{"id":405478,"date":"2025-09-28T13:10:15","date_gmt":"2025-09-28T11:10:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=405478"},"modified":"2025-09-29T01:53:53","modified_gmt":"2025-09-28T23:53:53","slug":"food-for-thought","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=405478","title":{"rendered":"Food for Thought"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Climate Scepticism<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Mark Hodgson<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Are the Czechs the greatest climate-policy sceptics?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It seems that pretty much every day I learn about yet another climate organisation in receipt of public funding in return for doing very little of much use or \u2013 as in this case \u2013 largely telling us what we already know.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thanks, rather oddly, to the Guardian\u2019s Weatherwatch series (which is sometimes interesting) I have today learned<\/a> about an organisation<\/a> that goes under the name of Capable. This is a rather contrived acronym, standing for ClimAte Policy AcceptaBiLity Economic framework<\/em>. According to its website<\/a> (https:\/\/capableclimate.eu\/about\/<\/a>) it is \u201ca research project that has received funding from the European Union\u2019s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme\u201d. Furthermore:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overall, policies to transform the European economy to meet the global climate targets of the Paris agreement need to be cost-effective, fair, and politically and socially feasible. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, many policies face a tension between ambition and effectiveness on the one hand and social and political feasibility on the other. Furthermore, climate policies often face low acceptance among the general public and business communities, partly due to the lack of scientific evidence on the socio-economic effectiveness and broader performance of climate policies.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So far, so good. Most climate sceptics could probably sign up to most of that. The website goes on to use a lot of words to tell us about their very scientific ways (involving six workplans, using more than 40 researchers from 11 different European research institutions in 7 different countries) to \u201cdevelop and operationalize multi-objective decision making frameworks to help evaluate effective, yet socially and politically feasible, climate and environmental policies in Europe.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So much for the background. Thanks to the Guardian Weatherwatch article, we learn, thanks to Capable, that \u201cSurvey finds 70% of people would support a fare-cutting rail fund \u2013 but taxes on beef and flying are less popular<\/em>\u201d. Well I\u2019m blowed. Who would have thought it? People want cheap rail fares, but don\u2019t want their food and flights to be more expensive. In further amazing news:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The survey found that overall, 70% of people would support an EU rail fund to halve fares across the continent, and 55% would support household insulation mandates, with subsidies for poorer households, and banning private jets. Not nearly so popular are taxes on beef and air flights, and least popular of all are taxes or bans on fossil-fuel cars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And of course:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026<\/em>Better-educated people and younger people are far more likely to support action\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Survey in question, needless to say, represents the insights of the numerous people and institutions involved in the Capable project. To find out more, readers can access its online tool<\/a>. There is a drop-down menu that enables readers to see for themselves the popularity, overall and by EU country, of individual policies considered by Capable. There are very few surprises here. Needless to say, one of the policy options that wasn\u2019t surveyed was \u201cAre you in favour of EU funds being endowed on a pointless organisation to ask you what you are and are not in favour of?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I will leave it to you, dear reader, to look in detail at the policies, should they be of interest to you, but for now the only surprise (to politicians, at least) is the limited support for the policies that the climate lobbyists would like the EU to adopt. I will take a quick look at a handful only (but would add that this isn\u2019t cherry-picking \u2013 the theme holds good across the survey):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ban fossil fuel private planes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As stated in the survey, respondents are asked to say whether or not they are in favour of an EU-wide ban on private planes departing from or arriving within the EU after 2035.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After years of propaganda about the evils of flying, especially of private planes which emit more CO2 per capita than holiday flights with dozens of people packed into cattle class, one might have expected such a policy to achieve fairly widespread support. However, that isn\u2019t really so. Yes, it achieves majority support, but only to the extent of 55% overall, but only Spain approaches 2:1 support for the policy (67%), while it fails to achieve majority support at all in Denmark (46%) or the Czech Republic (43%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Intensive cattle farming ban<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A suggested EU-wide ban on intensive cattle (beef) farming by 2035 was opposed almost 2:1, with only 34% support overall. Only France (55%) and Italy (57%) showed majority support for the proposition, with the respondents from all other countries opposing such a plan. Four countries showed support between just 20%-29%, while in the Czech Republic only 11% supported the plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fossil fuel advertising ban<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the long-standing demonisation of fossil fuels, one might have thought that majority support would have been forthcoming for an EU-wide ban on public advertisements of emissions-heavy products and services, such as flights and fossil fuel vehicles. One might have thought that, but if so, one would be wrong. Overall, such a policy achieved only 47% support, with support at 50% or above in just five countries: Greece (59%); France (56%); Italy (56%); Spain (56%); and the Netherlands (50%). Support in the ever-sceptical Czech Republic was only 34%, and even in Germany, the policy achieved only 41% support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ban on sale of new fossil fuel cars<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This one is really interesting, given that it is something of a policy favourite of the climate-concerned establishment, and is being pushed even harder in the UK, with a 2030 implementation date. The question asked of EU citizens related to a ban from 2035 was split in two \u2013 first a complete ban on the sale of new fossil fuel vehicles from that date, but secondly, such a ban, but with an exception allowing for new petrol and diesel cars to be sold beyond 2035 if running on carbon-neutral synthetic fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The outright ban achieved the support overall of only 27% of respondents, with not even 40% supporting it in any EU country. Our old friends in the Czech Republic gave it an almighty thumbs down, with only 7% support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What of the softer option \u2013 an exception for ICE cars after 2035 if they run on carbon-neutral synthetic fuels? The results are slightly more positive, but there still wasn\u2019t majority support for a ban even then. Overall, this proposition achieved 44% support, with only three countries supporting it: Greece (55%); Italy (55%); and Spain (51%). Only 28% of Czechs think it\u2019s a good idea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tax fossil fuel profits<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

With various black holes appearing in the budgets of finance ministers across Europe, and with the ongoing demonisation of fossil fuels whichever way we turn, this policy (\u201can increase on the taxes paid by energy companies on profits earned from fossil fuels<\/em>\u201d) might have been expected to achieve substantial support. But that isn\u2019t the case; overall respondents were split 50\/50. As usual, Greece gave it the most support (60%) and the Czechs were the most sceptical, with just 38% supporting such a proposal. The Poles were almost equally unenthusiastic, with just 40% support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beef tax<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposal as put was for an increase in taxes on beef so that the price of beef products doubles. It looks as though that\u2019s a policy that should definitely be ditched, with just 22% support overall. There was no majority support anywhere, with only Germany (31%) seeing support limp above 30%. The Czech Republic weighed in with a splendid 7%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tax on flights<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposal put to respondents was an increase in the tax on flights, thereby increasing ticket prices by 50%. That achieved less than one-third support overall, coming in at 31%. Maximum support for the proposal was in Germany (39%). Interestingly, in a reversal of the Greeks\u2019 relative enthusiasm for \u201cclimate policies\u201d, their support for this policy was the lowest of any country, at just 17%. It all goes to show that people know where they make their money (foreign tourists flying in, so far as the Greeks are concerned) and they are never very keen to see their income stream being slashed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have been slightly flippant here, and I should also add some properly sceptical caveats, such as that I don\u2019t know who was asked, how they were asked, and so on. On the other hand, these results are from a survey carried out by an organisation in receipt of EU funding (to the tune of c. 3 million euros), avowedly to \u201cdesign actionable and effective climate policy recommendations.<\/em>\u201d The result is distinctly negative in terms of support for such policies. We are constantly being told that a silent majority supports \u201cclimate action\u201d, but if this survey is to be believed, that most certainly is not the case. People, it seems, are very keen on being allowed to carry on with their lives without being told that they must take fewer flights (or pay more for the privilege), eat less meat, drive EVs, and accept any measures which would reduce their living standards. At the very least, this ought to provide politicians across the EU (and, for that matter, in the UK) with food for thought. Unfortunately, I don\u2019t believe they\u2019re interested. And they wonder why AfD, Reform UK, and sundry other right-wing (or far-right?) parties continue to thrive and generate increasing support. If politicians won\u2019t listen to the public, the public will send them a message at the polls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t