David Cameron’s speech on the Big Society in Liverpool on Monday contained no mention of carbon, or of sustainable communities. But community wind farms, shared allotments and energy efficiency organisations like Peckham Power (who Green Alliance recently met) are all great contenders for creating more community action and cohesion.

And if the government is to meet its carbon reduction targets and live up to the title of “greenest government ever”, then it’s crucial that the big society becomes the big green society.

This is especially true since the energy we use in our homes is responsible for around a quarter of UK carbon emissions, and action through groups and communities could be one of the most promising ways of bringing about behaviour change.

We’ll be holding events at all three political party conferences this year exploring the idea of a big green society, as well as looking into it in our Third Sector theme.

This brilliant animation brings to life a talk given by Dan at the Royal Society of Arts earlier this year. He argues that if we “get past this ideology of carrots and sticks” and stop treating people as though they’re simply “slower, smaller, better smelling horses,” we could create much better workplaces. Might a similar approach be useful for encouraging people to live lower carbon lives?

Watch the animation here

Whatever the question – from which professionals are most trusted, to whether we care about climate change – there’s likely to be a survey with an answer.

These opinion polls are statistically significant, carefully weighted…and best taken with a pinch of salt.

Why? Because people’s answers are heavily dependent on how the question is asked – the ideas and language that are used, and the context that is given. 

This was more obvious than usual in an opinion poll published last month about children’s attitudes to nature.

The poll, commissioned by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), asked 10,000 5–18 year-olds to rank what was most important to them. They were asked to choose between a range of options, which included ‘watching TV and playing computers games’ and ‘saving the environment’. Unsurprisingly ten times as many chose the former than the latter. The CBD used this as evidence of the “alarming” attitude to nature displayed by today’s youth.

But is this really a fair question? Watching TV and playing computer games is something a lot of children enjoy and are very familiar with, since in the UK they spend an average of 3 hours per day doing exactly that.

‘Saving the environment’ on the other hand is an extremely abstract concept, something they are unlikely to relate to (even if they do recycle or go for walks in the countryside), and is not likely to evoke any emotions. In social science terms, “saving the environment” is simply not a salient (relevant) idea for these children. It also does nothing to hint that this child’s future may be bound up with the fate of ‘the environment’. (For more reasons to never to utter the words ‘saving the environment’ read the linguist George Lakoff’s contribution to our report From hot air to happy endings).

Had the ‘I care about nature’ option been expressed in a more concrete, relevant and imaginable way, more children may have chosen it. Indeed “protecting animals” got twice as many votes as “saving the environment”.

But changing the point of comparison might have made an even bigger difference to the answers. Had the pollsters asked the children what they thought was more important, digging up more coal or saving the environment, I very much doubt they would have got 10-1 in favour of digging up coal. Of course this is not a totally neutral comparison either - there isn’t one.

But what does this mean for the polls that newly elected politicians might listen to?

It means that framing – i.e. the language, ideas, values and reference points pollsters use – influence people’s answers, and that politicians would be wise to treat opinion polls on climate change and the environment with some caution.

A survey that asked people to rank the importance of the environment compared to other issues such as health, jobs, and the cost of living, for example, would get very different results to a survey that asked about the importance of having a sustainable economy or better air quality, because they draw on totally different sets of values and ideas. But both could be used to speculate on public willingness to support measures to tackle climate change.

A recent Ipsos MORI poll showed that concern about climate change had declined slightly since 2005, with 71% of people now fairly or very concerned about climate change. But it also showed that public support for renewable energy remained much higher than for fossil fuel power.

Of all energy sources solar power was viewed most favourably (88% saw it as mainly or very favourable), followed by wind (82%). Gas was most favoured of the fossil fuels (56%) and coal came in at 36%. The question about energy sources is arguably more relevant to the development of a lower carbon economy, but the abstract question on concern about climate change gained most public attention.

The CBD’s poll doesn’t show that children don’t care very much about nature. It shows that the way questions are framed is crucial in shaping people’s answers. Politicians would be wise to remember this when trying to gauge the support of the electorate.

The government is doing an excellent job of communicating a political issue at the moment.

David Cameron talks of transparency and honesty, of being upfront about the scale of the challenge. He talks about collective responsibility and facing up to our legacy and what we need to do for ourselves and future generations.

He talks about winners and losers, but action that will be felt by all, in every household. About tough choices and government taking a lead, with no one too senior to be exempt. About the future, and freedom and a better, more attractive life.

And this narrative is being religiously adhered to across government. It is the mantra we hear when meeting Secretaries of State. It will be channelled through every single government department and agency from the national to the local level. And it will be reflected in the action we see around us, in the papers, on the TV. It is, and will remain, the stuff of debate and discussion.

And what are they talking about? No big surprise here, this is about the economy and the dizzyingly high debt that the country is facing. But for a moment you could be fooled into thinking they were talking about responding to the challenge of climate change.

This story about cutting the deficit is not just one we will hear about, we will feel their words - in the schools that can't get new sports halls, in the architects that lose their jobs, in the civil servants that join the job centre queues. Yet the way we have been presented with this challenge will make us feel that this was the only way, that government had no choice, it was taking the responsible route before things got too bad.

And yes it will be hard. But we will be travelling to a future that is far more attractive, a "big society" (not small government) where we help each other and know our neighbours and this pain will help us get there.

So government can do it. It can make a challenge so enormous feel achievable with strong leadership. And it can talk about something so unattractive and unpalatable that it could result in action at the ballot box and power full steam ahead, knowing we have no choice as a society. It can cross departmental divisions and silos and get all departments working with a core goal in their midst.

The Conservative coalition government can be a master story-teller. It has understood what its cousins in the States, the Republicans, have known for years: that language and stories affect how people respond to an issue. It's how you deliver the lines, on all levels.

Isn't it about time we had such a strong, consistent and considered story on climate change?

I rode into work by bike today. It was the first time in seven months I had braved London roads, having just returned from a sabbatical abroad. All too soon I was reminded of what a battle it is cycling. ‘Speed up’ shouts a red escort driver honking as I weave my way down Victoria Street, past the lumbering buses and avoiding the bumpy manhole covers.

Everything as I cycled to work was screaming at me that I shouldn’t be cycling: the lack of cycle lanes, the lorries that pass dangerously close, the impatient cabbies and the sweat running down my back as I try to keep up with motorised traffic. There was a time that I loved this adrenaline rush, and the almost tribal feeling you had being part of ‘team cyclists’. Now, having had time away from it, I resent feeling so hounded, just because I choose a certain, very legal, mode of transport which the government is supposed to support.

As I rode down a quieter street I thought back to my two years in Amsterdam, where I first got a taste for two-wheels. Everything there was screaming at me to get on a bike: the safely separated bicycle lanes, the fact that people could ride along in their work clothes without having to stink by the time they arrived at their destination, the bike parks everywhere (even to the extent of a bike ‘car park’ at central station), the fact that all drivers use their wing mirrors religiously and my group of friends who all cycled regularly with no problem at all. So, reluctantly I ended up joining the huge proportion of the city that cycle, and enjoyed it. In Amsterdam there is no tribal grouping, cycling is just a normal, expected part of the way people get around.

Consider the difference between the latent messages that are being sent to me in the UK and in Holland. Here everything that I see and experience around me is telling me cycling is not a priority, that car, taxi and bus drivers have a greater right to use the road than I do, and makes me start to think that I am crazy to risk my life in this way every morning.

People believe what they see and experience, more than what they are told. The message that the government (or in London’s case, the Mayor) is trying to get through about ‘driving less’ is drowned out by the negative battle people have when they are trying to do just that. Every signal is telling me not to cycle. So am I really going to believe that my daily cycling battle is important when I sit down and see the DfT’s ‘drive less’ advert on TV, very possibly after Top Gear and inbetween car ads?

Government needs to get smarter about the messages it send out if it really wants to encourage people to change their behaviour (as well as of course putting in the required infrastructure and incentives). We need to take action on climate change out of politician’s speeches and worthy TV adverts, and into people’s lives, in a way that they can tangibly feel. This was one of the conclusions of Green Alliance’s recent publication From hot air to happy endings which looked at how to inspire public support for a low carbon society.

In their first joint press conference as Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg promised a government ‘where fine words on the environment are finally translated into real action’. Before putting any more money into TV adverts, this new government needs to think how any action is actually experienced on the ground, by the people they are asking to change. This is as true for a myriad of other behaviours as it is for cycling.

Let’s start making sure that the signals that people receive are all encouraging them to act in the same direction. Once London is screaming the same messages to me about cycling as Amsterdam, I’ll know the government have understood how people really operate.

• An edited version of this article was published in the June issue the environmentalist

Public debate on climate change has chiefly focused on two things in recent months – the international climate talks in Copenhagen and the research methods of a handful of climate scientists.

As long as these are the stories people hear about climate change, it is no surprise that public support for a low carbon economy can sometimes be found wanting.

Looking at climate change primarily as an academic debate between sceptics and climate scientists, rather than as a practical challenge to be overcome, means that vital conversations about what a low carbon future would like, and how it can be achieved, are stalled.

And while an international deal on climate change is of the utmost importance, to most people it also seems of utmost irrelevance. After all, they are not diplomats and international agreements are far removed from their daily lives.

If our leaders want public support for a wholesale shift to low carbon life, they need to start telling better stories. If politicians trade bland slogans like ‘ACT ON CO2’ for inspirational stories about creating a better future and ensuring our freedom and security, then people will start to listen. If they swap tales of distant melting icecaps and multilateral agreements for debates about what action we need at home, dealing with climate change becomes relevant.

But better stories are only part of what is needed. In order to influence public support, these stories have to be heard, and they have to be credible.

Politicians should consider carefully who does the talking on climate change. Given that politicians are among the least trusted people in Britain, and many people do not identify with environmentalists, government would be well advised to enlist other people to talk about climate change. Business people could talk to businesses, for example, and trade unionists to trade unions.

Taking practical actions that result in visible change is also critical to gaining public support. Politicians can talk until they are red – or blue – in the face, but people will only believe that change is real and important if they see it happening. Visible projects such as a well-branded national housing refurbishment programme, wind turbines on roofs, or priority lanes for electric cars could help take low carbon living out of politicians’ speeches and into people’s lives.  

The Committee on Climate Change has said we need to see a step change in the UK’s efforts to cut carbon; to help make this possible we also need a step change in the level, coherence and quality of political communication. By communicating better with the public, politicians could build stronger support for policies and reduce the likelihood of a public backlash.

But this is not to say that politicians should delay taking action until they have built stronger public support. In fact, taking bold action is a vital communication tool in itself, as it shows politicians’ commitment and reduces the confusing gap between the catastrophe government talks about and its own modest responses so far.

Understanding what motivates people is the key to good climate change communications.

Without an appreciation of human psychology, politicians will find neither workable solutions, nor public support. To paraphrase psychologist Adam Corner, they’ll end up with a zero carbon bus fleet with zero passengers.

When it comes to talking to the public about the shift to low carbon living, politicians could be much more persuasive if they understood people better. Luckily, a whole range of disciplines have long had this as their aim, from communications to psychology to marketing. And one product has done extremely well out of distilling this knowledge: the self-help book.

Here, under titles adapted from some of the genre’s best-selling editions, is an introduction to Green Alliance's new guide for politicians who want to inspire support for climate change policies.

How to talk so people listen: The key to job success

Telling a good story is a prerequisite for getting people’s attention, never mind their support. Keep talking about impending climate doom and people will switch off pretty quickly.

Now that Copenhagen is over it’s time to stop talking about multilateral agreements and melting icecaps and start telling positive stories about what we can do in the UK. Government needs a desirable vision of a low carbon future and an action plan to get us there. Politicians should inspire people using concepts such as freedom and fairness, not just statistics. And it’s crucial to be clear that this problem is not just environmental, but relates to fundamental national concerns such as security.

Some people are from mars, some are from venus

Politicians need to understand the values that motivate people. Relating the low carbon shift to their current desires, whether that’s feeling safe, being popular, or becoming a better person, is much better than relating it to abstract global problems.

But politicians also need to know what they want to get out of their relationship with the public. If you want people to drive electric cars and buy different light bulbs then this approach might be enough. But if politicians expect the public to use less stuff and co-operate more, then they might have to go beyond appealing to dominant values and try to promote more latent ones, such as responsibility and care for others.

The magic of thinking big

Climate change is a big problem, but some of the suggested solutions have been decidedly small. Variations on “Apocalypse is coming! Green your life in five simple steps” has been the story line to the public for some time. This clearly doesn’t stack up, and misses out a crucial part of the story.

With a problem on the scale of climate change, we need big solutions and only government can make these happen. Politicians should move from “are you doing your bit?” campaigns to “we’re doing our bit”, publicising government action and communicating under the core message “we’re doing everything we can to make these changes possible, but we can’t do it without your help.” With a big overarching story on going low carbon, politicians can ask more of the public, and public action makes more sense.

Show, don't tell!: secrets of good writing

As any budding writer knows, telling people something is much less compelling than showing it to them. Writers can do this through description, politicians through action. Politicians can talk until they are blue in the face, but until people see changes happening, most won’t pay any attention.

Events like a climate change version of Red Nose Day, visible changes such a clearly branded loft insulation programme, and price signals such as cheaper train tickets would all show people that this is for real. Visible actions take low carbon living out of the realm of speeches and into people’s lives.

Feel the fear and do it anyway: how to turn your fear and indecision into confidence and action

Communicating better could certainly help politicians to get stronger public support for decarbonising the UK. But uncertain public support is no excuse for inaction. To lead us through this crisis, politicians will sometimes need to venture out of their comfort zone. They need to feel the fear and do it anyway. In fact, taking bold action is a vital communication tool in itself, as it shows commitment and reduces the confusing gap between the catastrophe government talks about and its modest actions so far.

(For more details see our report from hot air to happy endings: how to inspire public support for a low carbon economy) 

A very good introduction to the potential for green or climate bonds to raise significant finance for the low carbon transition can be found on the Climate Bonds Initiative site. This international collaboration, supported by the Network for Sustainable Financial Markets and Carbon Disclosure Project, is looking at the case for climate bonds at an international level.

The site was launched at Copenhagen and there are some very useful papers going through the case and some of the ways to construct such bonds. The Climate Bonds Initiative is a global collaboration and the website will be a good place to keep up with developments from around the world.

A very good summary of how private financing works for renewable energy has just been produced for Chatham House by Kirsty Hamilton and Sophie Justice. Entitled Private Financing of Renewable Energy – A Guide for Policymakers, it does exactly what it says on the tin.

Kirsty has spent over five years working with the finance community on renewable energy issues and has produced a very clear, concise guide to the types of finance required and available for getting renewable energy deployed at scale. The paper also looks at the common barriers to accessing this finance and the impacts of the credit crunch so far.

As well as this paper Kirsty has also published a longer document Unlocking Finance for Clean Energy: the Need for ‘Investment Grade’ Policy. This is a more detailed look at the policy framework for clean energy through the lens of the private investment community. Both papers come highly recommended.

The UK Pre-Budget Report contained an announcement of the creation of Infrastructure UK. This new body, to be chaired by Paul Skinner, ex-Chairman of Rio Tinto, is being set up to develop a strategy for the UK’s infrastructure over the next 5 to 50 years. The Pre-Budget Report also states that Infrastructure UK will begin to lever in more investment to low carbon infrastructure projects from sources including the European Investment Bank.

One of its tasks, before the Budget in Spring 2010, will be to consider the case for a ‘low carbon investment institution’, to facilitate more rapid investment in low carbon infrastructure. This is widely assumed to be a Green Investment Bank.

More details on Infrastructure UK will be published soon, but now the UK Government has joined the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in formally developing policy in this area. This is no more than first base in the policy debate as both major parties could yet reject the whole idea. You can see the Green Alliance reaction to the announcement here. Green Alliance and partners will be building up the case over the next few crucial months. 

The World Bank is continuing to lead the way in creating a global market in green bonds. It has been one of the leading institutions to begin issuing green bonds and demonstrating there is a market for them amongst investors. Their third tranche of green bonds was issued on 3 December 2009 with the total now raised reaching $800 million in the space of a year. The take up from large public sector pension funds in particular, has been very positive.

To complement the actual market activity, there have been a variety of recent papers advocating the use of climate bonds, public finance mechanisms and development banks as ways to reduce the risks to private investors of low carbon projects in the developing world. The best of these are from Lord Stern’s group in London School of Economics, and a coalition of investors brought together by UNEP.

Lord Stern’s Grantham Institute at the LSE produced a detailed set of papers in September 2009 setting out the case for using public finance mechanisms as a means of delivering the financial transfers from the developed to developing world that are being negotiated in Copenhagen. In doing so these mechanisms have the potential to lever in many billions of private sector capital as well.

UNEP, in partnership with a number of global investor groups such as the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change and the P8 Group of major pension funds, produced a report in October 2009, arguing a similar case. Their report, Catalysing low-carbon growth in developing countries, recommended a series of mechanisms that could reduce specific risks facing private investors in low carbon projects in developing countries. Some of these were analogous to insurance cover backed by public institutions like development banks.

If such mechanisms can be effective for investment in the developing world, there is no reason why the same principles could not be applied to the developed world. Perhaps we should be admitting to ourselves that we are economies in transition to a radically different low carbon future.

Green Alliance is amongst a number of organisations developing policy and advocating new ways to secure private investment into the transition of the UK infrastructure required to deliver a low carbon economy. We have published our own briefing on Establishing a Green Investment Bank for the UK, and will be publishing other papers in the next few months on aspects of this debate.

But this blog will mainly provide a commentary on events, publications and speeches of other organisations in the field of green finance policy. Our aim is for this to be a resource for others in this space to build and disseminate their ideas, also be an entry point for people interested in these issues and wanting to find out more.

For example, on of the most recent endorsements for a Green Investment Bank and associated green bonds is the business and NGO coalition, the Aldersgate Group. In a report published in October called Financing the Transition, the group which has members that include United Utilities, BT, the Environment Industries Commission and WWF, argues that issuing climate bonds could be a way of offering institutional investors secure and long term returns for low carbon investments.

This week, has seen a flurry of political activity. On Tuesday, Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne backed the idea of a Green Investment bank. He announced in a wide ranging speech that the Conservatives ‘are consulting on the creation of a Green Investment Bank which will invest in the next generation of green British business’. There is a little more detail in the speech, but not enough to judge the policy. Green Alliance will be working with others to influence this consultation.

Then on Wednesday, the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable announced his party was backing the creation of a National Infrastructure Bank. This institution would certainly be able to lever private finance into much of the low carbon infrastructure that the country needs, but it must have a clear remit on low carbon transition to prevent other higher carbon infrastructure such as road building or airports also being given support.

The Pre-Budget Report is due in early December. We wait with interest to see if the Government will come forward with ideas to match the opposition.

We are calling for the creation of a publicly owned Green Investment Bank in the UK to facilitate the large scale mobilisation of private capital that will be required to deliver a low carbon transition.

Read the details of the call in  our briefing . (pdf - 84.1 kilobyte)