Dr Abi Rhodes
Assistant Professor in Language and Communication, University of Birmingham. Abi is an academic, researcher, and project coordinator with a specialism in social movement-voter communication and grassroots storytelling.
Twitter: @Abi_J_Rhodes
Email: a.j.rhodes@bham.ac.uk
UK Election 2024
Section 5: Policy and strategy
50. It’s the cost-of-living-crisis, stupid! (Prof Aeron Davis)
51. The last pre-war vote? Defence and foreign policy in the 2024 Election (Dr Russell Foster)
52. The 2024 UK general election and the absence of foreign policy (Dr Victoria Honeyman)
53. Fractious consensus: defence policy at the 2024 General Election (Dr Ben Jones)
54. The psycho-politics of climate denial in the 2024 UK election (Prof Candida Yates, Dr Jenny Alexander)
55. How will the Labour government fare and what should they do better? (Prof Rick Stafford and team)
56. Finding the environment: climate obstructionism and environmental movements on TikTok (Dr Abi Rhodes)
57. Irregular migration: ‘Stop the boats’ vs ‘Smash the Gangs’ (Prof Alex Balch)
58. The sleeping dog of ‘Europe: UK relations with the EU as a non-issue (Prof Simon Usherwood)
59. Labour: a very conservative housing manifesto (Prof Becky Tunstall)
60. Why the Labour Government must abolish the two-child benefit limit policy (Dr Yekaterina Chzhen)
61. Take the next right: mainstream parties’ positions on gender and LGBTQ+ equality issues (Dr Louise Luxton)
Despite high-levels of concern for climate change and widespread support among voters for the UK’s net zero targets, environmental issues seemed to be scarce during the 2024 general election. Research from Loughborough University, showed that television and print media coverage of the environment (including climate change) remained low, receiving only 3% of the overall coverage.
The two main political parties initially took different approaches to the climate. The tone seemingly set for the Conservatives with Rishi Sunak using his election announcement speech to claim his party have “prioritised energy security and your family finances over environmental dogma”. Early election plans suggested Labour were pledging to make the climate a key focus of its campaign, yet Keir Starmer’s election statement made no mention of the climate or the environment, referring only to “sewage in our rivers”. The TV debates were equally devoid of substantive discussion of the topic with answers in the first leaders’ debate on ITV conflating climate policies with energy security, lowering energy bills, and the cost of living. Combining issues in this way reveals an interesting aspect to the absence of the environment during this election.
My early research shows that across legacy newspaper outlets the focus on the climate at times tracked a more right-wing agenda and followed narratives dubbed ‘new climate denial’ or ‘climate obstructionism’. Rather than focusing on the cost of inaction, this broad perspective centres on the financial cost of environmental policies, underpinned by an assumption that solutions to climate change are expensive. During the UK election, examples from newspapers reveal environmental policies painted as problematic to a country facing a cost of living crisis and the drive to net zero as harmful to the economy. It is possible that attention on finances resonated with what YouGov identified as the most important issue for voters in this election: ‘the cost of living’. But, as noted above, the environment was also a concern to voters and the mixing of the two issues (cost of living and the climate) featured in news media reporting and social movement electoral communication.
The environmental movement, made up of multiple groups in the UK this election, tried to cut through on TikTok to refocus voter attention on the climate. A coalition of organisations came together under the banner of Restore Nature Now, including Extinction Rebellion and Greenpeace UK but, unusually during an election, also the RSPB, National Trust, The Wildlife Trusts, and The Woodland Trust. To differing degrees, the organisations’ posts on TikTok highlighted the need for policies to address the worsening crisis, but also to respond to climate obstructionism.
Each of the larger national charities stuck to the rules of purdah by focusing their attention on non-election issues or on registering to vote, and building for the national Restore Nature Now demonstration held on 22nd June. Extinction Rebellion (XR) took a more backseat approach to this election, unlike in 2019 when it adopted multiple actions during a six week long ‘Election Rebellion’ campaign. Yet, in the same vein as their last election activities, XR demanded the government act by setting up a ‘Citizens Assembly on Climate and Ecological Justice’ and, like the People’s Assembly Against Austerity in 2017, they focused social media content on mobilising for a national demonstration.
This time around it was Greenpeace UK that took up the mantle of election rallying, calling for people to join Project Climate Vote. Like XR in 2019, the group called upon the electorate to vote for the climate when casting their ballot and chose offline visual stunts such as activists climbing aloft the Conservative Party battle bus. In a challenge to climate obstructionism, the group reminded the electorate that renewable energy and home insulation can “help poorer households with energy bills. They also seem to respond directly to the fusing of climate policies with the cost of living when posting a video asking ‘Why choose between the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis when we can solve BOTH?’
Greenpeace UK also sought to ‘debunk’ Nigel Farage’s claim that it is “not fossil fuels that are making you poor, but the transition to net zero”. They did so by challenging inaccuracies in the Reform leader’s claims around renewable energy producing higher bills and the lack of economic benefits from a green transition. The group’s counterclaims were coupled with a graph showing the falling cost of renewable energy and an infographic outlining the jobs a greener economy will bring. Not only do such messages stand in opposition to climate obstructionism and denial, they might also speak to voters not ordinarily associated with climate action who are concerned with the cost of living and support environmental policies.
Finding the environment in this election was not straightforward. Overt communication around the climate by political parties, legacy media outlets, and environmental groups was not as evident as it was in 2019. But, as this piece reveals, the climate was present. It was entangled with communication around the cost of living and the economy, which tracks the new climate denial narrative.
