While much of the political debate on climate has rightly focused on the domestic transition here in Britain, this research lifts the lid on what the public think about how we should work with other countries to tackle the global challenge of climate change. Drawing on polling of more than 12,000 Britons and focus group conversations with more than 120 people, this research identifies what the public expect from the government and how they would like the government to tackle climate change on the world stage.

This research highlights both the opportunity for and expectation of leadership on tackling climate change on a global scale. Climate is a top five public priority on climate foreign policy and the public want greater focus on delivering tangible benefits from climate foreign policy, greater security – from national security to energy security – and a reset in our relationship with countries around the world. There is no public mandate for backtracking on our international obligations on tackling climate change.

Designing and delivering a climate foreign policy that is not in tune with the views of the public risks undermining public support for climate action and public support for financial aid to tackle climate action at home and abroad. This report charts out a course for how to avoid that from happening, and to ensure the public’s values, viewpoints and expectations are met as the new government sets out its approach to tackling climate change on the world stage. 

Public’s expectation for British leadership on the world stage

Britons’ views on climate and foreign policy are shaped both by an expectation that we should lead on the world stage, and a frustration that Britain is taken advantage of and seen as both weak and a soft touch by others. Any new approaches to climate foreign policy which can respond to these views will help better command public support. 

Three in five (61 per cent) say the UK should do more to lead the way on global issues, more than twice as many as those who say the UK should not be taking a leading role on global issues. Britons are also more than twice as likely to think that the UK gets taken advantage of on the world stage (55 per cent) than takes advantage of others (24 per cent). The public think others see Britain as ‘weak’ and ‘soft touch’ in our international obligations, but expect Britain to take a leadership role on the world stage. 

Tackling climate change and Britain’s national security 

Britons increasingly think about climate change – and its component impacts – as something which affects the safety and security of the country. The public take a broad view of what ‘security’ means in the national and global context – from the more traditional understanding of ‘national security’ to other security issues including energy, water, and food. It is not surprising that some dubbed the 2024 General election the ‘‘security election’, given around two thirds of the public are worried about national security at home and almost three quarters worried about global security. 

However, not far behind this level of concern over national security is the fact that significantly more than half of the public consider energy, water and food security as something about which they worry too. It is reasonable to conclude that the public increasingly see tackling climate change as something which is important to Britons’ security at home and abroad.   

Meeting the public’s expectations on climate foreign policy

More in Common’s polling and focus group research identifies a range of expectations that the public have on climate foreign policy. Meeting these expectations both gives an opportunity for the public to see their views reflected in Britain’s foreign policy, and avoids the risk of undermining public support for climate action.  These include: 

Helping make Britain feel safer

Rising global instability heavily shapes public views on foreign policy. A key test for any climate foreign policy approach is how does it help make Britain safer in a more uncertain world.  More than three in four Britons (77 per cent) say the world today is less stable than it was ten years ago, and more than half (55 per cent) expect it to be less stable in the coming decade – a view held more strongly by older generations than younger generations.  Any government’s approach to climate foreign policy must respond to those broad concerns about instability, and design and explain an approach to climate change which – at the very least – manages instability more effectively, and helps contribute to reducing that instability. 

Delivering for both nature and people

The public prioritise a climate foreign policy approach which delivers first and foremost for animals and nature. Saving rainforests and protecting biodiversity resonates more with the British public than measures to benefit humans when it comes to tackling climate change.  While the public are more likely to prioritise a nature-centric approach to climate foreign policy, they reject the binary that climate foreign policy should be focused exclusively on either nature or people. Most think that the government’s climate foreign policy should do both and deliver both for nature and people. Even so, framing climate foreign policy through a nature lens can help build public support for doing more internationally on tackling climate change – including action that goes beyond protecting nature and animals.

The role for technology and business 

The public want to see government and businesses working together in partnership to tackle climate change. This partnership with business provides a key opportunity to build public support for climate foreign policy – the public see businesses as ‘climate problem solvers’. As with many issues related to tackling climate change, the public prioritise a more forward-looking approach for British businesses who are tackling climate change over a backward looking approach which holds businesses to account for their historical climate footprint.  

The public want technological innovation to be front and centre of Britain’s approach to tackling climate change both at home and abroad – an approach to climate foreign policy which can do this is more likely to command the support of the public. This is clearly the public want climate foreign policy to demonstrate clearly and tangible how taxpayers’ money will be used towards global climate action.  

A fair approach

The public want an approach to climate foreign policy that helps us deal with the impacts of climate change in a fairer way. There is broad public support for the ‘polluter pays’ idea. Two thirds of the public (67 per cent) think that those who’ve  contributed most to climate change globally should foot the bills and lead the efforts to deal with its impacts. In focus group conversations, it’s clear that the public view this ‘polluter pays’ principle through a large corporation rather than country lens. They want large corporations to be held to account, but the idea that Britain should be responsible for its historic emissions and recompense former colonies does not command public support.

Climate and Overseas Development Aid 

A major component of any policy or political debate on climate foreign policy will be the role that Overseas Development Assistance (also known as foreign or development aid) will play. Most Britons (61 per cent) support the principle of overseas development assistance (ODA) to poorer countries – both because they think it is the right thing to do and they think it is a proud British value to help countries in need. However, the public are twice as likely to think that Britain’s aid budget has increased than decreased, and almost half of the public think that Britain should spend less on foreign aid.

Support for increased overseas development aid or spending more overseas development aid on climate adaptation is contingent upon passing three tests for public support that have emerged from across the polling and focus group research. 

• Test 1: Reciprocity – What’s in it for both Britain and the recipient? – Greater support for ODA can be commanded, particularly for those who are more sceptical, with an approach that focuses on what both the giver and receiver get out of the relationship. ODA needs to pass the reciprocity test: a more equal relationship where both parties have something to offer and something to gain. Climate-related overseas development investment based on business and technology transfer presents an opportunity to meet the public’s expectations on reciprocity. For example, using taxpayers’ money to promote green businesses around the world garners more support than generally tackling climate change or reducing poverty. 
• Test 2: Self-sufficiency – Will this commitment help the recipient to be self-sufficient? The public is weary of long-standing and open-ended spending commitments. It’s for this reason that the public favours approaches to international aid which prioritise recipients increasing their self-sufficiency.  Across polling and focus group research, technology which focuses on tackling climate change is something which first and foremost passes the public’s test for self-sufficiency. The public can clearly see how technology can help recipients of overseas development assistance to become more self-reliant and independent.

• Test 3: Effectiveness  – How is our overseas development assistance making a difference?  The public want something to show for their investment in overseas development assistance. The more tangible the ODA proposition is (particularly around investment in technology) , the more likely the public will think it can be effective and make a difference, and the more likely it will be to command public support. This research finds that climate-related overseas development assistance – whether that’s in the form of supporting green businesses or technology – should be able to meet the public’s expectations and tests, and potentially meet it more easily than more traditional forms of aid or overseas development assistance.