The BBC survey suggested that over 80% of UK people are ‘ready to make significant changes in the way I live to help prevent global warming’. Nearly 90% think that changes in lifestyle will be necessary to address the problem. These numbers are approximately the same as among urban Chinese and only marginally higher than the US.

E.ON’s segmentation has over 20% of the UK already taking serious and possibly costly personal action related to climate change. Less than 15% actively reject any need to act now.

***

BBC World Service recently published the results of a large worldwide survey on climate change issues. It gathered data from over 20 countries but the results I write about in this section are from the US, urban Chinese and UK responses. For clarity, I have generally grouped the responses into percentages that ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ although respondents will have usually been offered a wider range of options. I have omitted ‘don’t knows’.

Human activity is a significant cause of global warming

More people in China think that human activity is responsible than in the UK or the US.

Is it necessary to take steps to reduce the impact of human activities?

The Chinese are more inclined to believe it is necessary to take major steps to do something about climate change. In the UK and the US, the percentage of people saying nothing needs to be done is well below the percentage of ‘deniers’. Many of the sceptics still want to do something. This is not irrational. We insure our houses even though the chance of damage is tiny.

Developing nations should not be expected to limit their emissions

A large majority in China agree that developing nations should limit emissions. The other countries also have a strong view that developing countries need to bear some of the burden.

To encourage individuals to use less, the costs of energy should be increased

Even in America there is a two-to-one majority in favour of increasing the price of carbon-based energy.

Changes in lifestyle and behaviour are necessary to reduce global warming gases

The view that lifestyle changes are necessary is more strongly held than that carbon-based energy prices should be increased.

Taxes on carbon fuels should be raised

The Chinese are much more in favour of using taxes than the UK and US. In the UK and US these numbers are substantially below the percentages of people who think that is necessary to raise energy prices.

In some further questions those opposing tax increases were asked whether using the money to support renewables and energy efficiency would change their view. About half of the opponents in the UK and US changed their mind to support higher taxes in these cases.

Ready to make significant changes to the way I live to help prevent global warming

About 80% of people are prepared to make significant changes to lifestyle. The percentages ‘strongly’ agreeing with this statement were 43% in the US, 47% in China and 37% in the UK. The percentage of people apparently really committed to doing something is lowest in the UK, though still a large fraction of the population. This is consistent with the results from the HSBC poll reported on in an earlier edition of Carbon Commentary.

The overall conclusions from the BBC survey
Opinions vary across the world, but a clear majority is in favour of the view that humankind is responsible and that lifestyles will have to change to meet the challenge. There is no evidence to support the view that people in China are any less prepared to bear some burden than respondents in the UK and US.

The E.ON survey
E.ON published a long document summarising several pieces of research it has carried out this year.

Children’s views
The report looks first at the attitudes of children and young people to climate change, showing a higher degree of concern than among older people. Paul Golby, CEO of E.ON UK, writes:

‘Not only are children most worried about global warming and climate change…but they are also convinced we won’t be able to solve the problem for them.’

73% of children believe that all energy should come from renewable sources. 69% ‘believe that they have a responsibility to encourage others to recycle and save energy’.

My interpretation of E.ON’s commentary is that levels of knowledge about climate change are surprisingly low, but there is a substantial degree of generalised anxiety about the problem.

Adult segmentation
The second issue of Carbon Commentary carried an article on the results of segmentation studies by Henley Centre and Marks & Spencer. M&S sees the following segments:

• A: Green zealots: people who will actively seek out the most ethically and environmentally responsible products. Climate change is particularly important issue to these people.
• B: Those interested and concerned, but often uncertain how to shop to achieve their ethical objectives.
• C: Aware of the problem, not certain that their actions can have much effect or that they need to shop differently.
• D: Struggling, do not give high priority to issues covered in Plan A.

The company assessed the percentages in each segment as follows:

E.ON cuts the population into five types, not four:

• Type 1: ‘Clued up about environmental issues and recognises the direct impact the UK’s energy consumption has on climate change.’
• Type 2: ‘They believe people are damaging the environment and are taking some tentative easy steps to reduce their impact.’
• Type 3: ‘This segment seems happy for others to save the planet, with their support. They have taken few, if any, steps themselves.’
• Type 4: ‘The issue is generally not that important to them.’
• Type 5: ‘They disagree that humanity is to blame for climate change…They don’t recognise any need to act now.’

Types 4 and 5 seem very similar to Marks & Spencer’s group D: both with about 25-30% of the population. These people will not be receptive to marketing offers that focus on the climate change benefits of a product or service. Type 1 is an extended version of M&S’s group A, less committed than the ‘zealots’ of A, but still well informed and worried. Type 1 people will respond well to green offers. The marketing challenge will be to get people in Types 2 and 3 to match their concerns over climate change with purchasing decisions that match their own attitudes.

In at least one other country, the advertising regulator has thrown in the towel and told some advertisers simply to stop advertising green claims. Reuters reports that Norway’s Consumer Ombudsman has told car advertisers that ‘We ask that…phrases such as “environmentally friendly”, “green”, “clean”, “environmental car”, “natural” or similar descriptions not be used in marketing cars.’

We cannot be far away from this sort of rule in the UK. Green claims are almost invariably contentious and difficult to prove. We simply don’t have an accounting system that can deal yet with carbon. Advertisers are going to be forced to avoid any but the most clear-cut and well-documented savings.

***

The ASA June guidance
The Authority’s stance on green advertising is expressed very clearly:

• Get your facts right: advertising claims should be backed up with documentary evidence.
• Knowledge is developing all the time. Don’t present claims as being universally accepted if the science is inconclusive.
• Don’t use pseudo-science, or terms that will not be generally understood by the readers of your advertisement.
• Avoid sweeping or absolute claims such as ‘environmentally friendly’ or ‘wholly biodegradable’. It’s unlikely that you will be able to prove your product has no environmental impact.

Taken at their face value, these guidelines should stop most green advertising. It will still be okay to say that a new refrigerator reduces electricity consumption, but anything more complex should be banned. Nevertheless the stream of spurious claims continues unabate

It is not entirely the advertisers’ fault. The npower wind farm decision last week illustrated how difficult it will for advertisers to stick within the guidelines. npower had used a figure for the average carbon content of grid electricity when saying that a new wind farm would reduce emissions by 33,000 tonnes. It based its calculation accurately on previous guidance from the Authority issued in response to a previous complaint. The old decision had allowed a renewables company to claim big carbon savings because wind power replaced coal. ‘Aha!’ said the ASA, ‘Haven’t you people at npower noticed that these days coal stations are used all the time and it is the gas-fired stations that provide the marginal generating capacity? You should have used the much lower savings from replacing gas as a fuel for your wind power figures. In future, work out the emissions from the marginal electricity generator (the one that gets turned on last when electricity demand rises) and use that number.’

It made this decision based on advice from the National Grid. But the relative prices of coal and gas change every week. Any conscientious advertiser will now have to avoid claiming anything other than the minimum savings from renewable power.

The Authority’s tougher stance should also cover advertising of the carbon savings of other products. But an advertiser determined to avoid criticism from the ASA can throw huge amounts of evidence into the battle and delay a final decision. In April 2007, I complained to the Authority about an advertisement for the Ford Focus ‘dual fuel’ car, which can run on 85% ethanol. The company claimed that the car could save 80% of the carbon from petrol. In effect it was therefore saying that the 85% ethanol had virtually no fossil fuel overhead. As the article on biofuels in this newsletter shows, this is a highly questionable assertion. In fact, the 80% figure was much higher than 40% the company had claimed in a press release the previous month.

After a couple of months, the Authority issued a draft decision agreeing with my complaint, but for reasons other than the ones I had specified. The Authority claimed, quite correctly, that the 85% was spurious because the fuel buyer can only get 85% ethanol in a handful of petrol stations in the UK. Unless one drives in circles around small areas of East Anglia or Somerset, you would have to fill up the car with ordinary petrol, saving nothing.

Ford complained. The ASA hadn’t ‘upheld’ the complaint I had actually made. It had invented another one. The car maker sensibly insisted we argue the issue I had initially raised. Since June, Ford and I have been exchanging vigorous letters through the ASA debating whether it is theoretically conceivable that the Focus Flexi Fuel could save 80% of carbon emissions. The Authority is growing ever quieter as the discussion drifts into whether the straw output from a wheat field should be included in the energy balance for ethanol production. I am out my depth, I know Ford is, and I suspect the ASA is too. This debate will probably go on until one side tires, and I have to admit it will probably be me.

Results like this probably aren’t good for consumers or for advertisers. A cynical public will grow increasingly suspicious of ever more outlandish claims. The ASA should simply copy the Norwegians and require a much higher standard of proof. If this restricts green advertising, so be it.

During the last year or so, the percentage of ‘green zealots’ in M&S research has risen from 3-4% to nearer 8%. Henley also sees a figure of 8% for the two greenest groups ‘principled pioneers’ and ‘vocal activists’. A further 31% (Henley Centre) or 30-35% (M&S) are actively concerned and want to adjust their behaviour. There has also been a big growth in this group in the last year.

In both surveys another third are aware of environmental and ethical issues, but are unlikely to take active steps unless pushed. A final quarter or so don’t care very much. M&S says that they are ‘struggling’. Henley calls them ‘disengaged’.

***

Consumers do not generally see climate change as the most important environmental and ethical issue

M&S’s strikingly ambitious Plan A has five sets of targets. Only one of these relates to climate change. M&S emphasises the hierarchy of consumer concerns that drove it towards the wide spectrum of targets in the 100-point Plan.

1. Food and Health: consumers want food to be made from high quality ingredients, with no additives and minimum amounts of salts, saturated fats and other undesirable ingredients.
2. Ethical sourcing: M&S customers generally want to buy goods that are made and sold under what might be called ‘FairTrade’ conditions. Suppliers are paid properly, workers are not exploited and environmental damage is minimised.
3. Better recycling, less packaging
4. Climate change

M&S commented that Food and Health was ‘way out on its own’ as an issue, but other concerns have been creeping up to match it. Respondents to its surveys are now much better informed about environmental issues but ‘there’s still an awful lot of confusion’.

M&S customer segmentation work throws up 4 groups:

• A: Green zealots: people who will actively seek out the most ethically and environmentally responsible products. Climate change is particularly important issue to these people.
• B: Those interested and concerned, but often uncertain how to shop to achieve their ethical objectives.
• C: Aware of the problem, not certain that their actions can have much effect or that they need to shop differently.
• D: Struggling, do not give high priority to issues covered in Plan A.

The company gives some approximate figures for the numbers in each group compared to the numbers of three years ago.

Marks and Spencer consumer segmentation

The key change in the last few years has been the move from group C to group B. The A family has grown substantially but still remains a small percentage. The strugglers have largely remained in the same group. To put it in simple terms, the mainstream M&S customer has shifted from a C to a B. This makes Plan A seem entirely logical, though I think the company may actually be moving somewhat faster than its customers. Plan A almost seems to suggest that M&S thinks that its core shoppers are just about to shift to Group A.

M&S’s numbers have great similarity to those produced by the Henley Centre in mid-summer.

Henley Centre consumer segmentation

Henley makes the point that consumers in group A will already be choosing their goods and services with care. Group B will tend to make the same purchase decisions, though they may be less vocal about their preferences. Group C will not take active measures themselves, but Henley says that they will not object if companies selling to them ‘edit out’ products that do not meet reasonable ethical or environmental standards. This is consistent with M&S’s view that its customers wanted the chain to take positive actions to improve the environmental attributes of the products its stores sold, even at a small increment in the price.

Perhaps the two main features of these research findings are:

• Trusted brands do have some freedom to take less environmentally acceptable goods and services off the shelf. Three quarters of the population accept that issues such as climate change should affect what is selected by retailers for sale.
• The zealots are growing in number, but don’t yet form a mass market for most products and services. Products like British Gas’s Zero Carbon tariff (covered in Carbon Commentary Newsletter #1) will be taken up by this group, but will struggle to penetrate beyond this demographic.

Separately, Henley comments that the most concerned consumers do not strongly congregate in a particular age group, social class or region of the country. This finding is entirely consistent with other surveys. Boden mums in Surrey may not be any more likely to search out ethical brands than middle-aged male teachers in Gateshead. This makes ethical marketing more difficult because target audiences do not correspond well to well-understood existing demographic segments. It will be interesting to research what TV the zealots watch and which web sites attract their regular attention. My guess is that these consumers are disportionately members of ethical pressure groups such as WWF and Greenpeace. The Friends of the Earth mailing list is going to get more valuable.