Regarding labelling, BEIS referred to a Net Zero Strategy commitment to “empower people to make informed choices” when buying goods and services and to explore “how we better label these with their emission intensity and environmental impact”.453 Defra referred to ongoing work on eco-labelling for food and drink products,454 and Mr Eustice told “It is complex, but it is an area that we are looking at because I recognise that we owe it to the public to make those more informed choices if there is a wish there … We owe it to them to try to get some sort of consistent methodology that will not be perfect but will give them the ability to make those informed choices. That is something we are looking at.”455 As we noted above, the Government committed to develop a mandatory methodology for food eco labels and product sustainability claims in the 255. Mr Eustice told us the Government uses a combination of measures to support behaviour change including regulatory change, “So that the things on offer to the public in retail environments change, therefore causing people to adopt more sustainable approaches.”456 He gave the example of regulations mandating greater water efficiency in washing machines. 457 256. The Government ran a consultation early in 2022 on developing a market for low emissions industrial products which, according to an indicative timetable in the Industrial Decarbonisation Strategy, may be followed by the introduction of consumer product labelling from the mid-2020s onwards and voluntary low carbon product standards by 2025.458 257. Mr Eustice also referred to the Government’s EPR proposals and described them as “quite a powerful incentive on food manufacturers and retailers to reduce the amount of plastic packaging that they use, reduce the volumes and have more recyclable types of plastic”.459 258. More widely, Defra noted the Government’s efforts to support a shift to a circular economy, including by introducing consistency in waste recycling and disposal,460 and Mr Jackson mentioned initiatives with fashion retailers aiming to make the products they offer more sustainable.461 259. As noted above, we welcome the Government’s commitment in the Government food strategy to develop a mandatory methodology for food and drink eco labels and sustainability claims. This has the potential to drive producers and retailers to improve the sustainability of products on offer to consumers. 454 Written evidence from Defra ( CCE0068) 458 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, Call for Towards a Market for Low Emissions Industrial Products (December 2021), p 12: uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/1038546/towards-market-for-low- emissions-industrial- products-cfe.pdf [accessed 15 September 2022] 460 Written evidence from Defra ( CCE0068)

260. The Government should urgently consult on and then launch the mandatory methodology for food eco labels and sustainability 261. Product standards could be used to a greater extent to drive up the sustainability of products and services available in a manner consistent with the Government’s goal of making it easier, clearer and cheaper for consumers to make green choices. 262. The Government should accelerate the development of low carbon product standards referred to in the Industrial Decarbonisation Strategy and review the role enhanced product standards for other sustainability characteristics could play in the most resource- intensive consumer goods sectors. It should also accelerate labelling proposals put forward in the same strategy and review the role enhanced eco-labelling could play in consumer goods sectors where current frameworks do not cover the key climate and environmental 263. The Government’s work on Extended Producer Responsibility is welcome and could support less resource-intensive consumption. However, progress has been disappointingly slow in developing proposals originally announced in 2018. 264. The Government should develop Extended Producer Responsibility schemes, including for textiles and electronics, with much greater

“We urgently need a wide-reaching, government-led campaign to communicate what climate change risks and impacts we experience today in the UK and the likely impacts over the next two decades.” Dr Rachel Harcourt and Professor Suraje Dessai, University of Leeds 265. While the evidence suggests behaviour change for climate and environmental goals cannot be achieved through communications alone, communicating the scale of change with the public should be a vital part of the Government’s approach. Information communicated by the Government, the wider media and education can influence everyday behaviours, while public engagement can improve the legitimacy and effectiveness of behaviour change 266. As reflected in Chapter 3 of this report, the public’s understanding of the behaviour changes required to reach climate and environmental goals is limited. Many witnesses suggested the Government should take steps to plug this gap in public awareness through a government-led communications campaign, which Ms Terry described as “the missing piece of the jigsaw”, “The public are ready, we are pushing at an open door.” 462 Dr Harcourt and Prof Dessai echoed this point in their submission, “We urgently need a wide-reaching, government-led campaign to communicate what climate change risks and impacts we experience today in the UK and the likely impacts over the next two decades.”463 267. The last major government communications campaign about climate change and the environment was the Act on CO2 campaign launched on 27 November 2008.464 Mr Lord told us since the Act on CO2 “There have been some small-scale campaigns, usually around specific elements of environmental behaviours, recycling and so on, but overall there has been a reluctance to communicate in a transparent and front-footed way.”465 268. During the COVID-19 pandemic the Government provided regular updates to the public about the virus. Daily briefings on national television provided data about the spread of COVID-19 and were often delivered by the Prime Minister, the Chief Medical Officer and the Government Chief Scientific Adviser. Slogan-based campaigns designed to encourage behaviour change 463 Written evidence from Dr Rachel Harcourt and Prof Suraje Dessai ( CCE0044) 464 Q 112 (Tim Lord), see also Lexology, UK government launches ‘ACT on CO2’ People Power Challenge initiative (15 December 2008): com/library/detail.aspx?g=6c8a9733– 1041-4c15-9511- d986 bdbf7481 [accessed 15 September 2022]. such as “hands, face, space” and “stay home, protect the NHS, save lives” 269.
Several witnesses told us that as the country emerges from the pandemic, the Government should reflect on lessons that can be learned from its communications on COVID-19 and applied to communications on achieving climate and environmental goals. Matt Bourn, Director of Communications at the Advertising Association, emphasised the importance of learning from the Government’s COVID-19 communications, describing the pandemic as “the best live example of, essentially, mass behaviour change, rapidly, in a crisis”.467 Furthermore, Mr Bourn described the effect that government-led communications in the pandemic had on businesses, suggesting “brands … saw the leadership that was coming from government, and they reinforced it through their own advertising”.468 270. Comparing the Government’s leadership in the pandemic to its leadership on climate change, Steve Smith, Executive Producer at Picture Zero “Very effective messaging came from COVID and there are lessons that we can learn from it—the sense that, when we really think something is a crisis, government can change overnight. But with climate change, we are still not doing that, are we? We are still not really seeing climate change as the crisis that the science says it is.”469 271. The use of data and science in the Government’s COVID-19 communications was highlighted by some witnesses as a useful approach which could be transferred to the context of climate change and environmental damage. Mr Lord “It was helpful to speak to people as grown-ups,” while Prof Anable “We had scientists flanking policymakers and policymakers referring to the science to justify what they did.”470 272. While communications on their own are insufficient to facilitate the behaviour change needed to meet the UK’s climate and environmental goals, the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that clear, well-resourced public communications play an important role in increasing public understanding of the challenges we face collectively and the actions we can all take to address these. 273. There are a range of structures within government to manage and deliver communications campaigns on different scales. The Government Communication Service (GCS) is a civil service organisation within the Cabinet Office and is responsible for “supporting professional communicators 466 Prime Minister’s Office, ‘Slides, datasets and transcripts to accompany coronavirus press conferences’ (2 April 2020): accompany- coronavirus-press-conferences , also DHSC, ‘New campaign to prevent the spread of coronavirus indoors this winter’ (9 September 2020): prevent-spread-of-coronavirus-indoors-this-winter and Rotherham, Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust, ‘New national lockdown - Stay Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives’ ( 5 January 2021): -national-lockdown-stay-home- protect-the-nhs-save-lives/ [accessed 7 September 2022]. 470 Q 110 (Tim Lord) and Q 92 (Prof Jillian Anable)

across government.”471 On 8 February 2021, the GCS published a piece of guidance titled The Principles of Behaviour Change Communications , which aims to give communicators across government practical ways to apply behavioural science in their communications campaigns. 472 274. In a submission to the Committee, the Chief Executive of the GCS, Simon Baugh, “Following the success of the [Together for Our Planet] campaign and the Glasgow Climate Pact, GCS is currently developing and testing a strategy for climate change communications post-COP26”. 473 However, when the Committee asked for more information about the strategy he had referred to, Mr Baugh’s reply “Although there is no single publishable government communications strategy for climate change, GCS will shortly be publishing the Government Communication Plan 22/23 on the GCS website. Within this, delivering communications in support of the Government’s climate and environmental commitments is a priority for teams across The Government publishes an annual Government Communications Plan to set priorities for communications for the year ahead. At the time of writing, the Plan for 2022/23 had not been published. 275. Guidance published by the Government Communication Service titled The Principles of Behaviour Change Communications provides a basis for communicators across government to consider behavioural science in designing communications campaigns, but there is no similar guidance specifically designed for behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals. 276. As part of the proposed package of guidance we referred to in Chapters 4 and 5, we call on the Government to develop and publish guidance for departments to inform their communications strategies on behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals. The guidance document could draw on the Government Communication Service’s guidance, the Principles of Behaviour Change Communications, and apply the principles in the context of meeting climate and environmental goals. 277. A number of witnesses described best practice for communications on behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals which they said the Government could adopt in a communications campaign or strategy. 278. The importance of positive messaging in communications on behaviour change for climate and environmental goals was highlighted by several witnesses. Positive messaging can be achieved through emphasising the co-benefits or “win-wins” associated with changes to behaviour, such as 471 Government Communication Service, ‘Latest from the Government Communication Service’: [accessed 7 472 GCS, The Principles of Behaviour Change Communications (23 April 2021): uk/publications/the-principles-of-behaviour-change-communications/ [accessed 7 September 2022] 473 Written evidence from the GCS ( CCE0076) 474 Written evidence from the GCS ( CCE0115)

improvements to health and wellbeing and wider benefits to society like job creation.475 Prof Poortinga “Co-benefits provide a way to reach the non-usual suspects. Many people are already concerned about climate change and have changed their diets for that reason, but it is not an argument that will sway everybody. You can see that the co-benefits, of health for example, or reducing air pollution are arguments that are accepted much more widely, so if you want to get to the non-usual suspects in behaviour change, citing the co-benefits may be effective.”476 279. Ms Cattell echoed this point in her evaluation of a recent government campaign led by Defra about domestic burning, Burn Better .477 The communications campaign successfully used messaging to incentivise people to reduce domestic burning through encouraging them to think about their health, the health of their families, and other co-benefits associated with reducing the use of fires in homes.478 280. Behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals can be framed as an opportunity.
Ms Pompili told “If we want to have everyone on board, we have to explain to them that it is not only a threat but an opportunity to build a better world for them and for their children. I am a mother. When I think of what we have to do, it can be exhausting, but it is a great opportunity for my girls and for our children to have new jobs in new industries and to be involved in something very exciting, if we have a good narrative.”479 281. Many witnesses argued messages of fear in communications on climate change and the environment should be avoided and suggested focusing instead on practical advice and steps individuals can take to change their behaviours. The National Lottery Community Fund “Dire warnings may be counterproductive and induce a paralysing effect but showing what individuals can do has helped encourage people to act.” 480 Picture Zero Productions agreed that negative messaging can lead to inaction, and Mr Smith explained a pessimistic approach is disempowering for some audiences, causing people to “tune out and think that nothing can be done”. 481 Others 282. Furthermore, some witnesses told us that as well as having a paralysing effect, messages of fear can cause and exacerbate “climate anxiety”, which can lead to deterioration in mental health, particularly among young people.483 283. While communications should avoid messages of fear, they should be honest and transparent about the situation. Mr Restorick and Sir Patrick Vallance 475 Written evidence from Climate Outreach ( CCE0111) and Trafford Council (CCE0096) also Q 66 (Dr Emily Gray), Q 69 (Prof Wouter Poortinga), Q 110 (Tim Lord) and Q 36 (Carmel McQuaid) 476 Q 69 (Prof Wouter Poortinga) 477 Defra, ‘Burn Making changes for cleaner air’: ( 479 Q 23 (Minister Barbara Pompili) 480 Written evidence from The National Lottery Community Fund ( CCE0031) 482 Q 112 (Sir Patrick Vallance) and Q 128 (Dr Kris De Meyer) 483 Written evidence from Natural England ( CCE0034) and Dr Elizabeth Marks, Dr Panu Pihkala, Caroline Hickman and Elouise Mayall ( CCE0017)

both emphasised the importance of openness about the potential impacts of climate change and environmental damage in communications. 484 Hubbub expanded on this in their written submission, arguing the Government should be more explicit about the domestic impacts of climate change, through drawing attention to “growing evidence that more extreme weather events will impact the UK through flooding, drought and urban heat”. 485 Similarly, Dr Gray told us the Government should consider being honest and open with the public about the cost of inaction.486 284. Mr Naru said that in communicating with the public the Government should also be honest about the limits of their knowledge in this space, suggesting the Government should focus on having the right techniques, systems and processes in place, rather than saying, “We’ve got the idea and we’ve got the solution.”487 Sir Patrick Vallance made a similar “If, as a scientist, an area that you currently think looks a certain way is tested and turns out to be completely different, it is a joyous moment of understanding. For a politician, it is a horrible U-turn. That difference is rather important to bridge when thinking about communication.” 488 285. We heard that while the UK public is concerned about climate change and environmental damage, there is limited understanding of the most effective actions people can take to reduce emissions and environmental damage. Dr Kris De Meyer, Director at the UCL Climate Action Unit, suggested that to break through this confusion, the Government needs to tell the stories of the “how”, a point echoed by Ms Terry in her suggestion that the Government needs to communicate “really clear, simple visualisations that show people where the big issues are that they can make a difference to”.489 Similarly, Prof Anable emphasised the importance of clarity of message in communications on behaviour change for climate and environmental “People do not know what 1 tonne, 2 tonnes, whatever are in the abstract. They need to understand that an air trip to New York is the equivalent of the average person’s car travel for two years, for instance. Things need to be put in that 286. We received evidence from Per Grankvist, Chief Storyteller at Viable Cities, about the effectiveness of storytelling to clearly communicate the behaviour changes that will be required to meet climate and environmental goals. Mr Grankvist told us that historically stories have been the primary means of imparting knowledge, a point echoed by Historic England. 491 Mr Grankvist explained that stories “hold a visceral clout that no amount of graphs, charts or figures can replace”, but also emphasised that the story themes used in his methods are based on science. 492 Similarly, Dr De Meyer described the effectiveness of storytelling as a method for communicating behaviour change and referred to a news piece following the story of a pensioner “finding out how to navigate green grants from the Government” to retrofit her home, 484 Q 84 (Trewin Restorick), Q 114 (Sir Patrick Vallance) 485 Written evidence from Hubbub ( CCE0060) 488 Q 117 (Sir Patrick Vallance) 489 Q 126 (Dr Kris De Meyer) and Q 79 (Angela Terry) 490 Q 95 (Prof Jillian Anable) 491 Written evidence from Mr Per Grankvist ( CCE0079) and Historic England ( CCE0086) 492 Written evidence from Mr Per Grankvist ( CCE0079)

which showed the pensioner overcoming challenges and retrofitting her home with double glazing and a heat pump on a small fixed income.493 287. Often, the most effective communications about climate change and environmental damage come from trusted leaders and local voices within communities.
Climate Outreach explained that communications from “traditional” messengers on these issues, like environmental NGOs, can be counterproductive because such messengers can “sometimes put people off engaging as they feel they simply cannot relate to them due to different political ideologies and values”.494 Similarly, More In Common highlighted that trusted voices in local communities are likely to be more effective than climate activists for “more sceptical groups”.495 In their submission, the Welsh Government described their “Team Wales” approach to communications which involves co-creating messages with regional and local partners, particularly in the delivery of events such as Wales Climate Week.496 288. Scientists were also described as trusted messengers by some of the witnesses. Prof Poortinga told “Scientists are more trusted than any other group,” suggesting that there is a role to be played by scientists in the communication of climate change. 497 Similarly, Sir Patrick Vallance described scientists as “trusted voices in this space” because they can give “neutral, policy- independent science advice”.498 Considerations in government communications 289. Government communications on behaviour change for climate and environmental goals must form part of a wider approach which involves other policy instruments, such as taxation and regulations. The overall approach should place considerations of affordability and fairness at the heart of policy design. Additionally, government policies and actions across all areas must be consistent with net zero ambitions. Only in this context will clear 290. Discussing balance between communications and other policy instruments used to encourage behaviour change for climate change and the environment, Mr Eustice and Chris Thompson, Director of Clean Growth in BEIS, emphasised that the Government’s approach prioritised upstream policy signals to businesses and markets, rather than communicating the issues with the public in a coordinated way. 499 Similarly, Mr Hands told us he did not envisage the Government having a centralised budget for communications on climate change and the environment because the Government is focused on “trying to keep the messaging tied to the individual area or the individual 291. Mr Hands described BEIS’s work in developing a service initially named “Simple Energy Advice”, which will be “a very comprehensive energy advice service to help consumers navigate further the process of improving the 494 Written evidence from Climate Outreach ( CCE0111) 495 Written evidence from More In Common ( CCE0050) 496 Written evidence from the Welsh Government ( CCE0081) 497 Q 66 (Prof Wouter Poortinga) 498 Q 109 (Sir Patrick Vallance) 499 Q 143 (George Eustice) and Q 155 (Chris Thompson)

energy performance of their homes”.501 The service has since been launched on the GOV.UK website and is to be welcomed, but does not appear to be widely promoted or very comprehensive. 502 Mr Thompson explained why a targeted, tailored approach to communications on energy efficiency had been pursued in the form of an advisory GOV.UK website, “There is no point in someone thinking that a heat pump is a really good idea, if they have not thought about double glazing or loft insulation.”503 292. Reflecting on the Government’s approach to communications, Mr Lord told “There is scope for clearer communications, but I am cautious about anything that was trying to instruct people to make fundamental changes they cannot afford in the short term; it is about being clear what they can do in the short term.”504 He also emphasised the importance of communicating the sequencing of behaviour changes and targeting the sections of the population who are financially best placed to take action. For those who cannot afford to make changes, like installing a heat pump or purchasing an electric vehicle, Mr Lord suggested the Government should focus on communicating what people can do to “help to demystify and perhaps reduce some of the concerns that people quite legitimately have around elements of 293. Prof Anable said campaigns about behaviour change need to be underpinned by fairness, ensuring “people believe that everybody will be treated fairly, everybody will have to do their bit and no one will be able to get away with 294. Government communications must be underpinned by consistency in messaging, policies and actions. Pauline Element emphasised that “the Government has to communicate clearly and be seen to be acting consistently with that communication”, while Humanist Climate Action told “No amount of smart communication will outweigh the impact of inconsistency 295. The Government’s new energy advice service signifies a positive step; we hope that it will provide clear signposting and actionable advice to consumers and, as set out in Chapter 7, we hope it will be expanded. However, the service addresses only one energy efficiency. A broader communications campaign to address other issues in this space—such as how we travel and what we eat—is urgently required. This campaign, as part of the public engagement strategy we recommend in Chapter 3, should communicate the need for change and help to develop a shared positive vision; provide the public with the information needed to make green choices; shift social norms; develop policies collaboratively and engender support for the changes that will be needed to reach net zero and achieve the 502 HM Government, ‘Find ways to save energy in your home’: efficiency [accessed 5 September 2022] 506 Q 92 (Prof Jillian Anable) 507 Written evidence from Ms Pauline Element (CCE0049) and the Humanist Climate Action (CCE0071)

296. As part of the public engagement strategy that we call for in Chapter 3 by April 2023, the Government (a) Provide clear, consistent and actionable information that enables the public to make informed choices about how we travel, what we eat and buy, and how we heat our homes; (b) Develop positive messaging which emphasises the co-benefits of changes and uses stories about individuals already making (c) Work through trusted sources such as scientists and community (d) Tailor messaging to specific audiences to ensure it is effective 297. We recommend the Government significantly scale up its spending on public communications campaigns to reflect the scale of the challenges we face arising from climate change and environmental damage.
Communications on behaviour change for climate and environmental goals should be prioritised in the Government Communications Plan for 2022–2023. 298. The Government should develop a monitoring process to evaluate the effectiveness of the new energy advice service to ensure that lessons can be learnt from the initiative for future behaviour change 299. The broader information environment, including broadcasting, advertising and social media, often contains contradictory, confused and inaccurate messages about behaviour change for climate and environmental goals. 508 Moreover, several witnesses emphasised the critical role the media has to play in information provision, for example the British Retail Consortium “Influencing behaviour change at the scale necessary to shift to lower carbon lifestyles requires consistent, UK-wide behaviour change support including campaigns reaching homes, classrooms and all media.”509 300. Of concern, in their submission, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) told us they do not have any policy interventions to promote behaviour change for climate change and the environment, nor does any of their work covering sustainability in this space incorporate regulations 301. Submissions often described the power that broadcast television and radio has had in shaping behaviours across the population in other policy areas. For example, HIV testing rates doubled in 2021 after Channel 4 broadcast It’s A Sin and calls to women’s refuges rose 17 per cent during Helen Archer’s domestic abuse storyline in The Archers in 2016. 511 Similarly, submissions 508 Written evidence from South Cambridgeshire District Council ( CCE0105) 509 Written evidence from the British Retail Consortium ( CCE0042) 510 Written evidence from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport ( CCE0065) 511 Written evidence from Picture Zero Productions ( CCE0055)

suggested David Attenborough’s Blue Planet II changed the national conversation about single-use plastics.512 302. Dr Spaiser and Prof Leston-Bandeira suggested the Government could collaborate with broadcasters to promote new norms in response to the climate crisis, for instance through the depiction of role models in TV shows, and through the creation of educational and news content to close the knowledge gap. 513 Students on the Committee’s youth engagement programme suggested the Government should collaborate with social media influencers to develop communications about behaviour change for climate 303. However, Mr Smith emphasised that often shifts in behaviour that are thought to be driven by media content take place in the context of legislative change, as was the case with Helen Archer’s domestic abuse storyline which was informed by the passage of coercive control measures in the Serious Crime Act 2015.514 He explained the media does not operate in a vacuum, “Broadcasting and content work much better if audiences can see that there is a clear policy that supports what they are saying.”515 304. Advertising has the power to influence consumer behaviour on a large scale through normalising “green” behaviours. 516 The Government can influence markets through regulatory signals, which, in turn, shape advertising. For example, the Advertising Association noted that there has been a shift in car adverts since the Government set a deadline for the end to sales of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030, outlining “TV ad spend on the promotion of hybrid, electric and alternative [cars] has risen from an 8 per cent share in 2018 to 70 per cent in 2021.”517 305. However, although electric and hybrid vehicles are taking up an increasing portion of advertisements for private cars, Sustrans noted advertising of SUVs remains highly “Research illustrates that the advertising of SUVs is rapidly increasing sales and market shares of larger, more polluting SUVs which is jeopardizing climate goals in the UK and worldwide.” 518 Witnesses expressed concern about misinformation and greenwashing in advertising, particularly in relation to private vehicles. One Home told “There is a plethora of misleading information, in part generated by companies trying to green wash their products creating nonsense terms like self-charging hybrids.”519 Advertising of investment funds is also susceptible to greenwashing, as the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association (UKSIF) noted.520 More generally, a review by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the competition regulator in the UK, and other global 512 Ibid., Q 128 (Steve Smith) 513 Written evidence from Dr Viktoria Spaiser and Prof Cristina Leston-Bandeira, University of Leeds 516 Written evidence from the Advertising Association ( CCE0114) and World Animal Protection 517 Written evidence from the Advertising Association ( CCE0114) 518 Written evidence from Sustrans ( CCE0070) 519 Written evidence from One Home ( CCE0045) 520 Written evidence by UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association ( CCE0028)

authorities found that 40 per cent of green claims made online could be 306. There are numerous organisations scrutinising and regulating the advertising industry, including the CMA, the Trading Standards Services and other sector-specific bodies, but the primary regulator is the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Evidence we received from the ASA noted “ad regulation needs to play its part in working towards agreed climate goals”.522 Furthermore, the ASA suggested that if the signal is sent from Government and experts that consumer behaviour change is key to achieving net zero, the advertising industry will require greater regulatory scrutiny in future. 523 The CMA published the “Green Claims Code” on 2 September 2021 to help businesses comply with the law and prevent misleading environmental claims.524 The Green Claims Code is a guidance document for businesses, not legal advice. In their submission, the CMA suggested that to tackle misleading advertising the Government should • “legislating to create standardised definitions of commonly-used environmental terms, to which businesses must adhere in marketing • confirming in legislation a requirement for mandatory disclosure of certain information (such as environmental impact, recyclability, repairability and durability); • legislating to require businesses to provide better environmental information to their business customers; • adding misleading and/or unsubstantiated environmental claims to the list of banned practices under consumer law; • extending consumer protection remedies to address the harm to the environment caused by commercial practices directed at consumers.”525 307.
Beyond organisations like the ASA, actors on different scales can play a role in regulating and scrutinising the advertising industry. The New Weather Institute and Adfree Cities told us several English local councils are developing policies which would restrict the advertising of products which have high carbon or environmental footprints. 526 308. Professor Alison Anderson, Professor of Sociology at University of Plymouth, told us young people are mostly finding information about climate change and the environment outside of the formal education system, particularly from social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram. 527 Students 521 Written evidence from the Competition and Markets Authority ( CCE0101). Competition and Markets Authority, ‘Global sweep finds 40% of firms’ green claims could be misleading’ (28 January 2021): -of-firms-green-claims-could-be- misleading [accessed 7 September 2022] 522 Written evidence from the Advertising Standards Authority ( CCE0027) 524 Written evidence from the Competition and Markets Authority ( CCE0101), Competition and Markets Authority, ‘Greenwashing: CMA puts business on notice’ (20 September 2021): government/news/greenwashing-cma -puts-businesses-on-notice [accessed 7 September 2022] 525 Written evidence from the Competition and Markets Authority ( CCE0101) 526 Written evidence from the New Weather Institute and Adfree Cities ( CCE0015) 527 Written evidence from Prof Alison Anderson ( CCE0058)

on the Committee’s youth engagement programme echoed this point. 528 Humanist Climate Action said that social media influencers could be used to reach “those not accessible via more traditional route[s]” and highlighted the importance of inclusivity.529 309. Several witnesses expressed concern about the spread of misinformation— incorrect or misleading information—and disinformation—deliberately deceptive information—related to climate change and the environment on social media. Carnegie UK described research carried out by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), which compared the levels of engagement on social media platforms generated by reliable scientific organisations and climate sceptic actors respectively and found that the posts from the latter frequently received more traction and reach than the former. Carnegie UK “In the fortnight over which COP26 took place, sceptic content garnered 12 times the level of engagement of authoritative sources on the platform; and 60 per cent of the “sceptic” posts they analysed could be classified as actively and explicitly attacking efforts to curb climate change.” 530 310. Witnesses had several suggestions as to how misinformation and disinformation about climate change and the environment on social media could be tackled. Mr Smith suggested traditional broadcasters—like the BBC—must play an important role as “trusted sources” in a landscape of disinformation online.531 Carnegie UK expressed concern that the Government’s Online Safety Bill “does little to tackle climate change information”, and proposed amendments to bring climate change disinformation into the scope of the draft Bill in a 311. There is great potential to normalise behaviours associated with reduced greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impacts— including public transport use and active travel—through positive representations in broadcast television, advertising and on social media. However, at present aspects of the media environment run in a contrary direction, for example the proportion of advertising devoted to SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicles) and disinformation and misinformation on climate change available on social media. 312. Despite welcome improvements in guidance for businesses around misleading environmental claims, more could be done to counter greenwashing, build consumer trust and ensure companies who market products and services associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impacts can compete fairly. 313. The Government should introduce measures to regulate advertising of high-carbon and environmentally damaging products. We were persuaded by arguments made by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). As a priority, the Government should create standardised definitions of commonly used environmental terms 528 More information about the Committee’s youth engagement programme is provided in paragraph 326. A high-level summary of the discussion we had with students on the Committee’s youth engagement programme is annexed to this report. 529 Written evidence from the Humanist Climate Action ( CCE0071) 530 Written evidence from Carnegie UK ( CCE0010) 532 Written evidence from Carnegie UK ( CCE0010)

to which businesses must adhere in marketing and labelling their products, and add misleading and/or unsubstantiated environmental claims to the list of banned practices under consumer law. 314. The Government should assess the ways that misinformation and disinformation about climate change and the environment online 315. People will not make choices to support the achievement of climate and environmental goals unless we are engaged effectively, understand the rationale for actions, and policies enable these to happen. 533 Ms Kmietowicz emphasised the need to start a dialogue with the public about behaviour change for climate and environmental goals to “bring them on board and create a joint shared narrative”, “We are trying to achieve the creation of a social mandate for change here.”534 Mr Park agreed there needs to be “sufficient political capital” for behaviour change to reach climate and environmental goals, explaining that the development of such political capital “is a big task for public engagement and delivering a narrative that 316. The Government has statutory obligations to engage with the public and provide education on environment and climate change. Public engagement is required by the Aarhus Convention, to which the UK is a signatory, and the Paris Agreement, which calls for public participation and climate empowerment to be led by governments. 536 The CCC’s 2022 Progress Report, published on 29 June, notes the Government’s recognition in the Net Zero Strategy that the involvement of people will be required to achieve climate and environmental goals, but suggests that, to date, the Government has taken a light-touch approach to public engagement.537 317. Public engagement must involve all demographics through inclusive tailored messaging.538 Climate Outreach told “There continue to be groups that feel socially and economically excluded from the wider conversations about the country’s progress in general areas, but particularly in decarbonisation and wider climate action. Post-industrial areas, ‘red wall’ constituencies, and others, need to feel that there are genuine and meaningful efforts to understand their needs and to engage with them on the path forward.
Engaging them (as well as the typically more engaged segments of the population) will be a real opportunity for transformation.”539 318. Deliberative approaches—such as the use of citizens assemblies—are effective in engaging and educating people about climate and environmental issues. Prof Anable told us deliberative approaches are effective because 533 Written evidence from the Committee on Climate Change ( CCE0112) 537 Climate Change Committee, Progress in reducing emissions, 2022 Report to Parliament (June 2022): uk/publication/2022-progress-report-to-parliament/#downloads [accessed 7 538 Written evidence from Picture Zero Productions ( CCE0055) and from Prof Alison Anderson 539 Written evidence from Climate Outreach ( CCE0111)

they allow people to express frustrations about perceived unfairness, to get a conversation going about these frustrations and then have constructive conversations about potential policy options. 540 Witnesses suggested deliberative approaches encourage constructive engagement and can deliver more rapid change, increased inclusivity and fairness, while potentially addressing interlinked social challenges. 541 319. The Climate Assembly UK (CAUK) was established by six select committees in the House of Commons in June 2019 “to understand public preferences on how the UK should tackle climate change because of the impact these decisions will have on people’s lives”.542 Participants in CAUK held a series of discussions with lead experts from January to March 2020, after which they published their report titled The Path to Net Zero.543 320. We held a meeting with four participants in the CAUK as part of this inquiry.544 In our meeting, the CAUK participants reflected on their experience of the deliberative process and agreed it had been a very positive experience which had encouraged them all to take steps in their own lives to be greener. In discussing this inquiry, the participants recommended that fairness needed to be considered in behaviour change interventions, to recognise the different impacts that policies could have on different demographics and socioeconomic groups. They reiterated some of the recommendations of the Climate Assembly, for example introducing a levy on frequent flyers and taking account of the larger carbon footprint of higher income households. 321. A documentary titled The People Versus Climate Change was produced to follow the experience of participants in the Climate Assembly. Reflecting on the documentary, Climate Outreach told “The People Versus Climate Change was an extremely powerful and pioneering net zero public engagement tool. It has helped take the Assembly, and the issues discussed within it, to a wider audience than the 108 assembly members, and provides an important illustration of the principles of people-first/human story-led engagement on what net Mr Smith, the producer of the documentary, agreed the film was a highly effective engagement tool in itself because it depicted and created “peer to 322. However, in their reflections on the Climate Assembly experience, some of the CAUK participants said they felt the Government had not given sufficient attention to the findings in their report. Some participants also suggested the Assembly process as a whole did not have a great deal of Government buy-in, 540 Q 92 (Prof Jillian Anable) 541 Written evidence from the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056), 542 Climate Assembly UK, The path to net zero : read/index.html 544 A high-level summary of the discussion we had with participants in the Climate Assembly UK is 545 Written evidence from Climate Outreach ( CCE0111)

particularly in comparison to international examples like the French citizens’ assembly, which had been commissioned by the Government of France. Deliberative approaches on different scales 323. Reflecting on the French citizens’ assembly, then Minister of the Ecological Transition Ms Pompili noted the importance of President Macron’s personal involvement in the process, “His patronage gave the convention a source of legitimacy, and gave visibility and media impact to the work of the citizens.”547 She told us that the proposals drawn up by the French citizen’s assembly “served as the basis of legislation”, in the form of the Climate and Resilience Bill, which was adopted by the French Parliament in July 2021.548 On this point, the Global Sustainability Institute suggested that for deliberative approaches to be meaningful, the views of participants need to be able to influence policy outcomes in tangible ways, “Mechanisms for influence cannot be an afterthought, but must be designed into programmes 324. Evidence we received suggested the use of climate assemblies for public engagement is becoming more popular at different levels of governance. For example, the District Councils’ Network told us many of their members are convening climate assemblies and summits of citizens “to discuss how the community should react to climate change”. 550 The Scottish Government described the outcomes of the Scotland Climate Assembly process which recently concluded, “As a part of the Scottish Government’s response to the Assembly, we have committed to exploring these further with the UK 325. Engaging young people will be vital in achieving climate and environmental goals through behaviour change. Assessing the narratives surrounding young people and climate change, Prof Anderson told “Young people feel that narratives that frame them as uninformed about the issues, but place responsibility on them for tackling climate change, are unhelpful. Instead, they suggest that the narrative of Government projects relating to youth engagement with climate change should be sensitised to the specific barriers young people face.”552 326. In January 2021 the Committee set up a youth engagement programme. We invited schools from across the UK to apply to join the programme for a calendar year and recruited six schools from all four UK nations. 553 During this inquiry, we have sought the opinions of students on the programme. We spent one meeting discussing feedback from the schools who had each run lessons or after-school sessions on behaviour change for climate and environmental goals.
We also held a meeting with students from the 547 Q 23 (Minister Barbara Pompili) 549 Written evidence from the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056) 550 Written evidence from the District Councils’ Network ( CCE0107) 551 Written evidence from the Scottish Government ( CCE0080) 552 Written evidence from Prof Alison Anderson ( CCE0058) 553 Environment and Climate Change Committee, ‘Six schools from across the UK selected to take part in youth engagement programme’ (13 January 2022): mobilising- action-on-climate-change-and-environment-behaviour-change/news/160257/ six-schools- from-across-the-uk-selected-to-take-part- in-youth-engagement-programme/

six schools to hear questions that they would ask government ministers about behaviour change for climate and environmental goals if they were members of our Committee. 554 This engagement with students informed our questioning of government ministers, Mr Eustice and Mr Hands, in the concluding sessions of this inquiry and has helped to shape the conclusions and recommendations in this report. 327. We were heartened to hear the positive experiences of participants in the UK Climate Assembly and commend this use of deliberative engagement, though we are concerned that the Government may not have taken the Climate Assembly’s report findings seriously. Citizens’ assemblies and other forms of public engagement, such as those tailored to young people, will play a significant role in supporting behaviour change for climate and environmental goals. Engaging the public and strengthening understanding in this space will improve the legitimacy and effectiveness of behaviour change interventions. 328. As part of the public engagement strategy that we have called for, the Government should embed deliberative methods, such as citizens assemblies, in climate change and environment policy design from local to national levels to shape a shared vision of net zero and environmental sustainability. In the public engagement strategy, the Government should include specific methods to engage young people, through mechanisms such as social media campaigns, young citizens’ assemblies and youth advisory panels. 329. Submissions suggested young people would like to learn more about climate change and the environment in formal settings, but they often have to get information from social media platforms rather than the classroom. 555 In a survey taken in 2021, while 58 per cent of young people aged 9–18 said that they felt they had learnt “a lot or quite a bit” about the environment at school, 71 per cent said they were interested in learning more about the 330. Mr Poots told us that as part of a three-year project which commenced in December 2020, Northern Ireland’s DAERA is “providing funding to Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful [an environmental charity] to develop and roll out carbon literacy materials for post-primary Eco-Schools and community groups with the aim of driving behaviour change”. 557 Similarly, Ms Pompili explained that in order to raise awareness on climate-related issues among young people, an article in France’s new climate legislation requests that environmental education be provided in all schools.558 331. The Department for Education (DfE) published a Sustainability and Climate Change Strategy on 21 April which aims to improve “the sustainability of the environment in and around education settings” and “the knowledge and 554 A high-level summary of the discussion we had with students on the Committee’s youth engagement programme is annexed to this report. 555 Written evidence from Prof Alison Anderson ( CCE0058) 557 Written evidence from Edwin Poots MLA ( CCE0082) 558 Q 23 (Minister Barbara Pompili)

understanding of children and young people”. 559 In their submission, the Department told us the national curriculum “includes topics related to climate change and sustainability in core learning outcomes”. 560 In the Strategy, the Government also set out plans to introduce a Natural History GCSE by 2025, which aims to “enable young people to explore the world by learning about organisms and environments, environmental and sustainability issues, and gain a deeper knowledge of the natural world around them”.561 However, Prof Anderson told us the Strategy needs to “go further” to ensure young people are given “a broad climate education that is integrated within all subject areas in an interdisciplinary fashion”.562 332. We strongly welcome the inclusion of environmental and sustainability issues in the syllabus of the forthcoming Natural History GCSE. However, there is also a need for young people to be educated about the science of climate change and actions they can take to support meeting climate and environmental goals, which must be embedded 333. The Department for Education’s Sustainability and Climate Change Strategy should be reviewed to ensure every opportunity has been taken through both formal and informal education and communications and the school environment to provide young people with the knowledge and skills to make life and career choices to support environmental and climate goals. 559 DfE, ‘Sustainability and climate change strategy’ (21 April 2021): publications /sustainability-and-climate-change-strategy [accessed 7 September 2022] 560 Written evidence from the DfE ( CCE0066) 561 DfE, ‘The new Natural History GCSE and how we’re leading the way in climate and sustainability education - your questions answered’ (25 April 2022): /2022/04/25/ the-new-natural-history-gcse-and-how-were-leading -the-way-in-climate-and-sustainability- education-your-questions-answered / [accessed 7 September 2022] 562 Written evidence from Prof Alison Anderson ( CCE0058)

“Our experience of interacting with No. 10—and I will answer this as candidly as I can—is that there is a strong vision and that emerged in the net zero strategy, but it is a vision of techno-optimism. There is perhaps a narrow understanding of behaviour change and an aversion to finger-wagging and telling people what not to do.” Toby Park, Head of Energy, Environment & Sustainability at the Behavioural Insights Team 334. The Government’s approach to behaviour change for climate and environmental goals was presented in evidence we received from government departments as part of this inquiry, and in other policy documents such as the Net Zero Strategy and the 25 Year Environmental Plan. Witnesses appraised the Government’s overall approach as well as the Government’s role in coordinating the work of both government departments and other actors on different levels—including civil society, local authorities and The Government’s overall approach 335.
Witnesses identified a number of areas in which they perceived the Government’s overall approach to behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals to be leadership, the policy design process and a joined-up, systems approach. 336. There was a consensus across much of the evidence that the inadequate leadership role played by the Government in achieving behaviour change for climate and environmental goals can undermine public willingness to take action on an individual level. 337. Witnesses suggested the Government’s overall approach is characterised by tensions between its targets and its actions. The gap between the two undermines the Government’s leadership in this space. Mr Hopkins told us there needs to be a clear steer and narrative from the Government, rather than a situation in which the Government says, “Yes, climate change is the challenge of our time,” and then “expands airports and opens new coal and oilfields”.563 Similarly, the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University expressed concern that “the recent decision to reduce taxes on domestic flights in the UK sends a very clear message that the government is not serious about reducing transport emissions, which risks fatally undermining any behaviour change campaigns around transport”. 564 Green Alliance echoed this point in their submission, “Government consistency is key.”565 Similarly, Hubbub suggested announcements from the Government about investing in coal and expanding airports “undermine the overall narrative” and “are likely to reduce support for individual behaviour change”.566 Several students on the Committee’s youth engagement programme also held this view. 564 Written evidence from the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University ( CCE0056) 565 Written evidence from Green Alliance ( CCE0051) 566 Written evidence from Hubbub ( CCE0060)

338. Many witnesses suggested the Government should take on a leadership role not only through communicating what is necessary in terms of behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals, but also through utilising its unique position to shape the choice environment from the top down through regulation and taxation. 567 Picture Zero Productions told us although the Government “is starting to send signals that business as usual needs to change through the pledges they are making on emission reductions”, these signals need to be strengthened with clear policies. 568 339. Some submissions described instances in the past when the Government has taken on a greater leadership role in behaviour change for climate and environmental goals and lessons that can be drawn from the impacts of this. For example, Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation suggested various vehicle scrappage schemes whereby older, polluting cars could be traded for grants from the Government demonstrated that “when governments take the lead and make it simple for people to shift away from private vehicles, then compliance and behaviour change comes quickly”. 569 Similarly, Humanist Climate Action described the introduction of a plastic carrier bag charge by the Government as an example of government leadership in this space having “a wide and positive impact involving lifestyle change”.570 Mr Eustice referred to this measure in his oral evidence to the Committee. 571 340. The public expect the Government to “take the lead on climate change”, because people often feel disempowered to tackle climate change and environmental damage on an individual level, but many do not believe the Government is taking its role seriously enough or taking adequate steps to tackle the crisis.572 Dr Eichhorn told “77 per cent of the UK public think the UK government has a high degree of responsibility in addressing the climate crisis.”573 Similarly, Dr Gray emphasised that around three-quarters of the public say that government should be taking action on climate and the environment “first and foremost”. 574 Prof Poortinga echoed this point, stating “individuals do not feel capable to deal with [climate change]” because it is often seen as a global issue over which we have very little control, which suggests “the involvement of government and international bodies is 341. Yet, under half of the public think the Government is taking action at present.576 Dr Gray “There is a gap between people’s expectations of government and the action that they see being taken at the moment.” 577 Similarly, the consumer association Which? outlined that 46 per cent of the UK public think the Government is “doing too little to support consumers to make more sustainable choices”.578 567 QQ 1, 5 (David Joffe) and written evidence from Picture Zero Productions ( CCE0055) 568 Written evidence from Picture Zero Productions ( CCE0055) 569 Written evidence from Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation ( CCE0012) 570 Written evidence from the Humanist Climate Action ( CCE0071) 572 Written evidence from Dr Jan Eichhorn ( CCE0022) and Q 60 (Prof Wouter Poortinga) 573 Written evidence from Dr Jan Eichhorn ( CCE0022) 575 Q 60 (Prof Wouter Poortinga) 578 Written evidence from Which? ( CCE0039)

342. Many witnesses highlighted problems with the Government’s approach to policy design for behaviour change interventions, suggesting that the Government does not use behavioural models and frameworks effectively or apply long-term thinking in policy design, and does not have a process in place to evaluate and learn from past efforts.579 343. Mr Park emphasised the importance of using behavioural frameworks and models in designing policy for behaviour change for climate and environmental goals, “It does not need to have the clever psychology, cognitive biases and so on generally associated with nudging, but the basic, good hygiene practice of applying a behavioural lens to policy so that it is designed for real human beings who are busy, have limited attention and willpower and do not always want to wade through complex communications, systems, customer journeys and so on … There is still a huge amount of scope to routinise that more across government.”580 344.
Mr Restorick expressed concern the Government does not commit to policies for behaviour change in the long-term and said he “could list initiative after initiative that consecutive governments have started; they have started to work, and then they have gone”.581 Similarly, a submission from One Home “Campaigns often have a short-term horizon so momentum build[s], lessons are learnt then a new minister arrives and the campaign is closed.”582 345. Several submissions suggested the Government does not have a process in place to evaluate past behaviour change efforts in order to consolidate institutional knowledge. The UCL Centre for Behaviour Change said the Government could improve its approach through developing more consistent plans for evaluating interventions. 583 Similarly, the CAST Consortium said there should be “clarity on what has and what hasn’t worked to date” so that people and institutions can learn from past efforts. 584 346. Evidence suggested the Government lacks a joined-up, systems approach to behaviour change. The CAST Consortium argued the Government needs “a holistic and systemic approach which involves both ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’”, suggesting that policy improvements can be made through “greater use of co-design and systems thinking approaches”. 585 The IPPR agreed addressing the climate and nature crises requires “collective, systemic, and interrelated action” with “system wide coordination”. 586 Similarly, WSP told us looking ahead, “Behaviour change will not be linear and based on a single activity,” instead they suggested it will be “more complex, and will require cross collaboration, system thinking and finance”. 587 Mr Joffe drew 579 Q 76 (Trewin Restorick) also written evidence from One Home ( CCE0045), the CAST Consortium (CCE0048) and the UCL Centre for Behaviour Change ( CCE0033) 582 Written evidence from One Home ( CCE0045) 583 Written evidence from the UCL Centre for Behaviour Change ( CCE0033) 584 Written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048) 586 Written evidence from the IPPR ( CCE0089) 587 Written evidence from WSP ( CCE0087)

attention to the importance of a joined-up approach specifically in managing the interaction between “the behavioural nudge aspect and the incentives to make the changes”, and “The Treasury needs some support and maybe a little nudge to go a bit further on some of these issues.”588 347. Many witnesses argued the Government’s approach to achieving climate and environmental goals is excessively reliant on as yet undeveloped technologies to reduce emissions and does not pay due attention to the role of individual- level behaviour change. Mr Park set out this “Our experience of interacting with No. 10—and I will answer this as candidly as I can—is that there is a strong vision and that emerged in the net zero strategy, but it is a vision of techno-optimism. There is perhaps a narrow understanding of behaviour change and an aversion to finger-wagging and telling people what not to do.”589 348. In their submission, the UCL Centre for Behaviour Change expressed a similar concern that policies in the Net Zero Strategy “place too much emphasis on technological innovations without enough consideration of the behaviour changes needed to achieve these”. 590 Consistent with this, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee recently concluded in their review of the Government’s progress on delivering net “Government is relying heavily on rapidly changing consumer behaviours together with technological innovations driving down the costs of green options but it is not clear how it will support and encourage consumers to purchase greener 349. The CAST Consortium also expressed concern that despite including a chapter on public engagement and green choices, the Net Zero Strategy had “not acknowledged the wide reaching social and lifestyle changes” which would be required in combination with other factors, such as technologies, to reach net zero. 592 Ms Terry told us the CCC had “very clearly mapped out the pathways that are needed to reach net zero”, but despite these clear pathways, there were “huge policy gaps, huge valleys where there is no implementation process at all”.593 Ms Terry gave examples of insulation and electric car charging as areas where there are gaps. 594 The Government on their overall approach 350. Evidence received from departments suggests the Government’s approach focuses on enabling individuals to make green choices should people wish to do so, rather than actively trying to shape the choice environment through behaviour change interventions. 351. Across the submissions received from government departments, there was some recognition that individuals may need to play a role in achieving climate and environmental goals, but this was often countered with an emphasis 590 Written evidence from the UCL Centre for Behaviour Change ( CCE0033) 591 Committee of Public Accounts, Achieving Net Follow up (Forty-First Report, Session 2021–2022, 592 Written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0048)

on the importance of maintaining freedom of choice for the individual. For “Achieving the Government’s net zero target will require not only changes to our energy systems and infrastructure, but changes to everyday life such as the way we travel, heat our homes, and save our money. To reach net zero, everyone will need to play their part.”595 However, in the same submission, BEIS also “The Government wants to support the public in adopting sustainable behaviours in a way that supports choice and maintains freedoms. We recognise that the best way to do this is to go with the grain of existing 352. A submission from Defra mirrored the position above and also said the Government aims to make “more sustainable choice as easy and straightforward as possible”, but wants to do so in a way “that supports choice and maintains freedoms”. 597 The Treasury and the Cabinet Office both made a similar point, as did DfT who also “This is not about stopping people doing it is about doing the same things differently.”598 The Cabinet Office also placed a focus on enabling individuals to actively choose green should people wish to do so, through making greener options “significantly easier, clearer and cheaper”.599 353.
In an evidence session with Mr Hands, government sentiment around making behaviour change for climate and environmental goals easy, while at the same time going with the grain of existing behaviours was reinforced. He told us that the Government’s focus was “to make the act of choosing zero or low-carbon alternatives significantly easier, clearer and cheaper”, suggesting that the approach was focused on “supporting people to make green choices … not on stopping them doing things.” 600 He echoed the view that the best way to approach behaviour change was “to go with the grain of existing behaviour and trends”, “Wherever possible, the approach is more carrot than stick.” 601 Mr Hands did not address behaviour change in areas where there are currently no “clean” technological alternatives or options, such as fashion, which may require reductions in consumption. 354. However, Mr Eustice described the use by government of upstream policy levers, such as regulatory measures, which go beyond making green choices “I would challenge to say that anyone has not realised that they now have a charge for buying a carrier bag in a supermarket. If they were observant, they would notice that you no longer really see plastic cutlery on offer. People have reverted to the use of wood instead. They are changing their behaviours because we have introduced regulatory changes that make that easier or, in some cases, compulsory.”602 595 Written evidence from BEIS ( CCE0059) 597 Written evidence from Defra ( CCE0068) 598 Written evidence from the Treasury (CCE0085), the Cabinet Office (CCE0067) and DfT (CCE0062) 599 Written evidence from the Cabinet Office ( CCE0067) 600 QQ 148, 153 (Greg Hands MP)

355. Mr Eustice told us behaviour change is considered by government across a range of policy areas, stating that it is unhelpful to treat behaviour change “as though it is a sideshow or in a silo”. 603 This holistic approach to behaviour change across policymaking does not extend to communications, as he confirmed that an information campaign would not be part of the 356. The Government published the Net Zero Strategy on 19 October 2021 to present their policies and proposals for decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy to meet the net zero target by 2050. The Net Zero Strategy contained six principles underpinning green choices, which were referenced in evidence we received from BEIS, DfT and (1) “Minimise the ‘ask’ by sending clear regulatory signals; (2) Make the green choice the easiest; (3) Make the green choice affordable; (4) Empower people and businesses to make their own choice; (5) Motivate & build public acceptability for major changes; and (6) Present a clear vision of how we will get to net zero and what the role of people and business will be”.605 357. A submission from n0co2.org referred to a report published by the Government alongside the Net Zero Strategy, which went further than setting out the six principles underpinning green choices—the report explored behaviour change for net zero. 606 The report was then swiftly withdrawn. 607 This withdrawn report—commissioned by BEIS and produced by the BIT—was titled Net principles for successful behaviour change initiatives and included reference to the potential impact that levies on high-carbon food and frequent fliers could have on achieving net zero. Speaking about the removal of the report from the government website, a government spokesperson said, “This was an academic research paper, not government policy … we have no plans whatsoever to dictate consumer behaviour in this way.”608 358. We have not found the Government’s current approach to enabling behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals to be adequate to meet the scale of the challenge. 359. Of the six principles underpinning green choices outlined in its own Net Zero Strategy, the Government has failed to implement 5 and 6: to motivate and build public acceptability for major changes and to present a clear vision of how we will get to net zero and what the role of people and business will be. Nor has the Government consistently applied across the key areas where people and businesses will need to change behaviours to meet net zero and environmental 605 Written evidence from BEIS ( CCE0059), the DfT (CCE0062) and Defra (CCE0068) 606 Written evidence from n0co2.org ( CCE0020) 608 ‘UK meat tax and frequent-flyer levy proposals briefly published then deleted’, Guardian UK, (October 2021): oct/20/meat-tax-and-frequent-flyer-levy- advice-dropped- from-uk-net-zero-strategy [accessed 8 June 2022]

goals the remaining four principles—of sending clear regulatory signals, making the green choice the easiest, making the green choice affordable and empowering people and businesses to make their own 360. The one element of consistency in departments’ approaches to delivering the Net Zero Strategy—the principle of going with the grain of consumer choice—ignores the role that many government levers like regulation and taxation play in shaping markets and influencing 361. The Government’s failure to date to put in place sufficient policies, resources and communications to enable change risks missing statutory climate targets and opportunities to improve health and 362. The public expect the Government to take a leadership role to enable behaviour change, but the Government’s reticence to address key areas—such as what people eat, how we heat our homes, what we buy and how we travel—which is largely a result of a reluctance to be perceived as reducing freedom of choice, undermines individuals’ willingness and ability to take action. 363. The Government is excessively reliant on large-scale and as yet undeveloped technologies to meet net zero targets. The evidence shows that the public expect leadership from the Government and can accept measures to adapt their behaviour to more sustainable patterns and reduced carbon-intensive consumption, as well as to adopt existing green technologies, if communicated clearly and 364. The Government should apply behavioural science to all its policies and initiatives. It should urgently review the Net Zero Strategy and policies and initiatives in place to deliver it and rectify where its six principles underpinning green choices are not being delivered. 365.
As we note in Chapters 3 and 8, the Government should introduce a public engagement strategy to build support for helping people adopt new technologies and reduce carbon-intensive consumption in key areas where behaviour change is required. Net zero cannot be achieved without addressing both. Coordination within Government 366. There are several groups, boards and committees that are involved in coordinating climate change policy across government, but their remits and responsibilities are unclear, and their proceedings lack transparency. 367. There are two Cabinet Committees dedicated to climate policy and strategy. The Climate Action Strategy Committee (CAS) is chaired by the Prime Minister and considers “matters relating to the delivery of the UK’s domestic and international climate strategy”. 609 The Climate Action Implementation Committee (CAI) is chaired by the COP President and considers “matters 609 Written evidence from the Cabinet Office ( CCE0067)

relating to the delivery of COP26, net zero and building the UK’s resilience to climate impacts”.610 Information about the meetings of CAS and CAI— such as the minutes of proceedings and the frequency of meetings—is not 368. In a letter to the then Prime Minister dated 29 November 2021, the House of Commons Liaison Committee asked when he had last chaired a meeting of the CAS and when the next meeting was due to take place. 611 In a response dated 15 December 2021, the then Prime Minister “It is a long-established practice under successive Governments that information about the discussions that have taken place in Cabinet and its Committees, and how often they meet, is not normally disclosed publicly.” 612 The House of Commons Liaison Committee replied to the Prime Minister’s letter of 15 December 2021 on 20 January, and described the lack of information available about CAS and its activities as “unsatisfactory”, “Given the role that this Committee is intended to play in setting the strategic direction for the UK’s efforts to combat climate change, and in particular its purpose in holding Departments to account, it is unsatisfactory that its activities should not be considered appropriate for scrutiny by select committees.”613 369. To conclude our inquiry, we invited an official working with either or both CAS and CAI to attend an evidence session alongside ministers from BEIS and Defra to discuss the work of the Cabinet Committees in coordinating climate policy across Government, including behaviour change. In response to this invitation, the Cabinet Office said officials working with the Cabinet Committees do not have the relevant knowledge in this area. In the final evidence sessions for this inquiry, neither Mr Eustice nor Mr Hands provided further information about the proceedings of CAS and CAI. Mr Hands agreed to follow up points about the minutes and frequency of meetings of CAS and CAI by correspondence. In his follow-up letter sent on 20 June, he reiterated the statement made by the Prime “It is a long-established precedent that information about the discussions that have taken place in Cabinet and its Committees, and how often they have met, is not shared 370. CAS and CAI are supported by official-level groups, including the Climate Change National Strategy Implementation Group (NSIG) and the cross- government Director General Group. 615 Defra explained that the Director General Group, chaired by the BEIS Director General for Net Zero and International, aims to “bring together officials from across Government, creating a whole system perspective, to support the delivery of significant 611 Letter from Sir Bernard Jenkin MP, Chair of the House of Commons Liaison Committee, to Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP, Prime Minister (29 November 2021): publications/8040/documents/82812/default/ 612 Letter from Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP, Prime Minister to Sir Bernard Jenkin MP, Chair of the House of Commons Liaison Committee (15 December 2021): publications/8583/documents/86675/default / 613 Letter from Sir Bernard Jenkin MP, Chair of the House of Commons Liaison Committee, to Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP, Prime Minister (20 January 2022): .uk/ publications/8584/documents/86723/default/ 614 Letter from The Rt Hon Greg Hands MP, then Minister of State for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change to Baroness Parminter, Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee (20 June 2022): 615 Written evidence from the Cabinet Office ( CCE0067) and Defra (CCE0068)

climate announcements”.616 In a letter sent to the Committee on 11 April, BEIS described the work of the Director General Group as bringing together relevant Director Generals to “drive progress on net zero, alongside matters concerning climate adaptation, resilience, and international climate”. 617 In a follow-up letter sent to the Committee on 20 June, Mr Hands confirmed that the Director General Group meets monthly.618 371. Submissions to this inquiry by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and DHSC referred to the Behaviour Change for Net Zero Working Group. BEIS did not refer this group in their original submission for this inquiry, so we requested further information from BEIS as the lead department. In response, BEIS “The [Behaviour Change for Net Zero Working] Group was set up in April 2020 to discuss potential policies and proposals to be included in the Net Zero Strategy. It met between April 2020 and May 2021 and is no longer active. When it was running, its membership included junior civil servant representatives across government. Since it was established in April 2020, the group met roughly every six weeks until May 2021 when the last meeting took place. The group is no longer active. No minutes were kept from the meetings because it was an informal group with no decision-making power.”619 372. At present, the level of coordination between departments and across policy areas appears to be limited. Which?
described their experience of cross- government coordination, suggesting it is “still too limited, and competing short and long-term priorities can delay progress”.620 Ms Kmietowicz told us the Government needs to be more joined up in their policies, because many individual departments are “trying hard to move towards a decarbonisation pathway, but a lot of the purse strings are held by the Treasury”.621 Sustrans made a similar point, expressing concern that “while funding and initiatives need to cross departments; presently they are typically siloed”.622 The British Retail Consortium told us that consideration of behaviour change measures and policies is often “already happening” within certain government departments and agencies but suggested there needs to be “a strategic cross- department approach from the Government” to incorporate behaviour change considerations more widely.623 373. Several submissions described case studies which demonstrated a lack of cross-departmental coordination. Sustrans explained that in the policy document Gear A bold vision for cycling and walking published by DfT on 28 July 2020, the Government set out its aim to make walking and cycling the natural choice for short journeys in cities and towns but the department responsible for the planning system, DLUHC, has been delivering “too many 616 Written evidence from Defra ( CCE0068) 617 Letter from Rt Hon Kwasi Kwarteng MP, Secretary of State Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy to Baroness Parminter, Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee (11 April 2021): /default/ 618 Letter from The Rt Hon Greg Hands MP, Minister of State for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change to Baroness Parminter, Chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee (20 June 2022): 22836/documents/167724/default/ 619 Written evidence from BEIS ( CCE0077) 620 Written evidence from the CAST Consortium ( CCE0040) 622 Written evidence from Sustrans ( CCE0070) 623 Written evidence from the British Retail Consortium ( CCE0042)

new housing developments which are built far from existing settlements and which have few amenities on site”, embedding dependency on car-use in new developments “from the outset”.624 Similarly, Cycling UK described another example of an apparent lack of cross-departmental coordination, labelling DHSC’s failure to mention the role of active travel in the Obesity Strategy and Physical Activity Guidelines “a huge missed opportunity”. 625 Individual departments’ work on behaviour change 374. Departments have varying levels of engagement with behaviour change for climate and environmental goals, with DHSC, DLUHC and DCMS stating in their submissions that they do not have an overarching strategy, plan or framework in place for behaviour change for climate change and the environment. 626 By contrast, as described in paragraph 356, in their submissions DfT, BEIS and Defra each referred to the six principles underpinning green choices set out in the Net Zero Strategy. 627 375. Some departments appear to incorporate some consideration of behaviour change for climate and environmental goals into policy design. For example, DHSC described a programme of research co-led by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) through the NIHR Health Protection Research Units (HPRUs) which involves two HPRUs that cover behavioural change in the context of climate change—the Environmental Change and Health HPRU and the Behavioural Sciences and Evaluation HPRU.628 The extent to which the behaviour change for climate and environment work by the HPRUs feeds into the Department’s policy design process was not described in detail in the submission. DfE described the use of a theory of change to identify behaviours required to meet ambitions in their sustainability and climate strategy, published on 21 April.629 376. There is a desire in some departments for more leadership and coordination from central government. DHSC emphasised the important role that cross- government coordination could play in realising the health-related co- benefits associated with behaviour change for climate and environmental goals—such as the effect that more active lifestyles could have on both public health and air quality. 630 DHSC argued that because the levers to enable such co-benefits are “not always led by health and public health, further work is needed to ensure that policies and approaches can provide mutual benefits across government”. 631 In describing their work on behaviour “The department’s work on behaviour change is not mature enough to have developed frameworks and methods on this specific area however, 624 Written evidence from Sustrans ( CCE0070) 625 Written evidence from Cycling UK CCE0040 626 Written evidence from the Department for Health and Social Care ( CCE0061), the DLUHC (CCE0063) and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport ( CCE0065) 627 Written evidence from BEIS ( CCE0059), the DfT (CCE0062) and Defra (CCE0068) 628 Written evidence from the Department for Health and Social Care ( CCE0061) 629 Written evidence from the DfT ( CCE0062). DfE, ‘Sustainability and climate a strategy for the education and children’s services systems’ (21 April 2022): government/ publications/sustainability-and-climate-change-strategy/sustainability-and-climate- change-a- strategy-for-the-education-and-childrens-services-systems [accessed 7 September 2022] 630 Written evidence from the Department for Health and Social Care ( CCE0061)

we are keen to learn from other departments with larger resourcing and greater experience in this area.”632 377. Witnesses provided various options for adapting the machinery of government to strengthen cross-government coordination of behaviour change policy for climate and environmental goals. Prof Dame Marteau suggested that the Government develop “a science strategy and delivery body for changing behaviour for net zero”, which she said should be led by the CCC. 633 Ms McQuaid made a plea for the Cabinet Office to play a role in co-ordinating activity, while n0co2.org suggested it would be logical to “have a Department that focuses on delivering results for cutting CO 2 … and with a focal point 378. Inconsistency in policies owned by different parts of government inhibits the ability and likelihood of behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals. The use of upstream measures including regulation, taxation and development of infrastructure, appropriately sequenced, are key and require the input of, and coordination across, various departments. Moreover, policies in different departments are maintaining high carbon lifestyles and undermining the public’s willingness to change behaviours.
The evidence we gathered from departments revealed poor coordination of policies across departments and poor implementation of sequenced 379. We welcome the introduction of a Minister of State for Climate. The Government should ensure that the Minister has sufficient resources, and their role should include coordinating, sequencing and monitoring behaviour change policy across departments. 380. The Government should increase transparency in the proceedings of the two climate-focused Cabinet Committees—the Climate Action Strategy Committee and the Climate Action Implementation Committee—to enable greater scrutiny of cross-government coordination of behaviour change for climate and environmental 381. We heard there is a good level of expertise in behaviour change in pockets of the Government, but the resources for developing behavioural interventions are not consistent across departments. For example, DLUHC told us they do not have any dedicated function for considering behaviour change for climate change and the environment, instead this is “a component of policy development on multiple areas”. 635 DCMS said that they have no budget allocated for behaviour change and that they have a “small team of 2 FTE [full-time equivalent] working on sustainability as a cross-cutting policy areas for the department”. 636 By contrast, DfE told us they have 29 FTE in the Sustainability and Climate Change Unit—with 19 FTE in post and 632 Written evidence from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport ( CCE0065) 633 Q 41 (Prof Dame Theresa Marteau) 634 Q 41 (Carmel McQuaid) and written evidence from n0c20.org ( CCE0020) 635 Written evidence from the DLUHC ( CCE0063) 636 Written evidence from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport ( CCE0065)

10 vacancies—which is supported by 2.5 FTE in their Behavioural Insights Unit.637 In summarising their resourcing in this area, Defra “Defra resources a central strategy team to coordinate behaviour change for the 25 YEP [25 Year Environment Plan], as well as social researchers, a behavioural insights team, evidence teams and the work of individual policy teams whose work involves behaviour change. In addition, we are bringing in two behaviours-focused academic research 382. The BIT was set up in 2010 to operate within the Cabinet Office providing behavioural insights and research to inform policy across government. In 2014 the BIT was split from government and, as of December 2021, is now fully owned by the charity Nesta. 639 Mr Park told us that BIT remains the largest team working on behavioural research to inform public policy with “a couple of hundred staff working globally” and emphasised that there is now “nothing within government at that scale”. 640 He reiterated that although there are “a lot of smart and capable people” working on behaviour change in government, this is “still a relatively niche area of expertise” and the level of resourcing does not meet the “scale of the challenge”. 641 Furthermore, the UCL Centre for Behaviour Change suggested that sharing knowledge about behaviour change across departments is characterised by “informal networking, exchange and ad-hoc collaboration between behavioural science teams” rather than a formal, centralised system of resources. 642 383. With regard to the wider resourcing context, after we had finishing gathering evidence as part of this inquiry the Government announced an intention to reduce the size of the civil service to 2016 levels.643 384. The evidence gathered for this inquiry suggests there is no central resource from which departments can seek expertise on behaviour change for climate and the environment. Similarly, there are differing levels of expertise across relevant departments, there is no mechanism for coordinating and retaining expertise across departments, and no clear mechanisms exist for evaluation and learning lessons. The evidence gathered suggests this is partly because there is not enough behavioural science expertise both centrally and across departments. 385. The Government should strengthen an existing team or create a new unit to provide advice and coordination on behaviour change for climate and environmental goals across departments and take steps to increase and standardise the expertise held across all relevant departments. The Government should seek to equip staff working centrally and across departments with behaviour change expertise. 386. A package of guidance—which we have referred to in Chapters 4, 5 and 8—would strengthen the Government’s leadership on behaviour 637 Written evidence from the DfE ( CCE0066) 638 Written evidence from Defra ( CCE0068) 639 Behavioural Insights Team, ‘Documents’: insights-team [accessed 7 September 2022] 642 Written evidence from the UCL Centre for Behaviour Change ( CCE0033) 643 BBC, ‘Boris Johnson wants to cut up to 91,000 civil service jobs’, (13 May 2022): bbc. co.uk/news/uk-politics-61432498 [accessed 7 September 2022]

change for climate and environmental goals, improve coordination between and consistency across departments and provide a central resource for actors on different levels, such as local authorities, civil society and businesses. The guidance should be owned by the Cabinet Office, developed closely with BEIS and Defra, and should have similar status to other manuals for policymakers, such as the Open Policy Making toolkit. The guidance should (a) A toolkit for designing, delivering and evaluating policy to enable behaviour change for climate and environmental goals; (b) A consistent framework for working with other actors— such as civil society, local authorities and businesses—in the development and delivery of policies for behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals; (c) Information on the machinery of Government related to behaviour change for climate and environment, including all groups and committees working in the policy area and their (d) An evaluation process for appraising the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions for climate and environmental (e) Lessons learned from behaviour change interventions for climate and environmental goals across government. 387. A theme across much of the evidence we received was that the Government needs to “join up the dots” between national, regional and local actors working to change behaviour for climate and environmental goals. 644 As we touched on in Chapter 6, the Government could engage with actors such as civil society organisations, local authorities and businesses more effectively, and could make more effort to coordinate the relationships between these 388.
Prof Dame Marteau suggested the Government “needs to engage the whole of civil society, as well as business, and policymakers at local, national and international levels” in an enabling role through providing resources and regulation. 645 South Cambridgeshire County Council agreed that the Government needs to ensure “the enabling conditions for change to sustainable behaviours are in place” across all levels of actors in society.646 389. Carbon Copy set out a vision for reimagining the roles of and relationships between actors working on behaviour change for climate and environmental goals, with an emphasis placed on developing a network approach and reenvisaging the role of local authorities. They “We should look at local government as a platform rather than a bottleneck. This would require a rejection of centralised citizens and businesses would build on top of their local government, 646 Written evidence from the South Cambridgeshire District Council ( CCE0105)

which would become a vehicle for co-ordinating the collective action of citizens. Many local authorities have played this role in the stewardship of area-wide local Climate Action Plans. Going forward, they should operate as one node in a networked system of stakeholders—co- ordinating rather than controlling initiatives.” 647 390. We heard international examples of coordination by central governments of the various actors working on behaviour change for climate and environmental goals. Secretary-General Lehtomäki echoed this point, “The role of Governments is essential … the Governments are the only bodies capable of seeking systemic change.” 648 Similarly, Ms Pompili told us the implementation of statutory targets relies on “working closely with all partners” and explained that these partners included “local policymakers and companies, big and small”.649 391. There is limited upstream coordination of, and information provision to, other actors working on behaviour change for climate and environmental goals across different levels—including civil society, businesses and local authorities. This is further hampered by a failure of the Government to publish a public engagement strategy identifying how and who can enable behaviour change for climate 392. The public engagement strategy which we are calling for should make clear that delivery of net zero is a shared task between government, businesses, local authorities, civil society and individuals and establish what role each actor has to play in delivering net zero. 647 Written evidence from Carbon Copy ( CCE0008)

Chapter 2: Behaviour why, what and who 1. 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 and economic benefits. 2. 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-term environmental goals. (Paragraph 28) 3. 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 waste. (Paragraph 29) 4. 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. (Paragraph 39) 5. 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. 6. 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 appropriate. (Paragraph 41) Chapter 3: Current position of the public 7. 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. (Paragraph 57)

8. 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 in Chapter 8. 9.
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. (Paragraph 62) 10. 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 Chapter 4: Theories, drivers and levers of change 11. 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. (Paragraph 78) 12. 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. (Paragraph 79) 13. 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 and infrastructure. 14. We call on the Government to develop and publish guidance to inform policy- making on behaviour change to meet climate and 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

15. 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. (Paragraph 91) Chapter 5: Leaning from other policy areas 16. 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 17. 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 net zero. (Paragraph 100) 18. 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. (Paragraph 101) 19. 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. (Paragraph 106) 20. 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

Chapter 6: Delivering behaviour change in partnership 21. 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 (Paragraph 115) 22. 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 life-enhancing change they achieve. Government policies should harness the many contributions of civil society and seek to unblock the challenges they face. (Paragraph 116) 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. 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 constraining efforts. (Paragraph 135) 26. 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 to discuss in Chapter 7. 27. 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. 28. 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. (Paragraph 138) 29. 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. (Paragraph 151) 30. 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. (Paragraph 152) Chapter 7: Challenges and opportunities in key behaviour change 31. 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. (Paragraph 178) 32. 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. 33. 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. (Paragraph 180) 34. 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 individual or family. (Paragraph 181)

35. 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 target. (Paragraph 207) 36. 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. (Paragraph 208) 37. We welcome the Government’s commitments in the Government food strategy to consult on making Government Buying Standards for Food and Catering Services (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 standards. (Paragraph 209) 38.
The Government should seek to increase the availability of food with lower climate and environmental impacts • 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 environment. • 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. • 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 public sector. (Paragraph 210) 39. 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 claims. (Paragraph 211) 40. The Government should seek to make information regarding the environmental impacts of different food products more accessible • 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 achieve. • Implementing the Food Data Transparency Programme and public sustainability reporting by companies in the food sector in a timely

• Urgently consulting on the mandatory methodology for eco labels and sustainability claims, which we go on to discuss further later in this 41. 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 should be a priority. (Paragraph 213) 42. 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. (Paragraph 235) 43. 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. 44. 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 service in Chapter 8. (Paragraph 237) 45. 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. (Paragraph 238) 46. 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. (Paragraph 239) 47. As noted above, we welcome the Government’s commitment in the Government food strategy to develop a mandatory methodology for food and drink eco labels and sustainability claims. This has the potential to drive

producers and retailers to improve the sustainability of products on offer to 48. The Government should urgently consult on and then launch the mandatory methodology for food eco labels and sustainability claims. (Paragraph 260) 49. Product standards could be used to a greater extent to drive up the sustainability of products and services available in a manner consistent with the Government’s goal of making it easier, clearer and cheaper for consumers to make green choices. (Paragraph 261) 50. The Government should accelerate the development of low carbon product standards referred to in the Industrial Decarbonisation Strategy and review the role enhanced product standards for other sustainability characteristics could play in the most resource-intensive consumer goods sectors. It should also accelerate labelling proposals put forward in the same strategy and review the role enhanced eco-labelling could play in consumer goods sectors where current frameworks do not cover the key climate and environmental 51. The Government’s work on Extended Producer Responsibility is welcome and could support less resource-intensive consumption. However, progress has been disappointingly slow in developing proposals originally announced 52. The Government should develop Extended Producer Responsibility schemes, including for textiles and electronics, with much greater urgency. Chapter 8: Communications, public engagement and education 53.
While communications on their own are insufficient to facilitate the behaviour change needed to meet the UK’s climate and environmental goals, the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that clear, well-resourced public communications play an important role in increasing public understanding of the challenges we face collectively and the actions we can all take to address these. (Paragraph 272) 54. Guidance published by the Government Communication Service titled The Principles of Behaviour Change Communications provides a basis for communicators across government to consider behavioural science in designing communications campaigns, but there is no similar guidance specifically designed for behaviour change to meet climate and environmental 55. As part of the proposed package of guidance we referred to in Chapters 4 and 5, we call on the Government to develop and publish guidance for departments to inform their communications strategies on behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals. The guidance document could draw on the Government Communication Service’s guidance, the Principles of Behaviour Change Communications, and apply the principles in the context of meeting climate and environmental goals. (Paragraph 276) 56. The Government’s new energy advice service signifies a positive step; we hope that it will provide clear signposting and actionable advice to consumers and, as set out in Chapter 7, we hope it will be expanded. However, the service addresses only one energy efficiency. A broader communications

campaign to address other issues in this space—such as how we travel and what we eat—is urgently required. This campaign, as part of the public engagement strategy we recommend in Chapter 3, should communicate the need for change and help to develop a shared positive vision; provide the public with the information needed to make green choices; shift social norms; develop policies collaboratively and engender support for the changes that will be needed to reach net zero and achieve the UK’s environmental 57. As part of the public engagement strategy that we call for in Chapter 3 by April 2023, the Government • Provide clear, consistent and actionable information that enables the public to make informed choices about how we travel, what we eat and buy, and how we heat our homes; • Develop positive messaging which emphasises the co-benefits of changes and uses stories about individuals already making changes; • Work through trusted sources such as scientists and community • Tailor messaging to specific audiences to ensure it is effective and 58. We recommend the Government significantly scale up its spending on public communications campaigns to reflect the scale of the challenges we face arising from climate change and environmental damage. Communications on behaviour change for climate and environmental goals should be prioritised in the Government Communications Plan for 2022—2023. (Paragraph 297) 59. The Government should develop a monitoring process to evaluate the effectiveness of the new energy advice service to ensure that lessons can be learnt from the initiative for future behaviour change interventions. 60. There is great potential to normalise behaviours associated with reduced greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impacts—including public transport use and active travel—through positive representations in broadcast television, advertising and on social media. However, at present aspects of the media environment run in a contrary direction, for example the proportion of advertising devoted to SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicles) and disinformation and misinformation on climate change available on social 61. Despite welcome improvements in guidance for businesses around misleading environmental claims, more could be done to counter greenwashing, build consumer trust and ensure companies who market products and services associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impacts can compete fairly. (Paragraph 312) 62. The Government should introduce measures to regulate advertising of high- carbon and environmentally damaging products. We were persuaded by arguments made by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). As a priority, the Government should create standardised definitions of commonly used environmental terms to which businesses must adhere in marketing and labelling their products, and add misleading and/or unsubstantiated

environmental claims to the list of banned practices under consumer law. 63. The Government should assess the ways that misinformation and disinformation about climate change and the environment online can be 64. We were heartened to hear the positive experiences of participants in the UK Climate Assembly and commend this use of deliberative engagement, though we are concerned that the Government may not have taken the Climate Assembly’s report findings seriously. Citizens’ assemblies and other forms of public engagement, such as those tailored to young people, will play a significant role in supporting behaviour change for climate and environmental goals. Engaging the public and strengthening understanding in this space will improve the legitimacy and effectiveness of behaviour change interventions. (Paragraph 327) 65. As part of the public engagement strategy that we have called for, the Government should embed deliberative methods, such as citizens assemblies, in climate change and environment policy design from local to national levels to shape a shared vision of net zero and environmental sustainability. In the public engagement strategy, the Government should include specific methods to engage young people, through mechanisms such as social media campaigns, young citizens’ assemblies and youth advisory panels. 66. We strongly welcome the inclusion of environmental and sustainability issues in the syllabus of the forthcoming Natural History GCSE. However, there is also a need for young people to be educated about the science of climate change and actions they can take to support meeting climate and environmental goals, which must be embedded across the curriculum. 67. The Department for Education’s Sustainability and Climate Change Strategy should be reviewed to ensure every opportunity has been taken through both formal and informal education and communications and the school environment to provide young people with the knowledge and skills to make life and career choices to support environmental and climate goals. Chapter 9: The Government’s approach and role 68. We have not found the Government’s current approach to enabling behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals to be adequate to meet the scale of the challenge. (Paragraph 358) 69.
Of the six principles underpinning green choices outlined in its own Net Zero Strategy, the Government has failed to implement 5 and 6: to motivate and build public acceptability for major changes and to present a clear vision of how we will get to net zero and what the role of people and business will be. Nor has the Government consistently applied across the key areas where people and businesses will need to change behaviours to meet net zero and environmental goals the remaining four principles—of sending clear regulatory signals, making the green choice the easiest, making the green choice affordable and empowering people and businesses to make their own

70. The one element of consistency in departments’ approaches to delivering the Net Zero Strategy—the principle of going with the grain of consumer choice— ignores the role that many government levers like regulation and taxation play in shaping markets and influencing social norms. (Paragraph 360) 71. The Government’s failure to date to put in place sufficient policies, resources and communications to enable change risks missing statutory climate targets and opportunities to improve health and wellbeing. (Paragraph 361) 72. The public expect the Government to take a leadership role to enable behaviour change, but the Government’s reticence to address key areas— such as what people eat, how we heat our homes, what we buy and how we travel—which is largely a result of a reluctance to be perceived as reducing freedom of choice, undermines individuals’ willingness and ability to take 73. The Government is excessively reliant on large-scale and as yet undeveloped technologies to meet net zero targets. The evidence shows that the public expect leadership from the Government and can accept measures to adapt their behaviour to more sustainable patterns and reduced carbon-intensive consumption, as well as to adopt existing green technologies, if communicated clearly and properly supported. (Paragraph 363) 74. The Government should apply behavioural science to all its policies and initiatives. It should urgently review the Net Zero Strategy and policies and initiatives in place to deliver it and rectify where its six principles underpinning green choices are not being delivered. (Paragraph 364) 75. As we note in Chapters 3 and 8, the Government should introduce a public engagement strategy to build support for helping people adopt new technologies and reduce carbon-intensive consumption in key areas where behaviour change is required. Net zero cannot be achieved without addressing both. (Paragraph 365) 76. Inconsistency in policies owned by different parts of government inhibits the ability and likelihood of behaviour change to meet climate and environmental goals. The use of upstream measures including regulation, taxation and development of infrastructure, appropriately sequenced, are key and require the input of, and coordination across, various departments. Moreover, policies in different departments are maintaining high carbon lifestyles and undermining the public’s willingness to change behaviours. The evidence we gathered from departments revealed poor coordination of policies across departments and poor implementation of sequenced policies within departments. (Paragraph 378) 77. We welcome the introduction of a Minister of State for Climate. The Government should ensure that the Minister has sufficient resources, and their role should include coordinating, sequencing and monitoring behaviour change policy across departments. (Paragraph 379) 78. The Government should increase transparency in the proceedings of the two climate-focused Cabinet Committees—the Climate Action Strategy Committee and the Climate Action Implementation Committee—to enable greater scrutiny of cross-government coordination of behaviour change for climate and environmental goals. (Paragraph 380)

79. The evidence gathered for this inquiry suggests there is no central resource from which departments can seek expertise on behaviour change for climate and the environment. Similarly, there are differing levels of expertise across relevant departments, there is no mechanism for coordinating and retaining expertise across departments, and no clear mechanisms exist for evaluation and learning lessons. The evidence gathered suggests this is partly because there is not enough behavioural science expertise both centrally and across 80. The Government should strengthen an existing team or create a new unit to provide advice and coordination on behaviour change for climate and environmental goals across departments and take steps to increase and standardise the expertise held across all relevant departments. The Government should seek to equip staff working centrally and across departments with behaviour change expertise. (Paragraph 385) 81. A package of guidance—which we have referred to in Chapters 4, 5 and 8—would strengthen the Government’s leadership on behaviour change for climate and environmental goals, improve coordination between and consistency across departments and provide a central resource for actors on different levels, such as local authorities, civil society and businesses. The guidance should be owned by the Cabinet Office, developed closely with BEIS and Defra, and should have similar status to other manuals for policymakers, such as the Open Policy Making toolkit. The guidance should • A toolkit for designing, delivering and evaluating policy to enable behaviour change for climate and environmental goals; • A consistent framework for working with other actors—such as civil society, local authorities and businesses—in the development and delivery of policies for behaviour change to meet climate and • Information on the machinery of Government related to behaviour change for climate and environment, including all groups and committees working in the policy area and their remits; • An evaluation process for appraising the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions for climate and environmental goals; and • Lessons learned from behaviour change interventions for climate and environmental goals across government. (Paragraph 386) 82. There is limited upstream coordination of, and information provision to, other actors working on behaviour change for climate and environmental goals across different levels—including civil society, businesses and local authorities. This is further hampered by a failure of the Government to publish a public engagement strategy identifying how and who can enable behaviour change for climate and environmental goals. (Paragraph 391) 83.
The public engagement strategy which we are calling for should make clear that delivery of net zero is a shared task between government, businesses, local authorities, civil society and individuals and establish what role each actor has to play in delivering net zero. (Paragraph 392)

APPENDIx 1: LIST OF MEMBERS AND DECLARATIONS OF Lord Cameron of Dillington (until 19 January 2022) Lord Grantchester (from 19 January 2022) Duke of Wellington (from 19 January 2022) Member of steering group Peers for the Planet Director, Clean Growth Leadership Network, London (CGLN) - The CGLN is a network formed to promote sustainable economic growth through innovation and the deployment of clean technology Lord Cameron of Dillington (until 19 January 2022) Family Farming and Landowning interests Director of an internet travel and data business Chair of UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology President of the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers No relevant interests declared Partner, Campbell Brothers (farming partnership) Farm in Kent with houses from which rental income is received Director, Harris Belmont Charity and Belmont Farms Ltd Lord Grantchester (from 19 January 2022) Land and property in Cheshire, including a dairy farm in receipt of payments through rural payments agency (EU payments ceased 31 January Land and Property in Dumfries and Galloway Business Interests in Texas, USA No relevant interests declared

I am active in matters concerning the environment in and around Eastbourne and nationally I work particularly closely with The Eden Project, South Downs National Park, Eastbourne Borough Council, the Coastal Schools Partnership (which includes St Catherine’s College and the Member of Board of Pensana plc, which seeks to source and process rare earths for use in renewable technologies. No relevant interests declared No relevant interests declared Duke of Wellington (from 19 January 2022) My family has various farming interests, both in the United Kingdom and Vice President, Environmental Protection UK Commissioner, Food, Farming and the Countryside Commission Vice President, RSPB, Birdlife International and Fauna and Flora Chairman of Council of the Royal Veterinary College Member of the Steering Group of the Royal Society Multifunctional A full list of Members’ interests can be found in the Register of Lords Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh MBE Director of the Centre for Climate Change & Social Transformations (CAST), funded by the Economic & Social Research Council. Evidence is published online at mobilising-action-on -climate-change-and-environment-behaviour-change/ publications/ and available for inspection at the Parliamentary Archives (020 7219 Evidence received by the Committee is listed below in chronological order of oral evidence session, and then in alphabetical order. Those witnesses marked with ** gave both oral evidence and written evidence. Those marked with * gave oral evidence and did not submit any written evidence.
All other witnesses submitted Oral evidence in chronological order ** Ewa Kmietowicz, Team Leader, Committee on ** David Joffe, Head of Carbon Budgets, Committee on * Toby Park, Principal Advisor, Energy, Environment & Sustainability, Behavioural Insights Team * Rob Hopkins, Transition Network QQ 10–16 * Pam Warhurst, Incredible Edible QQ 10–16 * Dr Shanon Shah, Faith for the Climate QQ 10–16 ** Sally Copley, Executive Director for External Affairs, * Fiona Richards, Operations Director England North, the Conservation Volunteers (TCV) * Ugo Vallauri, Co-founder and Policy Lead, the * Gareth Ellis, Project Director, the Green Valleys QQ 17–22 * Barbara Pompili, Minister for Ecological Transition, * Faisal Naru, Executive Director, Policy Innovation * Professor Dame Theresa Marteau DBE, Director of Behaviour and Health Research Unit, University of ** Carmel McQuaid, Head of Sustainable Business, * Yuriko Koike, Governor of Tokyo QQ 42–48 * Paula Lehtomäki, Secretary-General, Nordic Council * Dr Emily Gray, Managing Director, Ipsos MORI

** Professor Wouter Poortinga, Associate Director of the Centre for Climate Change & Social Transformations (CAST), School of Psychology, Cardiff University * Paul Ellis, Chief Executive, Ecology Building Society QQ 74–84 * Hugo Spowers, Founder and Managing Director, ** Trewin Restorick, Chief Executive Officer, Hubbub QQ 74–84 ** Angela Terry, Chief Executive Officer, One Home QQ 74–84 * Professor Ken Peattie, Head of Marketing and Strategy, Professor of Marketing and Strategy, Cardiff * Professor Jillian Anable, Institute for Transport * Chris Boardman, Active Travel Commission for England, Active Travel England ** Stephen Edwards, CEO, Living Streets QQ 85–97 * Professor Tim Lang, Emeritus Professor and Founder of Centre for Food Policy, City University * James Hand, Co-founder of Giki QQ 98–107 * Henry Dimbleby, Lead non-executive board member, Defra, and co-founder of Leon restaurant chain * Sir Patrick Vallance, Government Chief Scientific * Tim Lord, Associate Senior Fellow, Tony Blair ** Steve Smith, Executive Producer, Picture Zero ** Matt Bourn, Director of Communications, * Dr Kris De Meyer, Director, UCL Climate Action * Rt Hon George Eustice MP, then Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs * Andrew Jackson, Deputy Director of 25 Year Environment Strategy Team, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs * Emily Cattell, Deputy Director, Office of the Director of Analysis, Department of Environment, Food and * Rt Hon Greg Hands MP, then Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

* Chris Thompson, Director of Clean Growth, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Alphabetical list of all witnesses Advertising Association - Allesandra Bellini, Philippa Brown, Chief Advertising Standards Authority CCE0027 * Professor Jillian Anable, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds (QQ 85–97) Professor Alison Anderson CCE0058 Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation CCE0012 Lorna Benton, Naomi Fallon, Paula Feehan and * Chris Boardman, Active Travel Commission for England, Active Travel England (QQ 85–97) ** Matt Bourn, Director of Communications, Advertising Association (QQ 126–129) British Psychological Society CCE0090 British Retail Consortium CCE0042 British Standards Institute CCE0078 * Emily Cattell, Deputy Director, Office of the Director of Analysis, Department of Environment, Food and The Centre for Energy Ethics CCE0053 The City of London Corporation CCE0038 Compass Group UK & Ireland CCE0084 Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) CCE0101 * Sally Copley, Executive Director for External Affairs,

Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport CCE0065 Department for Education CCE0066 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CCE0068 Department for Health and Social Care CCE0061 Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Department for Transport CCE0062 * Henry Dimbleby, Lead non-executive board member, Defra, and co-founder of Leon restaurant chain District Councils’ Network CCE0107 Dr Catherine Butler and Dr Karen Parkhill CCE0054 Dr Claire Hoolohan and Dr Alison Browne CCE0029 Dr Nathan Abrams, Dr Anaïs Augé, Maciej Nowakowski and Professor Thora Tenbrink Dr Rachel Harcourt and Prof Suraje Dessai CCE0044 Dr Sara Collins and Sarah Lawfull CCE0036 Dr Viktoria Spaiser and Prof Cristina Leston- * Stephen Edwards, CEO, Living Streets (QQ 85–97) CCE0110 * Paul Ellis, Chief Executive, Ecology Building Society * Gareth Ellis, Project Director, the Green Valleys * Rt Hon George Eustice MP, then Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

* Dr Kris De Meyer, Director, UCL Climate Action Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office CCE0064 Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin Government Communication Service, Cabinet Office CCE0115 Government Communication Service, Cabinet Office CCE0076 * Dr Emily Gray, Managing Director, Ipsos MORI Per Grankvist, Chief Storyteller, Viable Cities CCE0079 Greater Manchester Combined Authority Health and Greater Manchester Directors of Public Health CCE0097 Hampshire County Council CCE0009 * James Hand, Co-founder of Giki (QQ 98–107) * Rt Hon Greg Hands MP, then Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy * Rob Hopkins, Transition Network (QQ 10–16) Humane Society International UK CCE0057 Humanist Climate Action CCE0071 IGD (Institute of Grocery Distribution) CCE0099 Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) CCE0089 * Andrew Jackson, Deputy Director of 25 Year Environment Strategy Team, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ( QQ 130–147) ** David Joffe, Head of Carbon Budgets, Committee on * Ewa Kmietowicz, Team Leader, Committee on * Yuriko Koike, Governor of Tokyo (QQ 42–48)

* Professor Tim Lang, Emeritus Professor and Founder of Centre for Food Policy, City University * Paula Lehtomäki, Secretary-General, Nordic Council The Local Government Association CCE0035 * Tim Lord, Associate Senior Fellow, Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (QQ 108–125) Manchester City Council and Manchester Climate Manchester Climate Monthly, Climate Emergency * Professor Dame Theresa Marteau DBE, Director of Behaviour and Health Research Unit, University of * Carmel McQuaid, Head of Sustainable Business, Minister of Agriculture, Environment & Rural The National Lottery Community Fund CCE0031 * Faisal Naru, Executive Director, Policy Innovation National Association of Local Councils (NALC) CCE0093 New Weather Institute and Adfree Cities CCE0015 NIHR Public Health Policy Research Unit CCE0024 Office for National Statistics CCE0074 Oxfordshire County Council CCE0103 * Toby Park, Principal Advisor, Energy, Environment & Sustainability, Behavioural Insights Team (QQ 1–9) * Professor Ken Peattie, Head of Marketing and Strategy, Professor of Marketing and Strategy, Cardiff * Professor Wouter Poortinga, Associate Director of the Centre for Climate Change & Social Transformations (CAST), School of Psychology, Cardiff University

* Barbara Pompili, Minister for Ecological Transition, Government of France (QQ 23–33) * Trewin Restorick, Chief Executive Officer, Hubbub * Fiona Richards, Operations Director England North, the Conservation Volunteers (TCV) (QQ 17–22) Professor Miles Richardson CCE0001 * Dr Shanon Shah, Faith for the Climate (QQ 10–16) * Steve Smith, Executive Producer, Picture Zero South Cambridgeshire District Council CCE0105 * Hugo Spowers, Founder and Managing Director, * Angela Terry, Chief Executive Officer, One Home * Chris Thompson, Director of Clean Growth, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial UCL Centre for Behaviour Change CCE0033 UCL Plastic Waste Innovation Hub CCE0032 UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association Understanding Society, the UK Household University of St Andrews CCE0052 * Sir Patrick Vallance, Government Chief Scientific * Ugo Vallauri, Co-founder and Policy Lead, the * Pam Warhurst, Incredible Edible (QQ 10–16)

WinACC Winchester Action on the Climate Crisis CCE0006 World Animal Protection CCE0073 World Animal Protection CCE0041

The House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee is seeking written submissions for its inquiry into behaviour change in the context of climate change (mitigation and adaptation) and the environment (e.g.
biodiversity, water, waste and the circular economy, and air pollution) by Monday 13 December 2021. The main focus of the inquiry is on behaviour change, though not in isolation, as the Committee is also interested in the wider conditions needed for people to make changes and the sequencing of related policy measures.
For the purposes of the inquiry, behaviour change is understood to • the lifestyle changes that may be required by individuals, households, and communities and other groups, to reach the Government’s long-term climate change and environment goals and commitments; • the drivers of change such as motivations and other factors (like costs and the wider environment (e.g. the availability of transport infrastructure and • the different ways that the Government might facilitate, enable, and promote such changes including through working with other actors (businesses, civil society including community groups, local authorities, and others), and through its role setting the parameters for environmentally responsible The Committee welcomes responses to the questions below.
Please do not feel obliged to answer all questions. In fact, submissions focused on a smaller set of questions are preferred.
Submissions should not be more than 5,000 words and shorter submissions are welcomed and encouraged. The Committee welcomes supporting examples from all sectors with impacts on climate change and the environment, including sectors related to products/material consumption and travel.
In your response you should keep in mind that the culmination of Committee work is often a report with recommendations directed to the UK Government. Finally, please note that all references to behaviour change below should be understood in the context of action on climate change and the environment, except where specified otherwise.
Possible lifestyle changes needed A. What are the areas where lifestyle changes may be most needed to reach the Government’s long-term climate change and environment goals and commitments?
B. What is the UK public’s level of concern regarding climate change and environment issues, and how does this vary across the population?
C. What is the UK public’s appetite for the key lifestyle changes that may be needed to achieve the Government’s long-term climate change and environment goals and commitments, and how does this vary across the population? D. What can be learnt from research into consumer attitudes towards climate change, the environment, and the transition towards green products and services?
E. What can be learnt from successful and unsuccessful behaviour change interventions by the UK Government and other government actors (including in other policy or geographical contexts)? F. What are the pros/cons and limitations of different frameworks and methods for promoting behaviour change?
G. What are the main evidence gaps relating to these frameworks and methods, and how might they be addressed? H. What are the key ethical considerations for Government policy focused on I.
What roles are there for considerations of fairness, individual freedoms and social responsibilities in the context of behaviour change? J.
How should the Government consider the balance between, or sequencing of, approaches to behaviour change focused • encouraging changes to individual behaviour; • regulatory approaches focused on individuals and/or businesses which restrict • fiscal measures (including taxation)? K. How should Government policy on behaviour change reflect the influence of monetary costs and the wider environment (e.g.
the availability of transport L. Where could the focus of Government efforts on behaviour change add the The role of Government and other actors M. What can be learnt from change delivered by civil society including community groups, and businesses (including from actors based outside the UK)? N. What should be the respective roles of different actors in delivering behaviour change, including Government, local authorities, businesses, civil society including community groups, and individuals and households?
O. What barriers are faced by civil society, including community groups, and businesses when delivering change?
P. How can Government best work with civil society, including community groups, Q. What role is there for marketing and advertising businesses in supporting or enabling behaviour change, and what can other actors learn from them?
R. What role is there for the financial sector in supporting or enabling behaviour S. How can Government and large and small businesses (from across supply chains and the financial sector) work together to support behaviour change? T. How can the Government best set parameters for environmentally responsible business, in support of behaviour change?
U. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of current Government policies on behaviour change, and what are the key improvements that could be made?
V. What external and/or material factors could restrict the success of these policies? W. For behaviour change efforts, how effective is the coordination between government departments and the split of Ministerial and departmental responsibilities, and are sufficient resources in place (staff and budgets)?.
APPENDIx 4: HIGH-LEVEL SUMMARY OF ENGAGEMENT Private meeting with Climate Assembly UK participants On 8 March, the Committee held a private meeting with four people who participated in the Climate Assembly UK (CAUK) as part of its Mobilising Action inquiry. The CAUK participants were invited through Involve, a public participation charity involved in the organisation of the Climate Assembly.
In the meeting, the Committee discussed the experience the CAUK participants had and asked their opinions on a range of issues relating to their work for the Climate Assembly, including the process of developing the Assembly’s final report, and their recommendations for Government in relation to behaviour change for climate and environmental goals. The CAUK participants explained that they had varying levels of knowledge about climate change and the environment and Government policy in these areas before taking part in the Climate Assembly.
All four of the CAUK participants said that they learned a lot about climate change and the environment during the Climate Assembly process, and that on reflection they did not know a lot about the issues before taking part. When reflecting on the deliberative process involved in the Climate Assembly, all the participants agreed that the process was fair, and participants were respectful of each other and their views.
They all agreed it had been a very positive experience, which had encouraged them to take steps in their own lives to be greener. They agreed that the final report represented everyone involved in the Climate Assembly.
The participants felt that geopolitical events and the COVID-19 pandemic meant that the report did not get as much media coverage as they had anticipated. Some of the participants felt that the Government had not given sufficient attention to the findings in the Climate Assembly report, and that the Assembly process as a whole did not have a great deal of Government buy-in, particularly in comparison to international examples like the French citizens’ assembly, which had been commissioned by the French Government.
The Committee and the participants discussed behaviour change for climate and environmental goals. All four of the CAUK participants agreed that fairness needed to be considered in behaviour change interventions, to recognise the different impacts that policies could have on different demographics and socioeconomic groups.
They reiterated the conclusions of the Climate Assembly, for example on the value of a levy on frequent flying and taking account of the larger carbon footprint of higher income households. The participants suggested that the public need more education on the issues, explaining that if people were more informed, they may start to make more changes to their behaviour in their everyday lives.
The ways in which government could tackle the activities of big businesses which contribute to climate change was also discussed. Youth engagement programme, 2022–23 Six schools from across the UK are part of the Committee’s pilot youth engagement 650 For more information about the Youth Engagement Programme see Environment and Climate Change Committee, ‘Six schools from across the UK selected to take part in youth engagement programme’ (13 January 2022): parliament.uk/committee/515/environment-and-climate- change-committee/news/160257/six- schools-from-across-the-uk-selected-to-take-part-in-youth-engagement-programme/

• St Catherine’s College in Eastbourne, England • Stockton Riverside College in Stockton-on-Tees, England • Birkenhead Sixth Form College in Birkenhead, England • Grove Academy in Dundee, Scotland • Ulidia Integrated College in Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland • Ysgol Cwm Brombil in Port Talbot, Wales The schools will continue to work with the Committee until January 2023 and are not attached to the Mobilising Action inquiry, but to date all engagement activities have been related to this inquiry.
On 2 March, the Committee dedicated a meeting to discussing feedback schools had sent in response to several prompt questions related to the Mobilising Action inquiry. There were several recurring themes across feedback from all the they suggested that barriers like affordability and accessibility reduce the individual’s ability to make behaviour changes for climate and the environment, community and local action could play an important role in behaviour change, and education and awareness-raising in both formal and informal settings could encourage behaviour change for climate and environmental goals.
On 12 May the Committee met with students from each of the six schools on the Youth Engagement Programme in meetings held via Microsoft Teams. In the meetings, the Committee Members asked students about the questions they would put to Government Ministers in an evidence session at the conclusion of the Mobilising Action inquiry.
Many of the students raised points related to the importance of communicating the scale of change required and the role of the public in reaching climate and environmental goals through a variety of forms of media. Many of the students suggested that goods like food and clothing could be labelled with information about their sustainability and the carbon emissions resulting from their production and transportation.
Students also suggested that questions to Ministers could relate to the Government leading by example and using a variety of policy instruments like regulation and taxation to encourage behaviour change. Some of the points discussed in the meeting were similar to those raised by students in their initial feedback, in particular their thoughts about the importance of education on climate and environmental issues in both formal

APPENDIx 5: MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS ON THE REPORT Apologies were received from Baroness Chalker and Lord Whitty.
The Committee considered the draft Report. It was moved by the Chair to insert three amendments en bloc .
The amendments first, in the third sentence of the second paragraph of the “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] [Footnote] As we explain in Chapter 2, we are pleased to have worked with the CCC level behaviour change compared to the CCC’s Sixth Carbon Budget and 2022 Progress Second, to insert in the second sentence of paragraph 6: “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 62 per cent relies on the involvement of the public in some form.
some degree of change in people’s behaviour. [1] [Footnote] 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 Third, to insert after the first sentence of paragraph 19: “The sum of emissions reductions delivered by individual and household-level decisions is 106MtCO2e or 32 per cent of all abatement up to 2035.”

The Committee divided on the Chair’s first The first amendment was agreed to accordingly.
The second and third amendments It was moved by Lord Lilley to leave out the summary, as amended, and “1. Most of the reduction in carbon emissions achieved so far (largely by switching from coal to gas and renewables for electricity generation) has had no direct impact on the way people live (other than the cost of subsidies).
2. It is generally assumed that further progress towards the net zero target will require significant changes in lifestyles–more frugal consumption of carbon intensive goods; eschewing fast fashion and other sumptuary waste; a change in diet away from meat and dairy; less travel by cars and more by bike, foot or public transport; less foreign travel; and lowering the thermostats in homes and buildings.
3. Our Call for Evidence therefore asked about “the lifestyle changes that may be required by individuals, households and communities and other groups to reach the government’s long-term climate change and environment goals”.
In particular, we asked “areas where lifestyle changes may be most needed”, “the UK public’s appetite for key lifestyle changes”, “Government approaches … to behaviour change focused encouraging changes to individual behaviour; regulatory changes .. which restrict or eliminate choices; and fiscal measures”. 4.
For a few witnesses, the prospect of government having to induce people to adopt more frugal lifestyles–even if they have collateral health benefits–represents an unwelcome and daunting challenge. They doubt the public appetite for such changes, are reluctant for government to engage in ‘nannying’ and fear it may require intrusive restrictions on freedom of choice.
5. However, most of our expert witnesses assumed substantial life-style changes will be needed to meet net zero and environmental targets and many actually welcome it.
Net zero provides them a welcome additional reason to bring about more frugal lifestyles which they believe are desirable in themselves, regardless of climate change, because they are good for the health of body, mind and soul. 6.
This enthusiasm for substantial life-style changes tends to dominate the public discourse and predominated among our witnesses - though we received little evidence that it is shared by the general public. 7.
The other way households can reduce their carbon emissions (which did not feature in our Call for Evidence) is by adopting new low carbon technologies - e.g. replacing fossil fuelled cars by electric cars, and gas boilers by heat pumps or Unlike more frugal lifestyles, new technologies do not bring the co-benefits of healthier bodies, minds and souls.
Indeed, insofar as these new low carbon technologies are affordable and work as well as the fossil fuel technologies they replace, they enable people to maintain their existing lifestyles which some see as So, advocates of more frugal life styles tend to ignore, downplay the importance of, or even oppose, the role of low carbon technologies and emphasise the key role 8. However, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), in its 6th Carbon Budget, projected that only some 10 per cent of the reductions in carbon emissions needed by 2035 on its ‘Balanced Pathway’ to net zero will require individual lifestyle choices.
The vast majority of planned reductions come from adoption of new low carbon technologies by industry and households. 9.
The CCC projects that by 2035: • switch to low-carbon options within the supply side (e.g. renewable electricity generation) would produce 39 per cent of emissions abatement.
• Adoption of low carbon (e.g. electric cars and heat pumps) by individuals and businesses would achieve 45 per cent of emission reductions.
• Energy “5 per cent comes from improving efficiency, in use of energy and resources, especially by better insulation of buildings, improving vehicle efficiency and improving efficiency in industry.” • Life-style “Around 10 per cent of the emissions saving in our Balanced Pathway in 2035 comes from changes that reduce demand for carbon-intensive activity. Particularly important in our scenarios are an accelerated shift in diets away from meat and dairy products, reductions in waste, slower growth in flights and reductions in travel demand.” 10.
The 10 per cent contribution expected from life-style changes is far smaller than generally assumed. This is disappointingly minimal to those who advocate wholesale moves towards more frugal lifestyles.
11. Moreover, 10 per cent is not even a minimum.
The CCC emphasise that its ‘Balanced Pathway’ to net zero is not the only one conceivable–“there are multiple ways to meet the net zero 2050 target”. So, despite witness claims that life-style changes are “essential”, alternatives involving, for example, more Carbon Capture and Storage could in theory entirely obviate the need to adopt more frugal lifestyles.
However, such alternative pathways would probably be significantly more expensive and therefore impact living standards negatively through even

Equally, if more extensive life style changes than those envisaged by the CCC are credibly attainable, that would make possible a pathway to net zero involving less reliance on adopting new technologies. 12.
Much of the debate within the Committee has been about whether to highlight how small is the contribution from life-style changes required by the CCC. Instead, we have broadened our definition of behaviour change from meaning just life-style changes (as in our Call for Evidence) to a) the adoption of new technologies (electric cars and heat pumps) and b) improved energy efficiency (insulation), as well as c) lifestyle changes.
13. These total an impressive 60 per cent of the emission reductions needed on the Balanced Pathway by 2035.
Readers should be aware that within that 60 per cent only one sixth (10 per cent) is provided by lifestyle changes–the heavy lifting is done by adoption of new technologies. 14.
If, as we are assured, electric cars become as convenient as fossil fuelled cars, a switch from diesel to electric can no more be described as a lifestyle change than a switch from petrol to diesel. By contrast, everyone accepts that riding a bike or walking instead of driving a car is a genuine lifestyle change.
Likewise, if, as we are assured, heat pumps plus insulation will be as effective as gas boilers, adopting them cannot be described as a lifestyle change–whereas setting the thermostat at a lower temperature and wearing warmer clothes would be a change of lifestyle. 15.
Moreover, the adoption of new technologies like electric cars and heat pumps do not bring the co-benefits which motivate many advocates of a more frugal low 16. Indeed, new technologies like electric cars and heat pumps will enable us to perpetuate current lifestyles (if we can still afford them).
Once electricity is fully decarbonised (by 2035) there will be virtually no climate change reason for owners of electric cars to drive less or for homes heated by heat pumps or hydrogen to be kept at a cooler temperature. Hence the lack of enthusiasm for promoting new technologies among the more ardent advocates of lifestyle changes.
The case for healthier and more frugal lifestyles will depend solely on their intrinsic benfits. 17.
Because our Call for Evidence was focussed on lifestyle changes rather than the adoption of new technologies and energy efficiency we received little evidence about them. Hence the Committee’s decision to carry out a future study of changes required to reduce carbon emissions from domestic homes.
18. The government is driving the switch to electrification of cars and home heating–not by persuasion or applying the science of behaviour change–but simply by announcing the elimination of choice of fossil-fuel based options respectively in 19.
The Committee endorses this approach and calls for the government to “set dates for banning the use of technologies with the highest emissions and environmental impacts where suitable alternatives exist or are foreseeable”. At the same time, we criticise the government for putting “too great reliance on as yet undeveloped technologies to get us to net zero”.
Unfortunately, because adoption of new technologies was not part of our initial focus, we have not been able to identify any foreseeable new technologies the government should rely on enough to ban conventional alternatives, nor any undeveloped technologies which they should rely on less. 20.
The extent to which the public will voluntarily adopt even the modestly frugal lifestyle changes requires by the CCC - even if given clear and persuasive messages about what they should do - is not clear. 21.
Our enquiries into the science of behaviour change revealed only that all 22. We were urged to apply lessons of the COVID pandemic for bringing about widespread behaviour change.
However, those were a short term response to a short term emergency. Covid posed an immediate threat to people’s lives whereas the impact of climate change is decades away.
We caution against trying to replicate the pandemic approach, especially in the light of warning and advice - unexpectedly - from Sir Patrick Vallance “to avoid messages based on fear or disgust” and to rely on people’s common sense. Since “people were pretty smart about knowing what to do … They decided not to interact quite so much - irrespective, frankly, of how soon or late governments decided to implement changes.
The same is true here 23. Although life-style changes are expected to make only a modest contribution on the Balanced Pathway to net zero, the CCC did identify scope for savings a. an accelerated shift in diets away from meat and dairy products.
Although the Committee believes “it may ultimately be necessary to use taxes in this area we that it is not the right moment to introduce a tax on emissions associated with … food”. As St Augustine might have ‘Make us vegetarian– The CCC envisage a reduction in meat consumption of between 20 per cent and 35 per cent.
We did not investigate whether similar reductions in bovine methane emissions could be achieved by selective breeding and changing animal feedstuffs, thereby protecting our cattle farmers. The Committee endorsed criticisms of cheap ‘fast fashion’ and other forms of sumptuary excess but did not consider whether this will deprive many people in developing countries of a livelihood. Although the Committee calls on Ministers to “lead by example” on climate policy the Committee rejected a proposal that the Committee itself should set an example by members pledging to make no more than two overseas flights each in d. reductions in travel demand. So long as some fossil fuelled vehicles remain in use and/or electricity has not been completely decarbonised, emission reductions could be achieved by encouraging people to walk, bike or use public transport instead of driving. However, we received evidence (not included in the body of the report) that the overwhelming majority of fuel consumption is on journeys which are longer than could be undertaken by bike or on foot. So, a switch to ‘active travel’ for local journeys would make negligible savings. The case for encouraging ‘active travel’ rests primarily on its

25 YEP 25 Year Environment Plan ASA Advertising Standards Authority BEIS Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy BPS British Psychological Society CAI Climate Action Implementation Committee (Cabinet Office) CAS Climate Action Strategy Committee (Cabinet Office) CAST Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations CCC Committee on Climate Change CCUS Carbon capture, utilisation and storage CMA Competition and Markets Authority COM-B Capability, opportunity, behaviour (model for DAERA Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment DCMS Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DHSC Department of Health and Social Care DLUHC Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities EAST Easy, attractive, social and timely (model for behaviour ELMS Environmental Land Management Schemes EPC Energy Performance Certificate EPR Extended Producer Responsibility FCDO Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office GBSF Government Buying Standards for Food and Catering GCS Government Communication Service GCSA Government Chief Scientific Adviser HPRU Health Protection Research Units

IGD Institute for Grocery Distribution IPPR Institute for Public Policy Research ISD Institute for Strategic Dialogue ISM Individual, Social and Material (model for behaviour change) LGA Local Government Association NALC National Association of Local Councils NIHR National Institute for Health Research NSIG Climate Change National Strategy Implementation Group ONS Office for National Statistics SAGE Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies SPI-B Independent Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on SPT Social Practice Theory (model for behaviour change) TCV The Conservation Volunteers UKHSA UK Health Security Agency UKSIF UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association ULEV Ultra-low emissions vehicles