← Everything Electric Podcast
Everything Electric Podcast
Net Zero’s PR Problem—and How to Fix It!
00:45:15
In this week’s episode Imogen talks to Ruban Yogarajah, a Sustainability Partner at FGS Global - a stakeholder strategy firm helping companies and climate groups win support for the energy transition. They discuss why enthusiasm for "net zero" is...
Loading summary
Transcript51 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign hello, and welcome to another episode of the Everything Electric podcast, where today we're asking a big question. Is Net Zero actually working or does it have a major PR problem? And the reason that we're talking about this is that whilst public support for tackling climate change might still be strong, most people, after all, do still accept the state science. The story around Net Zero has become increasingly fragile. Cynicism about the government's ability to deliver, massive public overestimation of the personal costs and a deep distrust of politicians have created the perfect storm. The debate has become polarized, trapping the Net Zero debate between two abstract narratives, the government's grand growth opportunity and the opposition's catastrophic economic burden. Now, joining me for this episode is Ruben Yogaraja, sustainability partner at FGS Global. And we're going to be delving into what the public really think about clean energy, why the current message isn't working, and what do we need to do to rebuild public trust and keep our clean energy ambitions on track. All of that to come. But first, a very quick advert break.
- [01:17]
B
Our three free YouTube channels on EVs and cleantech are funded by our fun packed test drivetastic events in Farnborough, London, the Southwest, the North, Melbourne and Sydney. And next up, Everything Electric, Farnborough and new for UK viewers. You can now buy a battery EV and much more at EverythingElectric store. Now back to the episode.
- [01:40]
A
Reuben, thank you so much for joining us on the podcast. I am so excited about this conversation and we've been talking before. We clicked record and every time you said something interesting I had to sort of stop myself because I was like, no, no, no, no. We must, must save this for this discussion, for this podcast. But for the benefit of our audience, can you kick us off by telling us who you are and what you do?
- [02:02]
C
I'm Ruben Yogaraja. I lead the energy and sustainability team at FGS Global. We're a stakeholder strategy firm and what that means is we help big companies, big climate groups win the stakeholder support they need to really get things done. So if we're working with a car company, we wouldn't really get involved in selling their latest ev, but we would help win investor support for their EV strategy or try and help them shape the government's thinking on the rollout of charging infrastructure to help grow their business and accelerate the energy transition.
- [02:36]
A
So when it comes to all things related to climate change and particularly the messaging surrounding that climate change, safe to say you are some of the global experts and very well versed in this particular topic, not least because you've been doing quite a lot of polling of public opinion. Can you tell us a little bit about some of the work that you've been doing in that regard and why you did it, and perhaps who you're using those results for?
- [03:02]
C
I think we work with companies and NGOs in the UK, in the US, around the world, and it's been clear for some time that the conversation around climate and clean energy is evolving. And particularly in the uk, it feels like there's been a big swing, at least in the media conversation. We're in this really interesting position here where you have a populist right wing party, the Reform Party, that says net zero is the new Brexit and they're getting a lot of attention for their opposition to climate policy and their opposition to clean energy. At the same time, you have a Green party with the new leaders saying there's a silent majority that wants much more climate action in the uk. So we really wanted to dig down and say what's really going on, who thinks what and how can we create the coalitions of support needed to really fast track the energy transition and maintain the widespread support that's needed to get the UK to meet its climate goals?
- [04:01]
A
I think that's the thing that we're seeing here, is that there is cross party consensus from the general public that climate action is an important and necessary thing. And yet we are also seeing this evolving, very divisive messaging playing out from a political perspective. And something that we've spoken about before is perhaps this term Net zero and why that term in particular might be sort of a really, a bit of a term that's helping to drive that debate rather than doing net good, shall we say. So I wonder if you could share what the polls say about the term net zero.
- [04:38]
C
I think one of the important things that we found it sounds obvious, but people haven't really paid attention, is that people support what they understand. So people are really confident explaining what renewable energy is and they really like it. For a term like net zero, less than half the public say they're confident explaining and they're probably lying. In practice, it's quite a complicated term that the net. How big should the net be? What is the net? There's a whole carbon removals conversation that hasn't happened. Net Zero 2050 is a very different prospect to Net Zero 2070 and it's become weaponized by opponents who want to present the whole climate agenda as the work of an out of touch elite that doesn't care about what everyday people think. So it's a term that isn't well understood but has been weaponized in that way. And actually what it doesn't do is tell you what you get at the end. Net zero doesn't explain we have a stable climate. It doesn't say we have a much faster growing economy with cleaner air and more jobs. And by defining what we're doing in the negative, we start on the back foot.
- [05:50]
A
When I picture net zero, I picture the graph that we've all seen of how to get our emissions from where they are today compared to 1990 levels to net zero. And I once met this really interesting game developer and she was developing a game that would exist within your home. And the whole idea was that you wanted to kind of reduce your energy bills. And to reduce your energy bills, it had this little game showing, like a fish swimming or something like that. And she said the problem with the game was that from a psychology perspective, you don't want to do things that go down. It always has this sense of burden or some kind of personal sacrifice. And games that are successful are around doing more and increasing your points. So there's also like this psychological aspect that doing something that is diminishing something doesn't really resonate with how we're motivated as human beings. And that perhaps is also a bit of. I think something that we need to get into this discussion is that there's this huge perception of what net zero means in terms of, or misconceptions rather, of what net zero means in terms of what we need to do as individuals rather than the opportunity which it presents. So. So before we get into that, I just want to see what some of your other data tells us around. Okay, we've got this term Net zero, that's being highly politicized and weaponized, but also there are varying degrees of different opinions around timelines, perceptions of the science, perception of the viability even of reaching net zero. So I wonder if you could share some of the really interesting and meaty nuggets that you've got.
- [07:27]
C
I think the. So let's start with the good news. The UK is not in the position the US is in. So by and large, the public accept the science. Though there is some evidence that that's eroding, it's still very strong support and more people support Net zero than oppose it. If you look at the figures from YouGov last week, it's about 2 to 1. So really strong foundations there. But when you look beneath the surface There are some really clear warning lights that support for net zero is not translating into people being willing to pay or for support for big parts of this or the last government's policy agenda. And there are a few things that are playing into that. The first, and I think most important is this perception of cost. And when it arrives. If you ask people, is net zero a threat? They say yes. If you ask them, is it affecting your life today? Around half. Or when will it affect your life? Around half the country will say now or in the next five years. But that doesn't really explain why they're acting. So we asked, when do you think the physical impacts of climate change will affect your standard of living? And actually half the country said, 10, 20 years or never. So the negative impacts of climate change in terms of the standard of living seem very far away. And the costs seem immediately. And from the research that we've done, we think those costs are being vastly overestimated. And people don't see the wider benefits of switching to clean energy or taking up EVs or using a heat pump in their homes. And that comes together to make a very difficult scenario to get things done.
- [09:09]
A
I suppose that's the thing, because. And this is not a unique thing to climate change or the energy transition. The future is always this abstract thing. It hasn't happened. And we kind of, I mean, what's the phrase we, we overestimate short term impact and massively underestimate longer term views of things. And that I think is the perfect kind of melting pot, perhaps for the clean energy transition discussion as well. But when it comes to. Because all of this is becoming much more fraught and filled with tension. But prior to perhaps the last year or so, you know, we did have this whole conversation around how the clean energy transition was going to be a huge growth opportunity. And that message was peddled by both people on the left and right, or wherever they sit on the political spectrum. And that has been something that has shifted fairly recently. So I suppose why is it? Well, maybe the first question is net zero, is the clean energy transition actually good for the economy?
- [10:09]
C
It's a really great question. I think a lot of us see the changes in technology, the falling cost of renewable energy, the fact that EVs and heat pumps are more efficient than their traditional counterparts. And we see that this transition is a huge potential economic gain. It really can boost efficiency. And beyond that, as the world goes through this transition, there'll be new markets opened up and there's a huge growth opportunity to supply those Markets. However, we're in this difficult situation right now where we're kind of in the mid transition. We have two energy systems, one fossil fuel powered and one renewable, that are both significant, they both need maintenance and neither is big enough yet to meet all our needs. So we're in this messy middle where the costs are high and we haven't seen the full benefits yet. But I'd go back to one simple point on the economics that I think is getting lost. People don't feel that climate change today is costing them money. So there's a story out this morning saying that the hottest summer cost Europe €43 billion. That's the equivalent of around €100 a person. It's having a real impact, but people don't see that. They don't associate their higher food bills, their higher insurance bills with climate change. And that's part of the problem. When people think of the economics.
- [11:34]
A
I think from my. I can't believe I'm sharing this, but this is where my brain has gone. But I think about how weird the weather is. And actually I'm someone who's, who's very sensitive to temperature. And I would say that my personal cost or my personal experience, that's most tangible, tangible to me, the cost of climate is how many different types of coat I need to own to live in the UK. Like right now it's 18 degrees. But it's also been the most monumental rain. I mean, wind. Sorry, we were meant to be doing this podcast in person. I couldn't get to London because there's been trees falling on the tracks because the wind is so wild. And we've had horrific rain over the past week. We've had days that have felt like the peak of summer and then sort of the, you know, deepest, darkest autumn. At the same time. That's where this unpredictability sort of manifests itself. And yet I think again, we can just forget about that quite quickly. And when you hear a number like 43 billion that seems so far outside of your daily experience that it's difficult to connect with that. And I can see how that that manifests that all of these things just feel totally abstract.
- [12:47]
C
I think that's right. When we looked at the costs, we asked people, how much do you think it will take to get to net zero? In the UK, the average estimate was 28% of GDP, or 28% of the national income was the phrase we used, compared to 0.2%. So a 14,000% overestimate. And when you dig into it, you can see people respond to the way you describe that number in very different ways. So if you say, hey, getting to net zero is going to cost 320 billion, support collapses. If you say it's 0.2% of GDP, that feels like a small number and it goes up massively. And if you take the middle path and say hey, it's about £1 30 per person per week, actually support really firms up. The number of people that say, I don't know, drops and that lead that net zero has support versus opposition really hardens. So I think there is this task, how do you make it tangible, how do you make it real and get away from some of the bigger, grander numbers that are thrown around?
- [13:55]
A
I want to come back to this idea of why we're operating or the impact of operating in the messy middle and how that is potentially threatening the economic opportunity message. And part of that it seems, comes down to timelines that we have to peddle this narrative that we need that long term future and that we need to invest in clean energy. But as we know, marginal pricing, the mechanism that we have here in the UK that determines the cost of electricity, that for now remains a problem because we don't have sufficient amounts of clean energy on our grid to ensure that our electricity isn't costed by the price of gas in a lot of cases. And so we're not seeing the cost of our electricity come down in meaningful timeline. So it becomes this, this, this proving ground for people to say, okay, well it's going to cost us a lot of money and no one's going to feel the benefits. So how can we take the heat out of that messy middle and prevent it becoming this big political hot potato that can be really weaponized?
- [14:56]
C
I think it's going to require two quite different things. On the one hand, the cost of living is the public's number one concern. When you ask them about what's facing the country. And there are a lot of ideas out there right now for how you bring down energy prices in the next two or three years rather than waiting for 2030 when there's a lot more clean energy in the system, there's going to be a big argument about that. And I think for the average member of the public, a bit like the zonal pricing debate that happened in the UK a few months ago, they're not going to be able to follow the detail or decide this policy is better than that policy. Instead it's going to come down to Vibes, who is on my side, who is really acting urgently to make things better for me. And that's where both the government and business probably have to take a different approach to communications to show people they're on their side. The populist right has been really effective at tapping into the dissatisfaction with the status quo. And it's important that people that are in favor of the energy transition show their dissatisfaction too and that they're really focused on helping immediately and not just on this aspirational long term goal.
- [16:07]
A
But then it's interesting because some of the shorter term measures, for example, better insulation in our homes, those are quick and easy fixes in terms of, from a cost perspective, technically, and the impact of those could be felt very immediately in terms of reducing bills. But would there be value in actually decoupling some of these things from the climate change conversation and accept that these are also good for the planet? But that's a serendipitous outcome.
- [16:32]
C
I think that's exactly right. If you look at some of the work that GB Energy has done with local councils, that's involved giving out warm homes packs to people to really kind of stop the draft coming in through their doors or put up a secondary glazing film on their windows. And that's really been positioned as A, bringing bills down and B, when it's come to work on schools and other public buildings, freeing up money for frontline services. And those things just make sense in and of themselves. They're attractive in and of themselves and are a natural starting point when we're thinking about how to build support.
- [17:09]
A
And then I suppose some of those bigger sort of more systemic things, you know, again, would there be value in removing climate change from the conversation entirely? For example, you know, thinking about industrial revival and creating energy here in the uk, does climate have to feature in that conversation?
- [17:28]
C
I don't think it does. One of the problems, I think for the last few years is that there hasn't been that vision of why the UK should be such a great place for industry. If you think about it, the UK has a third of Europe's geological storage capacity. So you can have low carbon industry. We have a history in the nuclear industry. That means that we should be at the vanguard of the rollout of those technologies. We have the best offshore wind resources pretty much in Europe. So as the continent thinks about bringing industry home and whether it's preparing for defense or preparing to retool our cities for the future, we should be the home for those industries. And I think there is a growth story that we need to tell that should be attractive. I think the challenge is that all of the indicators are that the public are incredibly pessimistic right now and just sharing this very positive long term view is not going to resonate because people have sort of given up on the idea of the country being able to build anything. So you've got to be able to walk and chew gum, really show that there's near term things happening that will make a difference to bills in the next year, two years, three years, whilst beginning to build the credibility of that long term story. It's not one or the other. Both of them feel they need to belong together.
- [18:51]
A
It's such a difficult line to tread, isn't it? Because as you say, and I think this has been an emerging theme from this discussion, how do we make things feel extremely immediate and to allow people to feel positive and optimistic in the very, very short term whilst also having that long term view, whilst also doing all of that on a backdrop of quite a grumpy nation in which the cost of living is our number one concern and there is this sort of increasing discontent with the fact that some people or a lot of people feel that their budgets are not really understood and that the people who are in charge don't understand what it feels like to be an average person here in this country. And so on the one hand we've got this idea that we need to do those two things simultaneously, this short term delivery and this long term vision. But also we have this challenge of who is driving that message. And I interviewed Ed Miliband on the podcast a few months ago. I think our audience generally feel pretty positively towards him, but you only have to open the Telegraph probably every other day to find a pretty negative story about him. He has, you know, he is a politician and he's also someone who, and I say this in a nice way, is quite easy to caricature and quite an easy person to make fun of, partly because he is so enthusiastic. He has obviously been a key driver of DES nez, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and a lot of our climate change ambitions here in the uk. But people don't trust politicians generally. Does this come down to the individuals we're choosing to push this message or actually should we reframe the types of people, the types of organizations perhaps that should be pushing this message?
- [20:40]
C
I think in practice it's going to be both, starting with politicians. We did some research over the last few weeks that found that you can ask about the popularity of pretty much any policy on the economy on immigration on health care and it becomes less popular when you tell people it was generated by a political party, no matter what that political party is. So the skepticism towards politics is really, really intense and the country is pretty fractured. There are all of these different groups, they respect different people, they use different vocabulary. And so there isn't going to be a one size fits all solution here. It's going to be a matter of different groups taking different messages to different people. So business certainly has a role there. The government eventually might have a role climate. Groups need to think about who they're communicating to and whether it's just preaching to the converted or they can find new language to reach that wider audience. But it's probably going to be a kaleidoscope of different options. We're often asked, like, who should be the spokesperson for this? There are only two people that the country trusts, David Attenborough and Martin Lewis, and they're probably not going to come together to save the day on this. It's going to have to be a much wider effort involving many more people.
- [22:03]
A
Is that a true. Is that like a surveyed fact that the two people who are trusted in the UK are Martin Lewis and David Attenborough?
- [22:10]
C
Yeah, that's a well received fact because there are very few people that actually everyone's even heard of nowadays. If you think about pop music, we're past the days of, you know, one song being at number one for 16 weeks and everyone buying it. We live in a just a much more fragmented media landscape and it does raise this question about the role of the individual. We are in mid September now. In a couple of months time, people will be preparing for their arguments around the Christmas dinner table. And actually there are lots that you can do to persuade your Daily Mail or Sun reading friends or relatives that this is the right thing to do. But you have to frame it in terms they understand. And that doesn't mean preaching and it doesn't mean patronizing. It means understanding what they're interested in and building from there.
- [23:00]
A
I suppose, actually it's not even oftentimes what they're interested in, it's what they are concerned about. And certainly we find when we obviously talk a lot about electric vehicles here on the fully charged show and everything. Electric show. And people don't hate the concept of an electric vehicle. They tend to love the idea of change or something feeling imposed on them and it becomes a much more constructive conversation. If you can understand motivation and fear for people, 100%.
- [23:31]
C
I mean, if you look at electric cars, our figures suggest around half the country don't know that their running costs are cheaper, much cheaper than their petrol cars. And then you have the anxiety about are there enough charging stations on top of that? And then maybe a higher upfront purchase cost. So there's a lot of education that is needed and people are still kind of getting to grips with what is this technology? Is it better? Is it? For me, the analogy I like to draw is with air fryers. I mean, three years ago no one knew what an air fryer was, and now everyone's got one. Can we do the same with electric cars by just making them a normal thing, talking about what you love about them, driving your mates around in them? It feels like there's a lot of very practical things that could be done to push that forward, some of which you guys are doing by offering test drives.
- [24:24]
A
We've seen some really incredible things. For example, here in Oxford, the council runs this thing where you can just go and try plugging one in. And that might sound like a really basic thing. And I'm sure there are so many people listening to this podcast thinking what a patronizing thing to do. But I don't think it is, because if you observe people at a charger for the first time, people do not enjoy feeling like an idiot. And chargers look slightly different. And sometimes the writing is really low down, sometimes it's high up, sometimes you put the charger in first, sometimes you tap your card first. People don't enjoy feeling silly. And I think it's always important to have grace in that situation, to allow people an opportunity to fail or like to mess up in a totally safe environment. And that's what I think those kinds of initiatives really offer. And the test drives as well, we see, you know, it's. It's a very valuable way for people to have firsthand experience and to ask the expert the question rather than have to do their own research as well. Which.
- [25:26]
C
Yeah, and I also think that, you know, climate change and the energy transition has felt very dowdy for a long time, very earnest. And actually, when you look at the new generation of electric cars, particularly those being developed in China, they're cool. They're being developed as consumer electronics with the kind of crazy features that you wouldn't expect. So the idea that you can charge an electric car in five minutes, that it has all these other features, I think a part of repositioning climate from being this earnest sacrifice, saying, actually electrifying the economy is a great economic opportunity, but it's also going to give you some Cool stuff, I think.
- [26:06]
A
So I'm going to come back to this idea of earnestness and sacrifice, because I think this comes, you know, is attached to this idea of using the right data to talk to the right people in the right way. But before we do, and we started to touch on this slightly earlier, I want to talk about the opportunity that's presented locally because we've also spoken about how so many of these things can feel abstract and, and sort of out of touch. And whilst we've seen the Net Zero terminology become highly politicized and vulnerable to being weaponized as well, actually, when you start to look at what's happening on the local level, where people can see these things happening in their own community, the Clean Energy transition is having a different kind of success. And I wonder what your views are on how we leverage local activity to keep driving this conversation.
- [26:56]
C
I think it's a really good question. One of the things that we found, and one of the surprises was how few people think jobs are coming to their area. Fewer than 1 in 10 feel that the transition to net zero will bring jobs to their area. And so there is a missing piece here about what are those jobs and can I see them and are they available to me? I think the government missed a trick when it announced its Clean Power mission by not alongside it saying, we're going to have a green jobs mission and train half a million, a million sparkies, electricians, electrical engineers, AI experts, whatever it is, to deliver that. And here's where you can start getting that training and doing those jobs in the meantime. There's a lot being done by local councils, there's a lot being done by different home developers and I think as people see change around them, they become more comfortable. There's different studies around the world that say once people see their neighbors getting solar on their roofs, they want it too. It just feels like a normal thing you do. And making it part of the everyday, I think, is a really important part of this.
- [28:09]
A
So interesting and you're so right. Why didn't clean power 2030 have that clean jobs 2030 component to it as well? Because even as someone you know, I'm reasonably informed in this topic and I think about Clean Power 2013, I think of big industrial size generation, huge wind farms, huge solar farms. I don't necessarily connect it to how many heat pumps do we need to deploy? Do we have the right people to install those heat pumps? Is there any kind of upgrade of training that's required from current tradespeople to facilitate that transition? And If I'm thinking that as somebody who lives and breathes every day, then I'm sure the majority of the population also think the same. That is certainly a missed opportunity. Okay, so just to kind of recap on some of the things that we've touched on so far, we've spoken about connecting this long term optimistic future to shorter term action and making things feel less abstract and more real. Whilst doing this on a backdrop of a grumpy, very skeptical society that doesn't hold much regard or trust for elected leaders in the government. We've also spoken about the fact that Net zero as a term in itself is perhaps not a good one, not least because it gives this idea of like a, what is it? But B, it sort of conjures up this image of sacrifice. There's an earnestness to it, it's scientific, it doesn't connect to your everyday life. And we've spoken about the fact that actually the facts that we're leading with, the numbers that we're leading with, they can be framed, they can be the same number, or at least they can mean the same thing, but communicated slightly differently and resonate with people as a result. And lastly, we've spoken about the fact that actually we're not just, we can't just choose one person as the mouthpiece for this because our media landscape is so fractured, our political views are so fractured and how we consume those messages is also extremely fractured. So all of this put together and you have to ask the question, okay, well what are the solutions? How on earth can we remain optimistic on the backdrop of all of those different things? And I suppose if you were advising somebody, and I won't name any names that you're not forced to say anything uncomfortable, but how would you reframe and rebrand Net zero?
- [30:34]
C
So I think there are a few different pieces in there that we can talk about. So when we did some message testing, we looked at is net zero associated with lower bills, jobs, growth that didn't really fly. People were much more likely to associate renewable or clean energy with those positive economic things. So I think talking about renewable energy, clean energy, people have a better sense of what that means. And I think that's the starting point rather than talking about net zero all the time. I think secondly, creating real visibility around what the benefits are. Part of the reason the country is so grumpy and the government is so financially stretched is we spent 100 billion during the energy crisis because we were reliant on gas during that period. The contracts for difference the pricing Mechanism for renewables has a maximum price that kicked in and it saved the country tens of billions, but no one was really aware of it. So as the energy system changes, we're going to have to think, how's that communicated? Do you need a line on the bill that says here's your green energy dividend, so that it's really clear to people when bills come down, it's because of the renewables build out. That's not a solution by itself. But without those prompts, it's going to be very hard for the government to claim credit. When bills come down, a grumpy population will otherwise just say, hey, magic has happened. Finally something's happened, but it won't be attributed to the energy transition. And then third, I think our message testing really shows that energy security is a really strong ground to play for, particularly on those voters that are less concerned about the environment, they're less worried about climate change itself. When we ask the public what's important in the energy system, affordability and security were neck and neck at the top and that's a really useful place to go deeper.
- [32:32]
A
That's really interesting because energy security is something that we haven't yet spoken about in any great detail in this particular discussion. And it also sort of, I guess, other synonymous terms like around resilience, renewal, security, domestic energy, all things that actually can kind of sound quite populist in their nature as well. And yet we don't necessarily see, I said Nigel Farage, peddling those sorts of messages. Do you think there's any opportunity that energy security can be kept alive even in the face of a reform government, or certainly a government that has more reform?
- [33:16]
C
I think this is the battleground that I would choose in many ways. When we ask the public, what do you mean when you say energy security, really the answer boiled down to energy produced in the uk. And that sets the stage for the big battle over the next few months. Nigel Farage says the UK has massive gas reserves just waiting to go and they're not being developed because of net zero and it's just not true. If you look at the forecast from the North Sea Transition Authority or the oil and gas industry, whatever we do, the UK's oil and gas production is going to fall probably by 30% by 2030 and 90 plus percent by 2050. So our energy system is the way it is because we used to be an exporter, we can't meet our own needs now. And I think when you tell the public that, their response is, well, we want renewables just 5% say they want more fossil fuel imports. When you ask them, what do you prioritize? Energy produced at home. The cheapest form of energy, they'll say, energy produced at home. So it starts creating a way of navigating some of those economic issues and boosting support for renewables. And going back to our friends that read the sun or the Mail, when they're saying, well, why don't we draw for gas? Rather than opposing them on environmental grounds, we should be saying, look, no matter what we do, we're not going to be able to meet our needs and we'd much rather invest in our country than send billions overseas year after year. And it feels like that kind of language and those kind of arguments could have much wider resonance than the traditional approach to the UK's oil and gas industry, particularly from the climate movement, that have fed the myth that we have these massive reserves by describing fields like Rosebank and Jackdaw as massive when they are in fact pretty small in the overall scheme of things.
- [35:17]
A
But I suppose we're having to create that economic argument on a backdrop of misinformation. It's quite easy to say things like, for example, Cami Badenoch was like, oh, there's no plan. There's never been a credible plan to reach net zero by 2050. Which is also total nonsense because we've seen all of the pathways generated by the Climate Change Committee under the Climate change Act of 2008, where there are actually sort of legal implications if those pathways are not followed. So. But those things can be, you know, they're easy to repeat, they're easy to say, they're easy to garner attention. So whilst we can make the logical arguments, they're having to be made in a. In a time when you can kind of, it feels like, say whatever you want. So what do we do?
- [36:07]
C
It's a big challenge because a lot of the media coverage on this topic is not produced with independence and rigor in mind. I think there are a few things that we can do, though. I think the first is people working in climate and clean energy need to coalesce around a smaller number of things to talk about in terms of the facts around the country, our energy system and busting some of the myths that you need to rely on if you're arguing for a slower transition. People have been trying to make the case positively, but that myth busting, for example, around the North Sea and. And the reserves we have left is part of the answer, I think. Secondly, equipping a wider range of spokespeople to take that story out is going to be really, really important. You see, internationally, the energy transition, energy security is really risen up the agenda. And you have venues like the Munich Security Conference that are becoming as important as the COP Climate Conference in some ways in hosting those debates. So who are the new people that we can get out to credibly talk about risk and resilience in that way? And then thirdly, it comes down to, as I said earlier, vibes. How do you engage with people in ways that you can't be caricatured that easily as a net zero zealot? It requires, I think, very pragmatic language, very plain English where possible, and trying to get as many people in as many places speaking in that way to try and reach the public.
- [37:48]
A
That's so interesting because on the one hand we have something for the optimistic people, perhaps clean energy, renewable energy, we said that that conjures those positive images. And on the other side, energy security and resilience and addressing the cost of living, those are things that are deeply pragmatic, lend themselves to that pragmatic language, but also they make the economic case whilst having that slightly cynical tone. For example, energy security isn't something that you do for this really sunny outcome, you do it for safety. And perhaps that is just something that the British public. That's the way to speak to the British public, this very pessimistic, cynical set.
- [38:35]
C
Of people, or at least the, the set of the British public that are feeling most grumpy right now. I think there is different stories for different people, but that's part of it. And it links back to the economics at the end of the day, going back to the Climate Change Committee. If we're not sending tens of billions overseas every year to pay for fossil fuels, that money can be spent here. It feels like a very long way away, but in 10 years time, those costs, that money really starts appearing and boosting the national income. And if it's not being spent on oil and gas, it's going to be spent on other things that we care about. The trouble is that's far away. But you can see how these two factors come together.
- [39:25]
A
And I suppose that is also an opportunity, if we can accept that the cost of living is the number one concern for most people in the uk, that those numbers, for example, however many a billion being sent overseas, those do need to be connected to the possible impact that has on an individual level, on a per week basis or a monthly basis or whatever feels most tangible to everyday people.
- [39:51]
C
Yeah, I Think that's absolutely right. I think it goes back to, you know, people are spent. You know, climate change is already costing people money. Now sending money overseas for oil and gas means less investment in the uk and this is what that means in practice. It means less money on health, less money on education, and over time it means fewer jobs because you're not going to have the kind of businesses that we want to build in this country to export and bring industry back to the heartlands.
- [40:22]
A
So as we come towards the end of this conversation, perhaps some sort of shorter questions or at least shorter answers for things that people can really take away and start to action. First question, what are some words or some terminology that people who are hugely passionate about the clean energy transition, what are some words that they should absolutely perhaps try and avoid or replace.
- [40:49]
C
Our message testing suggests that all of those sort of negative doing less words don't do very well. Decarbonization net zero, they tend to fall flat. So it's much better to make the positive and talk about building and growth.
- [41:07]
A
I am so guilty of the decarbonization1 and the net01. So I know that for me personally this is extremely helpful. Second question, we know that there are people listening to this podcast who work in the automotive industry. Perhaps they work on the marketing side and their company generates electric vehicles. What would be a message to them?
- [41:26]
C
I think that there are probably two quite different things that need to be done. On the one hand, people need to make great electric cars and show that they are better, to drive more comfortable, they go quicker, whatever you one, there are a series of consumer benefits that are made real by this switch. And secondly, and I think Electric Vehicles UK has been created recently to do this, addressing some of those bigger myths around, is it really going to save me money? Can I really charge my car enough places? It's a combination of that reassurance and creating the excitement around the new fleet that that I think will be needed.
- [42:08]
A
ETO's last question to anyone who works in the home energy space and particularly clean energy for home so anything to do with heat pumps, solar panels, home batteries, et cetera, et cetera, how should they be? What should they be doing?
- [42:24]
C
I think there's probably two big things there. The first is make this really easy to understand. When you look at getting a heat pump, it's now got a lot simpler to put your details in and get a quote, but it's still a really complicated process and the moment you talk to a heating engineer it gets confusing. So make it as simple as possible. Second, I mean, there needs to be a bit more innovation in terms of the consumer offer, so you can now get solar on subscription at no upfront costs. We need to find similar things for heat pumps so that that friction of, oh, my God, is it worth spending this money up front? When do I save? Starts moving away. And I think that financial and consumer innovation is something that businesses really well positioned to do, borrowing on the successes from Australia, Germany, the us and if there are policy changes that are needed, articulating them quickly and getting them fixed early will really help build momentum.
- [43:26]
A
And I suppose this might be the last question, but you never know. What's the one thing you want people to take away from this podcast?
- [43:35]
C
If you're based in the UK and you read the papers, you get doom and gloom and you get the misinformation about the research saying the public have given up, they don't care. They do care. This is a fight that can be won, but it's going to take new language, new communications tactics and really meeting people where they are to do it. That is something that is eminently achievable, but it needs change quickly if the support for Net zero is to be maintained and to get to the future that we all want to build together.
- [44:09]
A
Well, I think that is possibly the perfect note to end on. So, honestly, thank you so much. I know that I personally have really benefited from this discussion and I hope that many people listening to it have also benefited from and we'll take some things away into their everyday lives. So thank you so much.
- [44:25]
C
Thank you. It's been great to be on.
- [44:27]
A
So there you have it. It is not rocket science, but it ultimately comes down to choosing the right message, communicating it in the right way with the right people, to the right people, or in other words, just having a little bit more empathy when it comes to communicating, and particularly when it comes to communicating the climate change challenge across the political spectrum. But that is all that we have time for today. Thank you so much to Ruben for sharing his insights. Thank you to Katie from our team, who will be editing this particular episode. Before you go, if you could do us the honour of liking, subscribing or sharing with a friend, we would so appreciate it. It really does ensure that we can keep on telling the cool and important stories in this clean energy transition. But that's it. If you have been. Thank you for listening and watching.