hubbub’s work with private sector Q 84 (Angela Terry), Q 37 (Prof Dame Theresa Marteau), Q 34 (Carmel McQuaid) and written evidence from Aldersgate Group ( CCE0113), John Lewis (CCE0092), IKEA UK & Ireland ( CCE0104), Amazon UK (CCE0095), McDonald’s UK&I (CCE0007 ), Compass Group UK & Ireland ( CCE0084 ), the Humane Society International UK, ( CCE0057), the Institute of Grocery Distribution ( CCE0099), Hubbub (CCE0060 ) and Tesco PLC (CCE0106) 130. The ability of businesses to support behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals is constrained due to several challenges. 131. Witnesses talked about a need for policy certainty to support innovation and investment in products and services with lower emissions and environmental impacts.207 Mr Park told “We definitely need some long-term policy commitments so industry can respond and have that confidence in R&D, investment, training and so on. A future ban on combustion vehicles and a future ban on fossil fuel boilers are good moves for that reason.”208 Mr Lord and others made a similar point.209 132. We heard that a lack of regulatory standards in certain areas is hindering fair competition for products with reduced emissions and environmental impacts.210 We discuss product standards further in Chapter 7. 133. Businesses face specific challenges in switching to a more circular business model.211 Prof Peattie gave the example of accounting and financing barriers faced by businesses operating a product-as-a-service model. 212 Amazon outlined how competition law can hinder businesses seeking to achieve environmental goals, particularly through placing barriers to information- 134. In its submission to the Committee, BEIS referred to commitments in the Government’s Net Zero Strategy to support green choices, one of which was to make “green choices affordable and easy by working with businesses and industry to set strong regulatory signals[,] and collaborate to reduce costs 207 Written evidence from Tesco PLC ( CCE0106), IKEA UK & Ireland ( CCE0104) and Amazon UK 209 Q 120 (Tim Lord), Q 2 (Ewa Kmietowicz) and written evidence from Dr Viktoria Spaiser and Prof Cristina Leston-Bandeira ( CCE0016) 210 Written evidence from Aldersgate Group ( CCE0113) 211 Q 75 (Trewin Restorick), written evidence from Aldersgate Group ( CCE0113) and the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056) 213 Written evidence from Amazon UK ( CCE0095)

and provide better quality, longer lasting and lower environment impact 135. Businesses have a key role to play in enabling behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals, including through increasing the affordability and availability of products and services with lower climate and environmental impacts and by engaging their customers and employees. Many businesses are keen to take on this role and there are some excellent ongoing initiatives led by businesses, but challenges arising from the policy and regulatory environment are 136. The Government must provide clear, consistent and sustained policy signals to stimulate investment and innovation. To this end the Government should set dates for banning the use of technologies with the highest emissions and environmental impacts where suitable alternatives exist or are foreseeable, where appropriate with a phased programme. For technologies where there is clear evidence on feasible alternatives, dates for final bans and milestones should be set within the next 12 months. The Government should gather and review evidence regarding the other most carbon and resource intensive technologies on a continuous basis going forward.
The Government should also strengthen product standards, as we go on 137. The Government should step up its strategic engagement at a senior level with businesses operating in the key behaviour change areas— personal travel, food, energy use at home and consumer goods retail—with a focus on developing sectoral action plans to increase the availability and affordability of green products and services in line with climate and environmental goals. 138. Greater action should be taken to ensure that businesses who offer products and services with lower climate and environmental impacts can compete on a level playing field. Over the next 12 months, the Government should conduct a review of regulatory barriers faced by businesses seeking to offer products and services with these characteristics in the key behaviour change areas and set out an action plan for addressing those barriers. Devolved governments and administrations 139. The devolved governments and administrations hold powers in several areas with relevance for behaviour change to meet climate and environment goals, including environment, transport, housing, planning and education. 215 140. Kersti Berge, Director of Energy and Climate Change at the Scottish “It is clear from the available evidence, including recent assessments from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), that technological 214 Written evidence from BEIS ( CCE0059) 215 Cabinet Office, Devolution and You : uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/769117/Devolution-Postcard.pdf [accessed 15 September 2022]

advances and solutions on their own will not be sufficient to meet our statutory emission targets. The Scottish Government understands that the changes needed to reach net zero will require significant behavioural changes at both societal and individual levels.”216 141. The Scottish Government uses the Individual, Social and Material (ISM) Tool to consider behaviour change to reduce emissions as part of its policy- making. Ms Berge explained that “ISM takes insights from across the main behavioural science disciplines and turns them into a practical tool to be used through the policy process”.217 142. Ms Berge also referred to the Scottish Government’s Public Engagement Strategy for Climate Change, which she said “sets out our vision for everyone in Scotland to understand the challenges we face and embrace their role in our transition to a net zero and climate ready Scotland”. 218 She added that through Scotland’s recent Climate Assembly the Scottish Government gained “a key insight into the measures which the Scottish public expect from Government for a just transition to net zero emissions by 2045”.219 143. Ms Berge “Scotland cannot fully achieve its transition to net zero without UK Government action. Both the Scottish Government and UK Government targets are mutually dependent on each other’s actions.”220 144. Julie James AS/MS, the Welsh Government’s Minister for Climate Change, told us the approach set out in Wales’s second carbon budget is aligned with the CCC’s advice that “nearly 60 per cent of the abatement in the ‘balanced pathway’ for the UK by 2035 relies on societal or behaviour change”. 221 Ms James explained that the second carbon budget “captures the key asks of the Welsh public under the emission sector chapters (alongside actions that will be taken by the public sector and industry and business)”.222 145. In some areas the Welsh Government is undertaking further work “to determine what the right path looks like” Ms James said, including analysis of carbon and financial impacts of desired behaviours and social research into motivations and barriers to action.223 146. We also heard from Ms James that the Welsh Government have committed to consulting on a Public Behavioural Change Engagement Strategy by 147. Ms James noted that the UK Government holds powers for some important policy levers related to behaviour change to reduce emissions, and “Without a coherent approach, it will be more expensive and difficult for us to effectively engage society within Wales.”225 216 Written evidence from the Scottish Government ( CCE0080) 221 Written evidence from the Welsh Government ( CCE0081)

148. Edwin Poots MLA, then Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for Northern Ireland, told “Behaviour change is considered and built into all of our new and existing policy using an evidence-based approach. We recognise the need for education and awareness raising to secure climate and environmental goals and deliver on our objectives.”226 149. Mr Poots provided several examples of initiatives by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) to promote behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals, including grants to promote behaviour change and raise awareness of environmental issues around waste and resources, a programme run with councils to raise awareness of and encourage best practice in recycling, and communications campaigns and an app which promote behaviours that could reduce concentrations of air pollution and the public’s exposure.227 150. The UK Government’s Net Zero Strategy “The UK Government and the Devolved Administrations are committed to working together to deliver coordinated policy action to meet respective emissions reduction 151. We welcome the Scottish and Welsh governments’ acknowledgements that reaching net zero will require significant changes to behaviour and the efforts of Northern Ireland’s Department for Agriculture, Environment & Rural Affairs to pursue climate and environment behaviour change initiatives. The Scottish Government’s embedding of the Individual, Social and Material Tool in policy-making and Public Engagement Strategy for Climate Change, and the Welsh Government’s commitment to produce a Public Behavioural Change Engagement Strategy, are very positive steps. 152. The Government should make an assessment of the devolved governments’ strategies and initiatives with a view to replicating the most effective elements in the public engagement strategy which we recommended in Chapter 3 and discuss further in Chapter 8. 226 Written evidence from Edwin Poots MLA ( CCE0082) 228 HM Government, Net Zero Build Back Greener (October 2021), p 250: lishing.service.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1033990/net- zero- strategy-beis.pdf [accessed 15 September 2022]

“It should not take bravery to cross the street or ride to school. While it does, we Chris Boardman, Active Travel Commissioner for England “Switching to a more plant-based diet has been identified as the single biggest way to reduce our environmental impact on the planet.
This does not require a full switch to [a] vegan diet but a reduction in the most resource intensive animal products such as those factory-farmed.” “When we think about … energy efficiency, the co-benefits are lower bills, improved energy security, reduced import dependence, warmer homes, jobs in Tim Lord, Associate Senior Fellow, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change “The science tells us we are living beyond our means materially.” Professor Ken Peattie, Professor of Marketing and Strategy, Cardiff Business School 153. As Chapter 2 set out, there is a widespread consensus that changes will be needed to how we travel, what we eat and buy, and energy use at home if we are to meet the UK’s climate and environmental goals. This chapter explores challenges and opportunities in these key areas, with a focus on actions that can deliver the largest climate and environmental benefits. It is not exhaustive, given the wide range of behaviours and policies within these 154. Transport makes the largest contribution to emissions. Among areas where behaviour change is relevant, changes to personal travel—including the uptake of EVs, a shift from car use to active travel and public transport, and a reduction in aviation—could deliver meaningful emissions reductions. Chris Boardman, Active Travel Commissioner for England, explained, “Road transport contributes about a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions at 115 million tonnes a year,” 229 and others made similar points. 230 Witnesses also mentioned emissions from aviation. 231 Green Alliance noted that aviation accounts for 7 per cent of UK emissions, 232 while the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions told us higher income households “contribute most in absolute terms to increases in frequent flying”.233 155. Health benefits can be delivered by a shift towards active travel, including walking and cycling,234 and Mr Boardman and others suggested these health 230 Written evidence from the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056), Sustrans (CCE0070) and Getir (CCE0072) 231 Written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048) 232 Written evidence from Green Alliance ( CCE0051) 233 Written evidence from the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions ( CCE0069)

improvements could reduce the burden on the National Health Service 156. In the CCC’s ranking of actions requiring some consumer engagement up to 2035, adoption of ultra-low emissions vehicles would deliver the largest contribution to emissions reductions. 236 Several witnesses said the shift towards EVs should be a priority due to the scale of emissions reductions this can achieve.237 The second largest contribution in the CCC’s ranking could be delivered by reducing international aviation.238 Many witnesses called for a reduction in flights with an emphasis on trips taken by frequent flyers. 239 157. However, witnesses explained that air pollution and emissions from transport will not be fully addressed through the shift to EVs since the degradation of tyres—which produce particulate matter—will continue and electricity used to power EVs is not yet fully decarbonised. 240 The CAST Consortium told us reduced use of private cars would “improve air quality particularly in deprived communities that are disproportionately affected by air pollution, as well as around schools and other key infrastructure such as hospitals”. 241 While Professor Jillian Anable, Professor of Transport and Energy at the Institute for Transport Studies at the University of Leeds, “The forecasts for the increase in the size of the car fleet, as in the number of vehicles, combined with their size and the weight of those vehicles, puts such an enormous strain on the electricity grid even if they are all electric that it would take us longer to get to a renewable electricity system to fuel those cars.”242 158. Many witnesses emphasised the need for a change in the modes of travel used (‘modal shift’) from private vehicles to active travel and public transport. 243 Midlands Connect noted that alongside the switch to “As much focus needs to be given to shifting away from the car to using active and public 159. Several witnesses argued that an overall reduction in car use should be pursued. Views differed on by how much, with Mr Edwards and Mr Boardman suggesting reductions of private car miles by between 10–30 per cent are required. 245 Prof Anable noted a proposed 20 per cent reduction and went on to 235 Q 88 (Chris Boardman), Q 80 (Angela Terry) and written evidence from Green Alliance ( CCE0051) 236 Written evidence from the Committee on Climate Change ( CCE0112) 237 Written evidence from Climate Outreach ( CCE00111), Midlands Connect ( CCE0075) and Green 238 Written evidence from the Committee on Climate Change ( CCE0112) 239 Q 1 (David Joffe), Q 128 (Steve Smith), Q 128 (Dr Kris De Meyer, Q 83 (Prof Ken Peattie) and written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048), the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University (CCE0056) and the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions ( CCE0069) 240 Written evidence from Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation ( CCE0012), the Humanist Climate Action (CCE0071) and Q 87 (Stephen Edwards) 241 Written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048) 242 Q 85 (Prof Jillian Anable) 243 Q 1 (David Joffe), Q 85 (Stephen Edwards), Q 85 (Chris Boardman) and written evidence from Climate Outreach ( CCE0111), Sustrans ( CCE0070), Green Alliance ( CCE0051) and Living Streets 244 Written evidence from Midlands Connect ( CCE0075) 245 Q 85 (Stephen Edwards), Q 85 (Chris Boardman)

“It is an absolute reduction from today’s level, so it is not against an increasing baseline. That is the minimum that a whole variety of models, done in a variety of different ways, at different geographical scales across the country, have come up against. As much as a 50 per cent reduction is found in some models at some geographical scales.”246 160. We heard there should also be a focus on the size of cars, with some noting an increase in SUV (sports utility vehicle) sales which has offset climate and environment benefits achieved through other developments.
247 The Aldersgate Group told “A lot of the marketing carried out by vehicle manufacturers encourages the purchase of high-performance cars or SUVs, which often results in the sale of less efficient and more material-heavy 161. Some witnesses said other technologies for personal transport should be considered. Hugo Spowers, Founder and Managing Director at riversimple, which is a company developing and offering hydrogen-powered cars on a subscription model, suggested keeping an open mind towards other technologies beyond EVs.249 Other witnesses told us electric bike use could replace car journeys in some cases with an advantage being the greater distance an e-bike can cover compared to a traditional bicycle.250 162. Several witnesses welcomed the Government’s commitment to phase-out new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 and said it has helped drive the growing uptake of EVs.251 There are however several barriers for switching to an EV. More In Common told “Both our polling and focus groups have uncovered that the biggest barriers to swapping petrol/diesel cars for electric cars are the high price of cars, the lack of charging points and worries about their reliability.”252 Others noted the same three issues, though Which? described cost concerns as being related to “upfront costs”.253 Cost will be a particular barrier for people on low incomes. Sir Patrick Vallance—when expressing the importance of behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals happening in an equitable way—said: “It is all very well to talk about buying an electric car, but it is totally impossible for the vast majority of the 163. Differences in costs between car travel, flying and public transport often do not incentivise use of less carbon intensive travel modes, though some suggested this is not always the overriding factor behind travel choices. Greater Manchester Combined Authority Health and Social Care Partnership told “Public transport can be more expensive than driving (in Greater Manchester at least) and so may not be taken up by lower income groups. Similarly with active travel, the cost of buying a bike may be a barrier.” 255 246 QQ 85, 88 (Prof Jillian Anable) 247 Written evidence from Cycling UK ( CCE0040), Q 83 (Angela Terry) and Q 89 (Prof Jillian Anable) 248 Written evidence from Aldersgate Group ( CCE0113) 250 Q 111 (Tim Lord), Q 90 (Prof Jillian Anable) and written evidence from Cycling UK ( CCE0040) 251 Q 83, (Angela Terry), Q 3 (Toby Park) and Q 120 (Tim Lord) and written evidence from Midlands 252 Written evidence from More in Common ( CCE0050) 253 Written evidence from Midlands Connect ( CCE0075) and Which? (CCE0039) 254 Q 110 (Sir Patrick Vallance) 255 Written evidence from Greater Manchester Combined Authority Health and Social Care Partnership

Angela Terry, Chief Executive Officer of One Home, a consumer awareness platform for clean technology and climate adaptation, made a similar point regarding the price difference between train and plane travel within the UK.256 Prof Anable agreed that cost can play a role but said it is not always the main factor. She suggested the level of service offered by public transport, including buses, is often the primary issue. 257 164. Other witnesses suggested the availability of appropriate active travel infrastructure and public transport services are key barriers. 258 Midlands Connect told us the range of factors that influence travel choices includes, “Local infrastructure and how safe it is to walk or cycle and to leave a bike at a train station; through to the reliability and frequency of services” among other things, 259 while UK100 “Making infrastructure and services available is essential to enable behaviour change.” 260 Others criticised the construction of new housing developments without good access to public transport or active travel infrastructure. 261 Public transport services are particularly limited in rural areas, making a shift away from car use more challenging. Sustrans noted, “People living in rural areas [have] a lack of adequate bus services, both routes and frequency,” 262 and others made a 165. We heard from several witnesses that many people are reluctant to switch to walking and cycling due to safety concerns. 264 Mr Boardman told “It should not take bravery to cross the street or ride to school. While it does, we will jump in the car.” 265 Mr Edwards explained that parents are put off walking their children to school by “quite simple things in the environment” including a “lack of decent pedestrian crossings, fear of cars moving at too high speeds in their local streets, fear of too much traffic outside the school gates and cars parked on the pavement”.266 166. The Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions said grants for EVs were considered to be a fair way for supporting behaviour change by household members they interviewed.267 Others similarly mentioned grants in the context of travel,268 and Barbara Pompili, then Minister of the Ecological Transition for the Government of France, described a range of financial support offered by the Government of France for switching to EVs.269 167. Some witnesses called for a focus from the Government on improving EV charging infrastructure. 270 Midlands Connect 257 Q 89 (Prof Jillian Anable) 258 Written evidence from Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation ( CCE0012) 259 Written evidence from Midlands Connect ( CCE0075) 260 Written evidence from UK100 ( CCE0108) 261 Written evidence from Sustrans ( CCE0070) and Living Streets ( CCE0110) 262 Written evidence from Sustrans ( CCE0070) 263 Written evidence from Midlands Connect ( CCE0075) 264 Q 94 (Prof Jillian Anable) 267 Written evidence from the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions ( CCE0069) 268 Written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048) 270 Written evidence from the University of St Andrews ( CCE0052) and UK100 (CCE0108)

“To ensure that certain geographies and communities are not left behind, for example less affluent and rural areas, it will be important that sustainable commercial arrangements for private operators are available to support these areas.
[We] would like to see this issue addressed within the governments infrastructure policies to help local authorities while 168. Regarding aviation, several witnesses suggested a levy on frequent flyers could be used to encourage a reduction in flights. 272 Mr Park “I am not suggesting we should penalise the occasional holidaymaker, but about 70 per cent of flights are taken by about 15 per cent of people in the UK. Clearly, there is a skew there. We could disincentivise frequent flying, particularly for business.” 273 Prof Anable went on to “What a frequent-flyer levy involves is everyone effectively having their first flight at a reasonable cost, but for every subsequent flight the per-unit cost of flying gets more and more expensive.”274 The CAST Consortium noted the policy had the support of Climate Assembly UK.275 169. Witnesses referred to a wide range of policy measures that could be used to enable and encourage increased active travel and public transport use or dissuade the use of private vehicles. The former (a) Increased funding for active travel infrastructure and public transport services, which witnesses suggested could be delivered through a reprioritisation of funding away from large road and major infrastructure projects as well as new revenue-raising measures which are discussed below.276 One witness suggested giving greater weight to emissions in the cost-benefit assessment process for transport projects.277 (b) Improvements to walking and cycling infrastructure, such as improved road layouts, pedestrian crossings, sideroad zebra crossings, segregated cycle lanes, traffic calming measures and better bike storage facilities.278 (c) Improvements to public transport services, such as expanded services, integration with active travel infrastructure, improved ticketing systems, more accessible stations and the provision of cheaper services.279 271 Written evidence from Midlands Connect ( CCE0075) 272 Q 128 (Steve Smith), written evidence from the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions (CCE0069) and Green Alliance ( CCE0051) 274 Q 96 (Prof Jillian Anable) 275 Written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048) 276 Written evidence from Cycling UK ( CCE0040), the Local Government Association ( CCE0035), Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation ( CCE0012), QQ 85, 96 (Stephen Edwards) and 278 QQ 89, 94 (Chris Boardman), Q 83 (Angela Terry), Q 96 (Stephen Edwards) and written evidence from the IPPR (CCE0089), Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation ( CCE0012) 279 Written evidence from Midlands Connect ( CCE0075), UK100 ( CCE0108), Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation ( CCE0012), the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions (CCE0069), the IPPR ( CCE0089), Cycling UK ( CCE0040), Q 34 (Prof Theresa Marteau), Q 85 (Chris Boardman), Q 85 (Stephen Edwards) and Q 96 (Jillian Anable)

(d) Revised planning processes which prioritise shorter distances between housing and amenities and active travel infrastructure, and supporting local amenities to reduce the need for longer journeys.280 (e) Investment into behaviour change campaigns and education, though while some witnesses stressed the importance of these activities several others argued that measures like improving infrastructure should be a 170. The measures that could dissuade private vehicle use (a) Changing rules on the use of roads, such as reduced speed limits, school streets, low traffic neighbourhoods and other measures which prioritise access for other road users over private cars. Witnesses said some local government bodies did not have the necessary powers to deliver some of these measures effectively.282 (b) Road pricing, congestion charging, low emission zones, higher parking costs, workplace parking levies and other charges levied for private vehicle use. Some witnesses suggested charges could perform a dual function of disincentivising car use and raising funds for improvements to active travel infrastructure and public transport. 283 171. More widely, Prof Anable called for the Government to establish an overall car traffic reduction target—similar to that adopted by the Scottish Government of a 20 per cent reduction by 2030—and to develop a delivery plan against this.284 Ms Berge explained that the Scottish Government published in January 2022 a “route map to reduce car use by a fifth by 2030 (against a 2019 baseline)”,285 which includes a commitment to spend 10 per cent of the transport budget annually on active travel from 2024–25. 286 172. In his evidence to the Committee, Mr Hands referred to the Government’s commitment to phase out new petrol and diesel cars by 2030, 287 while Andrew Jackson, Deputy Director of 25 Year Environment Strategy Team for Defra, “Look also in transport at the decarbonisation that we have had and The Road to Zero Strategy, where we have made electric vehicles more affordable. The uptake of electric vehicles through grant schemes starts to then trickle down into second-hand markets. That again facilitates choice for the customer.”288 In relation to EV charging infrastructure, Mr Hands 280 Q 96 (Stephen Edwards), Q 90 (Prof Jillian Anable), written evidence from the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056), Living Streets (CCE0110) and the Local Government 281 Written evidence from Living Streets ( CCE0110), Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation (CCE0012), the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048), and Q 96 (Stephen Edwards) 282 Written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048) and the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions (CCE0069) and QQ 91, 92 (Chris Boardman), Q 96 (Prof Jillian Anable) 283 Written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048), the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions ( CCE0069), Cycling UK ( CCE0040), the Local Government Association (CCE0035), the IPPR ( CCE0089) and Q 89 (Chris Boardman), Q 96 (Stephen Edwards) and 284 QQ 96–97 (Prof Jillian Anable) 285 Written evidence from the Scottish Government ( CCE0080)

“In terms of bringing down the price, again the Government are investing quite a bit of money. We have invested £1.6 billion since 2020 to support charging infrastructure, £500 million to support local charging provision through local authorities and £950 million to support rapid charging on motorways.
That is not going to provide an electric vehicle charging point for everybody in every part of the country, but we want to get enough in to move forward the EV charging network across the 173. On 14 June 2022 the Government announced it was closing the plug-in grant scheme for electric cars and would refocus funding on public charging and supporting the purchase of other vehicle types (e.g., electric vans).290 The car element of the plug-in grant scheme had aimed to reduce the price difference between new low/zero emissions cars and internal combustion engine- 174. Regarding government policy on aviation, Mr Hands told “We do not have a policy of introducing some kind of cap on aviation … In last year’s transport decarbonisation plan, the Department for Transport outlined various ways in which we are decarbonising the aviation industry. A lot of it will be through the use of hydrogen or alternative fuels or by providing alternatives to aviation, such as HS2.”292 175. The Government recently published its Jet Zero Strategy, which puts forward measures intended to improve efficiency and support the development of sustainable aviation fuels.293 The main behaviour change policy in the strategy is to “preserve the ability for people to fly whilst supporting consumers to make sustainable aviation travel choices”.294 In the Strategy, the Government commits to publishing a call for evidence on a proposal to provide consumers with environmental information at the time of booking in autumn 2022, working with the Civil Aviation Authority.295 176. On the wider shift to active travel and public transport, the Department for “We do not believe that zero emission cars and lorries alone will be sufficient in meeting our climate targets or wider environmental goals. The reduction of tailpipe emissions from private and commercial road vehicles must be complemented by an increase in the share of trips taken by public transport, cycling and walking–which will require people to change some of their journeys. This will be supported by better public transport networks and better cycling and walking infrastructure.” 296 290 DfT, ‘Plug-in grant for cars to end as focus moves to improving electric vehicle charging’ (14 June 2022): to-end-as-focus-moves-to- improving-electric-vehicle-charging [accessed 15 September 2022] 291 Frontier economics, An evaluation of the Plug-in Vehicle Grant, Electric Vehicle Homecharge Scheme, and Workplace Charing Scheme (6 May 2022), p 9: government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1082401/ozev-portfolio- level-retrospective-evaluation. pdf [accessed 15 September 2022] 293 Df T, Jet Zero Strategy (19 July 2021): system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/1095952/jet-zero-strategy.pdf [accessed 15 September 2022] 296 Written evidence from the DfT ( CCE0062)

177. DfT went on to set out the Government’s key commitments and policies • funding for active travel infrastructure and local public transport • an ambition for half of all journeys in towns and cities to be cycled or • support for the delivery of zero emission buses and coaches; and • the creation of the new Great British Railways body, which is intended to improve the performance of rail services. 297 178. Transport, including personal travel, makes the largest contribution to emissions. We welcome the Government’s focus on the rollout of low-emissions vehicles—including through phasing out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars—and its efforts to improve active travel infrastructure and local public transport systems. It is critical that these efforts deliver easier, safer and more accessible walking and cycling routes and remove barriers to public transport use if we are to achieve the behaviour change in travel needed to meet the UK’s climate and environmental goals. 179. The Government must deliver on its ambition to improve active travel infrastructure and local public transport systems by providing the necessary resources and supporting local government bodies to implement projects on the ground. The upcoming Transport and Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bills should be used to ensure local government bodies have the necessary powers to prioritise active travel and local public transport—including in new developments. The cost-benefit assessment process for transport projects should be revised to give greater weight to reducing emissions. 180. The Government’s failure to acknowledge the need for a reduction in long-haul flights is misplaced given the meaningful contribution this could make to emissions reductions as well as the public’s support for a fair measure that would help to secure this. 181. The Government should launch a call for evidence on introducing a frequent flyer levy applied to long-haul flights. We note that, by design, proposed frequent flyer levies only affect the minority of the population who take flights much more often than the average 182. Dietary change and the reduction of food waste are together the seventh top action in the CCC’s ranking of measures which can deliver emissions reductions and require some consumer engagement. 298 As noted in Chapter 2, the food system is also associated with biodiversity losses, water pollution and water scarcity.299 We focus specifically on dietary change in this chapter. 297 Written evidence from the DfT ( CCE0062) 298 Written evidence from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) ( CCE0112)

183. As with other chapters, we are concerned with behaviour change in a UK context. The changes discussed here are in relation to average UK diets. Nutritional considerations and the climate and environmental impacts of diets differ significantly globally. 184. Witnesses highlighted emissions arising from the food system and meat and dairy production in particular.300 Ewa Kmietowicz, Mitigation Team Leader “Meat and dairy are by far the most carbon-intensive food products. Not only do they cause a lot of direct emissions in their production but they use a lot of land. That means that the opportunity cost of using land is high for those products, land that could be used for other purposes, such as carbon sequestration, regeneration and biodiversity.”301 The Soil Association added, “The global food system is responsible for approximately 33 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions,” and referred to deforestation and land degradation associated with the production of ingredients such as soya, palm oil and sugar which are used in highly 185.
Dietary change can also deliver health benefits, which a number of witnesses 186. In its submission to the Committee, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) agreed that shifting diets to align with the Eatwell Guide public health guidelines—including reduced red meat consumption and increased consumption of beans and pulses—would deliver benefits across “Adherence to the Eatwell Guide has been shown to improve both health and environmental outcomes (Scheelbeek et al 2020), with appreciably lower environmental impact than the current UK diet (Carbon Trust 2016) and up to 7 per cent reduction in mortality and 30 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (Scheelbeek et al 2020). … Improvements in population dietary intakes in line with the Eatwell Guide would go a significant way to meeting sustainability targets.” 304 187. While one witness suggested policy measures used “to create a shift to sustainable diets with less or no meat and dairy products would be appropriate”,305 several others pointed to the benefits that could be realised from a partial reduction per person from current levels and did not propose that people stop eating meat and dairy completely. Mr Dimbleby told us, “If you were to boil down the one thing that consumers could do to minimise the environmental impact of the food they eat, it would be to eat less 300 Written evidence from Lorna Benton, Naomi Fallon, Paula Feehan and Alicia Walker ( CCE0046), the Humane Society International ( CCE0057), World Animal Protection ( CCE0041) and Paula 302 Written evidence from the Soil Association ( CCE0014) 303 Q 3 (David Joffe), see also written evidence from the Humane Society International ( CCE0057) and 304 Written evidence from DHSC ( CCE0061) 305 Written evidence from the Humanist Climate Action ( CCE0071)

meat,”306 and Prof Lang agreed. 307 Several other witnesses referred to the Dimbleby-authored National Food Strategy’s recommendation of reducing meat consumption by 20 per cent over ten years, 308 while, with reference to meat and dairy, Ms Kmietowicz “Our central pathway—or our balanced pathway, as we call it—to net zero has quite a significant shift in diet change from where we are now to a reduction of around 35 per cent by 2050.”309 Others said a reduction in meat and dairy consumption should be complemented by eating more vegetables and plant proteins.310 188. Along with eating less meat and dairy, witnesses called for a switch to meat, dairy and other foods produced through sustainable farming methods. 311 “Switching to a more plant-based diet has been identified as the single biggest way to reduce our environmental impact on the planet. This does not require a full switch to [a] vegan diet but a reduction in the most resource intensive animal products such as those factory-farmed (predominantly chicken, pork and dairy in the UK). These farms require imports of feed associated with large scale deforestation such as Prof Lang said “How the meat is grown is a critical issue.” 313 189. There are several challenges to shifting diets at systemic and individual 190. Mr Dimbleby argued that factors beyond individual-level choices are key and referred to an interaction “between the commercial incentives of food companies and our evolved appetite”.314 He told “No amount of nudging, of trying to persuade people, of changing culture will stop the disaster that is awaiting the NHS and many of our lives, unless the Government intervene directly in that commercial incentive.”315 Mr Dimbleby added that currently “nature is invisible” in the measures of success for the food system, such as company balance sheets, and “Until you make the cost of nature visible in the price of food you will not change the public’s behaviour.”316 He also told us the Government would face “a lot of lobbying” if it attempted to 308 Written evidence from Lorna Benton, Naomi Fallon, Paula Feehan and Alicia Walker ( CCE0046), the Humane Society International ( CCE0057), and Paula Feehan ( CCE0026). For the original recommendation see The National Food Strategy, The Plan (July 2021), p 11: nationalfoodstrategy.org/wp-content /uploads/2021/10/25585_1669_NFS_The_Plan_July21_S12_ New-1.pdf [accessed 15 September 2022]. 309 Q 1 (Ewa Kmietowicz). The CCC’s Balanced Pathway forms the basis of the Sixth Carbon Budget advice. The Balanced Pathway is informed by insights from multiple scenarios explored by the CCC and makes “moderate assumptions on behavioural change and innovation”. For more information see Committee on Climate Change, The Sixth Carbon The UK’s path to Net Zero (December 2020), p 24: /wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Sixth-Carbon-Budget-The-UKs - path-to-Net-Zero.pdf [accessed 7 June 2022]. 310 Written evidence from the Soil Association ( CCE0014), Green Alliance ( CCE0051), the CAST 311 Written evidence from the Soil Association ( CCE0014) 312 Written evidence from World Animal Protection ( CCE0041)

introduce measures like the sugar and salt tax he proposed in his National Food Strategy, and said the complexity of the food system makes such “bold” measures warranted, while at the same time means their impacts are hard to fully predict. 317 Prof Lang agreed that the complexity of the food system represents a challenge which necessitates “boldness”.318 191. Access to information and a lack of awareness of the impacts of the food system were singled out as a barrier to change. The IPPR, who conducted citizens’ juries and other deliberative exercises as part of their Environmental Justice Commission, told “We [ … ] heard from our juries that many people feel they lack the information to know which foods are most environmentally friendly. For many jurors, our sessions with them were the first time they had considered the relationship between what they eat and the climate and nature crises.”319 Ms Terry also noted a lack of public awareness of the carbon footprints of different food products.320 192. As with travel, IGD explained that cost is reported to be a challenge by consumers with 37 per cent “perceiving healthy, sustainable eating to be more expensive”.321 Meanwhile IPPR argued that supporting behaviour change in food relies upon addressing food poverty and wider social inequalities at the 193. We heard that culture and social norms influence food choices.
More in Common explained that people often see meat eating as part of their culture and lifestyle and Prof Lang similarly suggested culture plays a role.323 Trewin Restorick, Chief Executive of Hubbub, told us his charity’s research had found “meat and masculinity is a really strong connector and there is a perception that if you eat meat, you are stronger”.324 194. Some witnesses emphasised that multiple factors inform individual food choices.325 Mr Hand referred to price, ease, social norms, functionality, values and habits, and “The myriad factors that work for consumer choice are different for different people … They are all working against a counterforce of anchoring. People are very reluctant to change their minds, especially because there is always a risk in change.”326 195. Several witnesses made the overarching point that a range of interventions will be needed to support a shift to diets with reduced emissions and environmental impacts.327 Prof Lang told “We will have to have multiple interventions, at … multiple level[s], with multiple actors, to address that big 319 Written evidence from the IPPR ( CCE0089) 321 Written evidence from the Institute of Grocery Distribution ( CCE0099) 322 Written evidence from the IPPR ( CCE0089) 325 Written evidence from the Institute of Grocery Distribution ( CCE0099) and World Animal Protection 327 Q 1 (Ewa Kmietowicz) and written evidence from Which? ( CCE0039), Paula Feehan (CCE0026) and the Humanist Climate Action ( CCE0071)

196. Policy measures can be used to increase the availability and affordability of food produce with lower climate and environmental impacts. Prof Dame “The two major sets of interventions concern both availability—we need to shift the foods that are available in this context—and affordability, which means that the sustainable foods need to be cheaper than the unsustainable ones. There is a role not only for businesses but for government to look at subsidies.”329 Mr Dimbleby similarly discussed “making what is available more environmentally friendly” and mentioned the shift in farm support to the Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMS) as a route for doing so.330 Others called for sustainable farming methods to be incentivised and for stronger regulation of food production,331 while Tesco said a lack of readily available incentive schemes for UK farmers is a barrier. 332 Some witnesses told us these measures need to be accompanied by a revised trade policy to ensure the import of products produced to lower climate and environmental standards does not undermine progress made domestically.333 197. A better integration of climate and environmental impacts in public health guidelines on diet—especially the Eatwell Guide (formerly known as the Eatwell Plate)—and wider use of these guidelines could help shift diets. Prof Lang told “We have to get a grip of the Eatwell Plate. It is nutrition, it is dietary guidelines; it is not sustainable dietary guidelines … The country needs sustainable dietary guidelines.” 334 Others agreed. 335 Prof Lang added that currently the guidelines are “toothless”, but said a “common, coherent set of guidelines” should be applied to public procurement and could also be used for other purposes, such as informing the development of digital tools on sustainability by the private sector.336 198. More widely, many witnesses supported the application of sustainability requirements to public procurement to shift procurement practices and increase the availability of sustainable options on menus in public institutions,337 though some cautioned against relying on this alone. The Soil Association noted the National Food Strategy’s recommendations with this objective—including updating Government Buying Standards for Food and introducing a mandatory accreditation scheme for public institutions— and “If all meals served were healthy and sustainable this can go a long way to normalise climate friendly diets, such as increasing vegetable consumption and providing more meat-free options.” 338 Prof Lang noted that while “public procurement is quite important … Most food is eaten 329 Q 38 (Prof Theresa Marteau) 330 QQ 101, 102, 106 (Henry Dimbleby) 331 Written evidence from World Animal Protection ( CCE0041) and the Greater Manchester Directors of 332 Written evidence from Tesco PLC ( CCE0106) 333 QQ 101, 102, 106 (Henry Dimbleby) and written evidence from Which? ( CCE0039) 335 Written evidence from Paula Feehan ( CCE0026) 336 QQ 101–102 (Prof Tim Lang) 337 Written evidence from Compass Group UK & Ireland ( CCE0084), Aldersgate Group ( CCE0113), the Humane Society International ( CCE0057), Paula Feehan (CCE0026) and the CAST Consortium (CCE0048) also Q 1 (Toby Park), Q 34 (Prof Theresa Marteau) Q 24 (Barbara Pompili) and Q 55 (Secretary-General Paula Lehtomäki). 338 Written evidence from the Soil Association ( CCE0014)

through private commercial relationships. I am part of a team that is calling for sustainable dietary guidelines to be applied everywhere.”339 199. Witnesses put forward arguments in support of, and against, introducing a tax on emissions (a ‘carbon tax’), which would include meat. The CAST Consortium said a tax on red meat, like the sugar tax (or ‘Soft Drinks Industry Levy’ 340), could be considered, 341 as did others. 342 Prof Lang said taxation can be effective but noted “how and what sort of meat needs to be thought through” and added that the relevant metrics would need to be in place.343 Mr Dimbleby agreed that “tax works”, but said, “I do not think it is the right time,” due to the regressive effects such a tax could have and the complexities of accounting for emissions accurately.344 200.
Some witnesses proposed measures to increase the public awareness of climate and environmental impacts of food including through public engagement and labelling.345 Prof Lang argued the UK needs to “set ourselves goals as a country for reducing the carbon footprint of the food system, and do it systematically, and engage people in that”, 346 while the IPPR—drawing on deliberative exercises they had conducted—told “Jurors saw the potential for schools to empower children and young people to eat healthier and more seasonal food, throughout their lives, by providing hands on experience of how food is grown and prepared.” 347 Students on the Committee’s youth engagement programme were broadly supportive of increasing awareness through consistent labelling about the carbon emissions associated with the production of food products. 348 We discuss witnesses’ views on labelling of food and other products later in this chapter. 201. Improved, accessible and comparable data is needed to underpin policy measures, such as those outlined above. Mr Dimbleby argued, “We need the national food system data programme,”349 which he proposed in the National Food Strategy. He suggested, “There is in some parts of government—our Chief Scientific Officer and in the ONS—an understanding that across the board, in all sorts of fields, setting the data free in an easily consumable way would be enormously powerful,” and he outlined steps that could be taken to map, improve, and make accessible, data. 350 Mr Hand called for the standardisation of data variables used for carbon accounting—which he said is a large task—and suggested the quicker they are, “The more people can innovate and come up with some good solutions to help people cut their 340 HM Treasury, ‘Soft Drinks Industry Levy comes into effect’ (5 April 2018): government/news/ soft-drinks-industry-levy-comes-into-effect [accessed 15 September 2022] 341 Written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048) 342 Q 1 (Toby Park) and written evidence from Paula Feehan ( CCE0026) 345 Written evidence from Lorna Benton, Naomi Fallon, Paula Feehan and Alicia Walker ( CCE0046) 347 Written evidence from the IPPR ( CCE0089) 348 A high-level summary of the discussion we had with students on the Committee’s youth engagement programme is annexed to this report. 349 Q 106 (Henry Dimbleby). The National Food Strategy, The Plan (July 2021), p 160: nationalfoodstrategy.org/wp-content/uploads /2021/10/25585_1669_NFS_The_Plan_July21_S12_ New-1.pdf [accessed 15 September 2022]

footprints.”351 Meanwhile, Tesco suggested insufficient consideration was being given to the data needed to populate produce labelling.352 202. In its submission to the Committee, Defra referred to the transition to ELMS as one of several actions underway to support changes in practice and lifestyle across the department’s remit. 353 The submission also referred to ongoing work on food labelling and the department’s support of an industry- led greenhouse gas action plan involving food sector trade bodies.354 203. The Rt Hon George Eustice MP, then Secretary of State for Defra, told “The Government are very explicit in saying that, from an environmental perspective, we are not telling people that they should not eat meat … Beyond the Eatwell Guide, which is very much from a health perspective and recognises that meat protein is part of a healthy diet that should be eaten in moderation, we do not have any messages to the public about meat consumption from a food production angle.”355 204. When asked about how the Government was reducing barriers to behaviour change, Mr Eustice referred to regulatory change “so that the things on offer to the public in retail environments change”, and to reorientating farm support policies to incentivise biodiversity improvements and lower carbon 205. The Government food strategy, the Government’s response to the Dimbleby- authored National Food Strategy, was published on 13 June 2022. In the strategy the Government committed • undertake a programme of randomised control trials to develop a suite of interventions to encourage and enable healthier and more sustainable • deliver a Food Data Transparency Partnership, and as part of • look at developing consistent and defined metrics to measure the health, environmental sustainability and animal welfare impacts • consult on requiring companies to report publicly against health metrics and explore a similar approach to sustainability and 352 Written evidence from Tesco PLC ( CCE0106) 353 Written evidence from Defra ( CCE0068). At the time of writing, there have been press reports suggesting the Government is reviewing ELMS, however there has not been an official announcement 357 Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Government food strategy (June 2022), p 11: /attachment_data/ file/1082026/government-food-strategy.pdf [accessed 15 September 2022]

• develop a mandatory methodology for those producing eco labels or making claims about product sustainability.360 • consult on widening the scope of Government Buying Standards for Food and Catering Services (GBSF) to be mandatory across the whole public sector, introducing a target that at least 50 per cent of food spend must be on food produced locally or certified to higher environmental standards, and requiring public sector organisations to report on the food they buy, serve and waste.361 206. As discussed above, DHSC noted in its submission that aligning diets with the current Eatwell Guide would reduce climate and environmental impacts and deliver health benefits.362 207. Given the emissions reductions and environmental improvements that could be achieved through partially reducing meat and dairy consumption, we are disappointed that the Net Zero Strategy neglected to mention the climate and environmental benefits of dietary change and the Government food strategy failed to put forward a related 208. Alongside a partial reduction in meat and dairy consumption, a shift towards certain types of meat, including pasture fed meat, dairy and other foods produced by sustainable production methods would contribute to achieving climate and environmental goals. Systematic interventions are needed to increase the availability and uptake of food with lower climate and environmental impacts. 209.
We welcome the Government’s commitments in the Government food strategy to consult on making GBSF mandatory across the public sector and on introducing a target for at least 50 per cent of food spend to be on food produced locally or certified to higher environmental 210. The Government should seek to increase the availability of food with lower climate and environmental impacts (a) Delivering on its commitment to develop a system of agricultural support—via an effective and expedited rollout of ELMS and other environmental schemes—which supports farmers and land managers to reduce emissions and enhance the natural (b) Negotiating trade deals which ensure imported food products placed on the Great Britain market meet the same climate and environmental standards required of domestic producers. (c) Utilising public health policy tools, including updating the Eatwell Guide to reflect a diet that is compatible with the UK’s long-term climate and environmental goals and aligning with this the GBSF, which we support making mandatory across the 362 Written evidence from DHSC ( CCE0061)

211. There is limited public awareness of the emissions and environmental impacts of different types of food—including more and less sustainable meat and dairy production methods—not least because information is largely unavailable or inaccessible to consumers. In light of this, we welcome the Government’s commitments in the Government food strategy to launch a Food Data Transparency Programme, including a proposed mandatory methodology for eco labels and sustainability 212. The Government should seek to make information regarding the environmental impacts of different food products more accessible (a) Taking steps to ensure that public communications and information on diets convey the range of health, climate and environment benefits that dietary change—including meat and dairy consumption in line with an updated Eatwell Guide—can (b) Implementing the Food Data Transparency Programme and public sustainability reporting by companies in the food sector (c) Urgently consulting on the mandatory methodology for eco labels and sustainability claims, which we go on to discuss further later in this chapter. 213. While taxes are often effective at changing behaviour and it may ultimately be necessary to use taxes in this area, it is not the right moment to introduce a tax on emissions associated with household products like food. Such a tax could be regressive—impacting on lower income households more severely during a cost-of-living crisis—and could undermine public support for the UK’s climate and environmental goals. When future governments consider such a measure, eliminating regressive impacts through policy design 214. Changing how we heat and use energy at home can deliver meaningful direct building emissions which mainly consist of fossil fuel use for heating,363 “Buildings account for about 17 per cent of the UK’s CO2 emissions.”364 The CCC attributes 77 per cent of direct building emissions to homes, with the remainder arising from commercial and public buildings.365 The adoption of heat pumps in owner occupied homes and new residential buildings are two of the top 20 actions identified by the CCC as 363 The CCC separately estimate indirect building emissions which include the emissions from the generation of electricity consumed in buildings. Climate Change Committee, The Sixth Carbon Budget, Buildings (9 December 2020), p 6: /uploads/2020/12/ Sector-summary-Buildings.pdf [accessed 15 September 2022] 364 Written evidence from Green Alliance ( CCE0051) 365 Climate Change Committee, The Sixth Carbon Budget, Buildings , p 6

delivering emissions reductions and requiring some consumer engagement.366 Energy use in buildings can also be reduced by improving energy efficiency.367 215. Witnesses highlighted other benefits associated with changing how we use energy at home. Mr Lord “When we think about … energy efficiency, the co-benefits are lower bills, improved energy security, reduced import dependence, warmer homes, jobs in local areas and so on.”368 Others noted that premature deaths associated with cold homes could be avoided through better insulated homes and told us that reduced energy bills, due to improved energy efficiency, would additionally help alleviate fuel poverty. 369 We heard that installations of heat pumps, insulation and small-scale energy generation like rooftop solar could generate new jobs.370 216. Installing energy efficiency measures—including insulation—and adopting heat pumps were identified as key priorities. David Joffe, Head of Carbon Budgets at the CCC, told “The buildings sector will be hard to decarbonise. Two aspects of behaviour change are important there. One is getting people to insulate their homes better … Then there is also the technology side … Adopting heat pumps, for example, would be crucial there.”371 Others similarly referred to improving insulation and installing heat pumps,372 while Mr Park noted that properties also need to be insulated to a certain level of energy efficiency for heat pumps to be effective.373 217. While this chapter focuses mainly on heat pump adoption—as opposed to other low-carbon heating technologies—because of the proportion of emissions reductions they could deliver, the CCC’s Sixth Carbon Budget foresees roles for multiple technologies as heat pumps will not be suitable for a significant minority of households. 374 Relatedly, Mr Park highlighted that clarity is needed on local plans for low-carbon heating—including the rollout of heat networks—to enable households to make appropriate decisions about 218. Witnesses also pointed to benefits that could be achieved by increasing small-scale energy generation like rooftop solar.376 219. The costs of energy efficiency measures and heat pumps are one of the main barriers to their wider uptake. IPPR described “overcoming upfront costs” as one of the major challenges for changing how we heat our homes and 366 Written evidence from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) ( CCE0112) 367 Written evidence from the Energy Saving Trust ( CCE0047) 369 Written evidence from Green Alliance ( CCE0051) and the IPPR (CCE0089) 370 Written evidence from the IPPR ( CCE0089) and the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048) 372 Written evidence from the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056), the IPPR (CCE0089) and Green Alliance ( CCE0051) 374 Climate Change Committee, The Sixth Carbon Budget, The UK’s path to Net Zero (9 December 2020), p 115: The-Sixth-Carbon-Budget-The-UKs -path-to-Net-Zero.
pdf [accessed 15 September 2022] 376 Written evidence from the CAST Consortium (CCE0048), the District Councils’ Network (CCE0107) and Dr Viktoria Spaiser and Prof Cristina Leston-Bandeira ( CCE0016)

other witnesses similarly noted costs as a barrier. 377 Mr Lord said that while the cost of heat pumps is coming down, “We still have some way to go,” 378 and noted that the ability of different groups in the population to afford new low-carbon technologies like heat pumps varies.379 220. Mr Park told us the complexity of installing a heat pump, which as noted above also requires improving insulation in some cases, is another “Heat pump adoption … is such a complicated process behaviourally compared with getting a like-for-like boiler replacement. If your boiler breaks down—and they tend to break down in the winter when you need heating—you can get a new boiler in a couple of days if you need to. Heat pumps could take many weeks … This is not a frictionless behavioural adoption curve and it needs to be.”380 221. Others said there is a lack of public understanding regarding how to adopt these measures and of information and advice to help households through the process.381 Which? argued there is “low knowledge of the extent of home heating’s contribution to household emissions and confusion over where to go for advice and guidance”.382 The Energy Saving Trust, which provides an advice service in Scotland, told “A key issue is that there is currently no comparable advice available for people across England, which is a barrier to taking swifter action to [meet] the UK’s 2050 net zero targets.”383 222. Witnesses referred to multiple issues in the policy design of the Government’s Green Deal and Green Homes Grant energy efficiency support schemes. 384 Mr Park told us the schemes’ failings had behavioural aspects, including their complexity—which meant suppliers did not want to register—and the incentives were not “thought through in quite enough detail to realise that they are not as appealing to consumers as they should be”. 385 Paul Ellis, Chief Executive at the Ecology Building Society, “Every time one of these programmes fails, confidence is reduced, which is a big problem.”386 223. Witnesses also referred to issues related to buildings standards. Ms Terry told us higher energy efficiency standards were dropped in the past—due to pressure from housing developers—and the less efficient homes now being built will need to be retrofitted in future at greater cost.387 Mr Paul Ellis said that despite incremental improvements in building standards, there is an absence of monitoring to ensure compliance which limits their effectiveness.388 377 Written evidence from the IPPR ( CCE0089), Which? ( CCE0039), South Cambridgeshire District Council (CCE0105) and the Energy Saving Trust ( CCE0047) 381 Written evidence from the IPPR ( CCE0089) and More in Common (CCE0050) 382 Written evidence from Which? ( CCE0039) 383 Written evidence from the Energy Saving Trust ( CCE0047) 384 The Green Deal scheme which ran from 2013 to 2015 provided loans to households to improve the energy efficiency of the home. The Green Homes Grant scheme was open from 2020 to 2021 and provided vouchers towards the cost of installing home energy efficiency measures. Written evidence from the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056) and One Home (CCE0045) also Q 76 (Trewin Restorick). 224. Subsidies and other financial incentives can be used to increase the uptake of energy efficiency measures, heat pumps and other low-carbon heating technologies.389 Mr Park told “Big subsidies are, unfortunately, necessary and so that is the right approach.”390 The Aldersgate Group said other policy measures “should be accompanied by grants / public funding to support vulnerable households in rolling [out] energy efficiency and low carbon heat measures and fiscal incentives for ‘able to pay’ households”. 391 Greater Manchester Combined Authority Health and Social Care Partnership “For lower income residents to invest in retrofitting, policies will be needed to subsidise this to avoid a widening gap between higher and lower income groups. Without such policies, lower income households will continue to spend more on utilities, with bills dropping for more affluent groups who can afford to retrofit.”392 225. We heard that the complex process of installing a heat pump and energy efficiency measures should be simplified, including through better provision of information and support. Mr Lord suggested tailored information should be made available to interested households to help them understand “where the biggest impacts are in their homes, what energy efficiency measures might be cost-effective, what low-carbon heating solution might work for them, and where they can access financial support to deliver that”. 393 On installing a heat pump, Mr Park said, “Let us … try to make that process of adoption absolutely as simple as it possibly can be,” 394 and Ms Pompili described a scheme with this objective introduced by the Government of “With our programme called MaPrimeRénov we simplified the system, and at the end many more people were able to make repairs in their home. From January, a dedicated professional will help households that so desire to make an analysis of their needs, help them to find adequate financing schemes and even find craftsmen able to do the work.” 395 226. The Energy Saving Trust told us about their ‘Home Energy Scotland’ service, run in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Government, which “provides customers with “one-stop shop” access to the financial (and other) support for home energy efficiency”.396 The Energy Saving Trust said that each year the service supports over 90,000 customers and is estimated to have saved more than 382,000 tonnes of CO 2 emissions in 2019–2020.
397 Meanwhile, IPPR argued that a public information campaign is needed to support the decarbonisation of home heating “to reduce the anxieties associated with change and help people understand the options and support available”.398 389 Written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048) 391 Written evidence from Aldersgate Group ( CCE0113) 392 Written evidence from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority Health and Social Care 396 Written evidence from the Energy Saving Trust ( CCE0047) 398 Written evidence from the IPPR ( CCE0089)

227. The energy efficiency of homes available to buy or rent could be increased through higher building standards and more consistent enforcement. The IPPR referred to improving standards for new builds, 399 and the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University told “The Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard in the private rental sector has been a much- needed regulatory measure, but has loopholes, so should be strengthened.”400 The Aldersgate Group similarly called for “tightening up and broadening the scope of regulatory standards on energy efficiency in existing and new buildings” and better enforcement, and added that standards should be set a good time in advance and not subject to regular change.401 228. The Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University suggested policies could be designed like Japan’s Cool Biz campaign to influence shifts in consumer demand.402 Governor Yuriko Koike told us about the Cool Biz campaign which changed norms to reduce energy use in buildings. She explained that the campaign called on businesspeople “to change their clothes or attire in summer to something more suitable for climate change”, allowing air conditioning units to be set at a higher level and reduce energy 229. Regarding small-scale energy generation like rooftop solar, the District Councils’ Network called for incentives for solar panel installations to be reintroduced and others made a similar point.404 230. Mr Hands said in his evidence to the “We have set a date of 2035 for the phase-out of gas to allow people, when their gas boiler naturally comes up for renewal or replacement, to take on instead a low- carbon alternative, e.g. a heat pump.”405 DLUHC referred in their submission to a Net Zero Strategy target of 600,000 heat pump installations per year by 2028 and an aim to reduce costs by “at least 25–50 per cent by 2025 and to parity with gas boilers by 2030 at the latest”. 406 In their submission, BEIS noted a new market-based incentive for heating system manufacturers and investment in heat pump innovation to support these objectives.407 231. DLUHC mentioned funding to improve energy efficiency in lower- income households through the Home Upgrade Grant and Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund and DLUHC and BEIS both referred to grants for heat pumps provided through the Boiler Upgrade Scheme.408 Mr Hands told “On the home heating transformation, various people have called on us 400 Written evidence from the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056) 401 Written evidence from Aldersgate Group ( CCE0113) 402 Written evidence from the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056) 403 Q 43 (Governor Yuriko Koike) 404 Written evidence from the District Councils’ Network ( CCE0107) and the CAST Consortium 405 Q 148 (Greg Hands MP). BEIS, Heat and Buildings Strategy , CP 388 (October 2021), p 20: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/ file/1044598/6.7408_BEIS_Clean_Heat_Heat___Buildings_Strategy_Stage_ 2_v5_WEB.pdf [accessed 5 July 2022]. The strategy said one of the ways the Government would develop the markets and consumer choices required to achieve net zero was through “signalling our intention to phase out the installation of new natural gas boilers from 2035”. 406 Written evidence from the DLUHC ( CCE0063) 407 Written evidence from BEIS ( CCE0059) 408 Written evidence from the DLUHC ( CCE0063) and BEIS (CCE0059)

to pay for a complete nationwide heat pump programme. That is neither practical nor necessarily desirable. We have committed a certain amount of government funding to try to move the market forward.” 409 When asked about the Green Homes Grant scheme, he “We do feel that did not deliver at the rate and scale we had originally hoped for. It faced a number of delivery challenges. That is why we closed the scheme, but we are now looking at other ways to deliver that same objective.”410 232. Mr Hands told us about the Government’s Simple Energy Advice service which provides owners and occupiers with “personal tailored advice for improving and decarbonising their homes” and said the Government plans to deliver a “comprehensive energy advice service on GOV.UK”, with telephone support and local area advice, by the summer. 411 The service has since been launched on the GOV.UK website. 412 Regarding Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), which provide information to support decisions of owners and occupiers about potential energy efficiency improvements, DLUHC said it is “investigating options for amending the recommendations for energy efficiency improvements detailed on the EPC … We will be considering the inclusion of proposals on amending recommendations as part of a consultation on the Energy Performance of Buildings Regulations 233. On building standards, DLUHC referred to the Heat and Buildings Strategy commitment to consult on “phasing in higher minimum performance standards to ensure all homes meet EPC Band C by 2035, where cost- effective, practical and affordable”, and noted the Future Homes Standard— which will require new homes to meet higher energy efficiency and emissions performance levels from 2025—and interim changes to building regulations 234. On 6 July 2022 the Government introduced the Energy Security Bill to Parliament.415 The Bill includes measures that would • a requirement to be placed on fossil fuel heating appliance manufacturers to achieve a growing proportion of sales of low-carbon heat pumps;416 • regulations governing the assessment, certification and publication of • a greater proportion of energy suppliers to be required to comply with the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) scheme, which obliges suppliers to support some low-income and vulnerable households to install energy efficiency and heating measures.
418 412 HM Government, ‘Find ways to save energy in your home’: energy- efficiency [accessed 5 September 2022] 413 Written evidence from the DLUHC ( CCE0063) 416 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, ‘Energy Security Bill Low-carbon heat scheme’ (26 August 2022): factsheets/energy-security-bill-factsheet-low-carbon-heat-scheme [accessed 15 September 2022]

235. Insulating homes could deliver emissions reductions, help reduce household energy bills and improve energy security, but without greater government support comprehensive home insulation remains out of reach for many households who are being affected acutely by the cost-of-living crisis. Without improved insulation, the Government’s heat pump installation targets are also at risk as homes must be well- insulated for heat pumps to work effectively. 236. The uptake of energy efficiency improvements and low-carbon heating is being constrained by their upfront costs and the insufficiency of government support. While we welcome the Government’s efforts to support heat pump installations and unit cost reductions, heat pumps are not appropriate for all homes and their cost remains a barrier. Households must be supported financially, through better information and through straight-forward installation processes. While we welcome the Government’s new energy advice service, it is unclear that it will provide the level of support needed. 237. The Government should coordinate a national drive to improve the energy efficiency of our homes, including by amending the Energy Security Bill to introduce a support package to help households with installation costs. The Government should expand its energy advice service to include a facility whereby a dedicated contact person supports households throughout the process of installing energy efficiency measures and low carbon heating technologies. We comment further on the communications aspect of the advice 238. The Future Homes Standard will strengthen building standards for energy efficiency and emissions performance from 2025 but homes are currently being built to existing standards, which have weaknesses and are not well-enforced. This is resulting in missed energy savings and emissions reductions and costly processes of retrofitting for home-buyers. It is also a missed opportunity to create a social norm of environments that support low-carbon behaviours. 239. The Government should review the Future Homes Standard timetable and bring forward further interim measures to strengthen energy efficiency standards for new homes as a matter of urgency, as well as taking steps to improve the enforcement of current standards. 240. Changing purchasing behaviours can also reduce emissions and environmental impacts. The British Retail Consortium explained, “The products bought in our stores are equivalent to almost a third of typical UK household emissions,”419 and Green Alliance noted the environmental footprint of resource use and waste from consumer goods. 420 Prof Peattie argued, “The science tells us we are living beyond our means materially,” including in relation to fast fashion and disposal of still-functioning electronics. 421 419 Written evidence from the British Retail Consortium ( CCE0042) 420 Written evidence from Green Alliance ( CCE0051)

241. There is public support for a more efficient use of resources, including through measures that support reduction, reuse and recycling. 422 The Local Government Association (LGA) referred to a 2021 study in which a majority of people surveyed globally were interested in purchasing more durable products and maintaining and repairing products to increase product life. 423 242. Dr Moraes defined sustainable consumption as “consumption that aims to reduce the resource intensity of production”, and “In addition to buying and consuming less, it can include practices such as buying products and services that are green; making products last longer; repairing, reusing and/or repurposing products to delay disposal; donating products that are no longer needed; and recycling Ms Terry similarly argued “consumption has to decrease” and also referred to clothing rental services, platforms for passing on second-hand goods and a trend towards repair. 425 Prof Peattie emphasised the role that product-as- service models—including product rental services—could play in reducing the resources used in consumption, 426 and Mr Park suggested a circular economy model would “not necessarily mean we have to stop consuming but the material goods and the embodied carbon are recycled as much as they 243. Witnesses suggested various policies could be used to support purchasing behaviours with reduced emissions and environmental impacts, including by improving the information available and making products offered on the 244. There were mixed views on how effective labelling and other information- sharing tools are at influencing consumer choice, however several witnesses supported including climate and environmental information on labelling to influence how businesses design and produce products. 245. Secretary-General Lehtomäki told us about the Nordic Swan Ecolabel, which is based on “broad and thorough” criteria and is “one of the most well-known trademarks among consumers in the Nordics”. 428 Ms Pompili described a product repairability index and eco-score labelling being developed and trialled by the Government of France, and told “Companies call the ministry to explain that they are changing the packaging of their products to change the colour of their score to green, because they see that if they do not do that they lose customers.”429 We heard from Which? that consumers would 422 Written evidence from Green Alliance ( CCE0051) 423 Written evidence from the Local Government Association ( CCE0035). The underlying research is available Capgemini Research Institute, Circular Economy for a Sustainable Future (2021): /wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2021/11/Circular-Economy.pdf [accessed 424 Written evidence from Dr Caroline Moraes ( CCE0019) 428 Q 56 (Secretary-General Paula Lehtomäki)

like more information about the environmental impact of food products and the IGD made the same point. 430 The Aldersgate Group recommended the Government work with relevant independent bodies “to develop consistent, transparent and easily accessible labelling and sustainability information for key product types”, explaining that the lack of labelling in some areas “is driving progressive businesses to develop their own labels but this process is fraught with difficulties”. 431 246.
Mr Hand explained that, from Giki’s experience, users want simplicity and consistency of product information, “And by consistency they mean that if they are looking, for example, at food, they want to see it across all foods, not selectively disclosed or selectively coloured.” 432 Witnesses said the Government has an important role to play in ensuring consistency. Mr Dimbleby told “The first thing the Government need to do on labelling and regulation is to own the measurements, and to say, ‘Here are the things we care about’ … so when you get a label you know that it is measured in a way that the Government have put their seal to.” 433 Prof Lang said Government needs “to be coherent about it” and “It cannot just be devolved to companies. There is such a fear of the nanny state that we have allowed nanny corporations to shape behaviour. We have to grasp this nettle and say there has to be a national position … We do not want hundreds of different apps; we want one app … It needs to be properly audited.”434 247. However, Mr Dimbleby told “In any kind of environmental labelling or health labelling you are dealing with very specific groups. You will not change the system through changing that point.” 435 Though he went on to “I think it is important, but it is not going to change consumer choice. It will change the behaviour of companies, particularly where they are marginally doing things that are destructive.” 436 Others made similar points.437 248. Product standards can also be used to support consumer choice and make resource-efficient and repairable products more available. The British Standards Institute told us standards could help consumers to “recognise genuine low emissions products” and make “green choices”. 438 The Aldersgate Group recommended the Government prioritise developing “clear and forward-looking” standards for resource and carbon intensive products,439 John Lewis called for minimum product standards and others proposed specific standards covering repairability and technologies to support refilling.440 We heard that standards should be progressively increased in line with climate and environmental goals. 441 We referred to challenges faced by businesses due to a lack of standards in Chapter 6. 430 Written evidence from Which? ( CCE0039) and the Institute of Grocery Distribution ( CCE0099) 431 Written evidence from Aldersgate Group ( CCE0113) 437 Q 99 (Prof Tim Lang) and written evidence from Lorna Benton, Naomi Fallon, Paula Feehan and 438 Written evidence from the British Standards Institute (BSI) ( CCE0078) 439 Written evidence from Aldersgate Group ( CCE0113) 440 Written evidence from John Lewis ( CCE0092) and Ecover (CCE0094) and Q 19 (Ugo Vallauri) 441 Written evidence from the IPPR ( CCE0089)

249. IKEA UK & Ireland said they see an “urgent need” for the implementation of the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) proposals in the Government’s 2018 strategy, Our Waste, Our A Strategy for England .442 EPR can involve charging producers for waste disposal, which incentivises the design of products that are easier to reuse, dismantle and recycle. 443 Mr Restorick suggested the development of EPR should be sped up and expanded to address fashion and electronics,444 while John Lewis expressed surprise that consultations on the EPR scheme for textiles have been delayed with no new 250. We also heard that a lack of recycling and reuse infrastructure is a barrier to developing more circular supply chains for consumer goods.446 Aldersgate Group explained that “access to appropriate material sorting, recycling and remanufacturing facilities is essential to support the efforts of businesses wanting to develop circular business models and increase the re-use of 251. Finally, witnesses said tax incentives and other tools could be used to encourage repair.448 The British Retail Consortium told “Some European countries are attempting to incentivise repair through other forms of tax reductions such as Sweden where 50 per cent of labour costs in repair are tax deductible and in Austria where labour costs of repair may become 252. When asked if the Government believes an overall reduction in purchases of consumer goods is needed to meet net zero, Mr Hands told “The Government do not have a view on how much stuff people should buy, to be frank. The Government have a view on trying to make the things people do buy more sustainable, more environmentally and, I hope, more cost- 253. Defra referred in their submission to the Net Zero Strategy’s goal of making “the act of choosing green significantly easier, clearer and cheaper”. 451 BEIS similarly referred to a Net Zero Strategy commitment to make “green choices affordable and easy by working with businesses and industry to set strong regulatory signals[,] and collaborate to reduce costs and provide better quality, longer lasting and lower environment impact products, and 442 Written evidence from IKEA UK & Ireland ( CCE0104) 443 Defra, Our Waste, Our A Strategy for England (18 December 2018), p 31: publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/765914/ resources-waste-strategy-dec-2018. pdf [accessed 15 September 2022] 445 Written evidence from John Lewis ( CCE0092) 446 QQ 34,37 Carmel McQuaid, also written evidence from Amazon UK ( CCE0095), Hubbub (CCE0060) and Ecover (CCE0094) 447 Written evidence from Aldersgate Group ( CCE0113) 448 Q 22 (Ugo Vallauri) and written evidence from John Lewis ( CCE0092) and IKEA UK & Ireland 449 Written evidence from the British Retail Consortium ( CCE0042) 451 Written evidence from Defra ( CCE0068) 452 Written evidence from BEIS ( CCE0059)

254.