We spoke with 1,000 children and their parents to explore their views, knowledge, and concerns about climate change—revealing a complex mix of awareness, anxiety, and desire for action.

Awareness and Understanding:

Knowledge gaps remain significant. Just over half of school-aged children recall learning about climate change recently, with most exposure occurring around ages 15–16.

However, understanding of key concepts—such as “net zero,” the 1.5°C and 2°C targets, and the specific impacts on the UK—is generally poor, even among older children. Many overestimate the impact of actions like recycling while underestimating the importance of reducing fossil fuel use.

Low confidence in climate literacy: Only a small proportion of teens feel they know “a lot” about the causes or solutions to climate change, and misconceptions persist about both the sources of emissions and effective mitigation strategies.

Limited awareness of solutions: Many children and parents are unaware of the extent of renewable energy production in the UK or the range of adaptation and mitigation strategies already in place or needed.

Attitudes and Emotions:

Concern is widespread, but not universal: Around 42% of school leavers describe themselves as “fairly concerned” about climate change, with 12% “very concerned.” However, more are “not very” or “not at all” concerned than are “very concerned,” indicating a spectrum of attitudes.

Eco-anxiety is rising: Nearly half (49%) of UK youth aged 16–25 report being very or extremely worried about climate change. Common feelings include anxiety, frustration, anger, hopelessness, and fear for the future, especially when they perceive government or adult inaction.

Desire for hope and agency: Experts highlight the importance of fostering not just concern but also hope—showing young people that climate action is possible and relevant to their lives and future careers.

Parental Perspectives:

Support for education: Parents generally support more robust climate education, recognising that their children’s knowledge is patchy and often shaped by media or social networks rather than school curricula

Shared anxieties: Many parents echo their children’s concerns about the future, but also express a desire for practical, actionable guidance—both to help their families reduce their own impact and to support their children’s wellbeing in the face of climate anxiety. They also expressed how children should not be made to feel "fear" over climate issues, though this seems to be the approach most children encounter. 

What Children and Parents Want:

Clear, relevant education: Both groups call for climate change to be taught in a way that connects to daily life and future opportunities, including information about green careers and local impacts

Visible action and leadership: There is frustration with perceived inaction from leaders and a strong desire for more visible, meaningful climate action at both local and national levels.

Opportunities for involvement: Children and parents are keen for more chances to participate in climate solutions, from school projects to community initiatives, and want to see their efforts recognised and valued.

Conclusion:

Our engagement highlights a generation that is increasingly aware of climate change, deeply concerned about its impacts, and eager for both knowledge and agency. Addressing knowledge gaps, supporting mental health, and providing clear pathways to action are critical for empowering children and families to face the climate challenge with hope and resilience.

We engaged with 800 people to discuss local carbon reduction policies, focusing on measures such as Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), cycle lanes, cycle-to-work schemes, and e-scooters. The conversations revealed a complex landscape of opinions, heavily influenced by political orientation, perceptions of public spending, and views on community priorities.

Attitudes by Political Leaning:

Left-leaning participants were generally more accepting of public money being spent on carbon reduction initiatives. Many saw LTNs, expanded cycle lanes, and green transport schemes as important steps towards meeting the UK’s net zero targets and improving local air quality. However, even among supporters, there was some frustration—particularly when cycle lanes were not compulsory for cyclists, leading to perceptions that the investment was underutilised if cyclists continued to use adjacent roads.

Centre and right-leaning participants were much more sceptical. The majority viewed these schemes as poor value for taxpayers, often labeling them as “virtue signalling.” They argued that the funds could be better spent on more pressing community needs, such as free childcare, leisure facilities, and support projects for homelessness, sex workers, and drug addiction. Many doubted the effectiveness of LTNs and cycle lanes, expressing concerns about increased congestion on main roads and reduced accessibility for local businesses and vulnerable residents.

Broader Context and Public Appetite:

Despite these divisions, national surveys indicate that a majority of the British public supports large-scale government plans for net zero and green infrastructure, with 64% expressing strong support for the government’s Green Industrial Revolution plan—including investments in public transport, electric vehicles, and renewable energy

However, at the local level, support for specific interventions like LTNs and cycle lanes can be more polarised, especially when the perceived benefits are not immediately visible or when schemes are seen as disruptive to daily life.

Key Barriers and Considerations:

Budgetary constraints remain a significant barrier for local authorities, with nearly half citing funding as a challenge to implementing climate action plans.

Behavioural change is essential for achieving net zero, and over 65% of emissions reductions to 2035 will require some form of public choice or action.

Yet, the public’s willingness to change is influenced by how policies are communicated and whether they are perceived as fair, effective, and beneficial to the wider community.

Cost-of-living pressures have made people less willing to support or invest in new green infrastructure, especially when immediate personal or community benefits are unclear

Conclusion:

Our engagement shows that while there is broad recognition of the need for carbon reduction and climate action, support for specific local measures is highly dependent on political views, perceived value for money, and the visibility of benefits. For local authorities to build consensus and drive behavioural change, it is crucial to involve communities in decision-making, clearly communicate the long-term benefits, and ensure that green policies are integrated with broader social priorities.

We interviewed 2,000 university students to understand their views on sustainability and the environment, revealing a generation deeply engaged with climate issues, but also highlighting areas where knowledge and action can be strengthened.

High Levels of Concern and Engagement

79% of students reported being fairly or very concerned about climate change, a figure that has remained consistently high over the past decade.

83% strongly agreed or agreed that collective action can lessen the impact of climate change, showing a strong sense of agency and responsibility among students.

Only 1% said they do not take any action in their everyday lives to reduce climate change, indicating that nearly all students are making some effort, however small, to be more sustainable.

Everyday Sustainable Behaviours:

89% of students recycle household waste, making it the most common climate-friendly action.

Other behaviours include reducing energy use, choosing sustainable products, and, for a smaller group (7%), switching banks or pension funds to avoid supporting fossil fuel extraction.

However, there are misconceptions about the relative impact of these actions: 38% believe recycling has the biggest impact, while only 10% recognise the significance of divesting from fossil fuels.

Trust and Sources of Information:

91% of students trust scientists working at universities to provide accurate information on climate change, while 70% do not trust social media as a reliable source.

This high trust in academic expertise underscores the importance of universities in shaping student understanding and action on sustainability.

University Action and Student Expectations:

Students increasingly expect universities to lead on sustainability—over half of prospective students actively research a university’s sustainability credentials when deciding where to study.

Many students participate in campus sustainability initiatives, such as the Green Campus Revolution, which has resulted in tangible outcomes like reduced carbon emissions and more energy-efficient student accommodation.

Students value opportunities to engage in sustainability both academically and through extracurricular activities, including volunteering, environmental auditing, and community projects.

Skills and Empowerment:

Participation in sustainability initiatives helps students develop practical skills, confidence, and leadership abilities, which are valued both within and beyond the university setting.

Students report that hands-on experience—such as auditing, project work, and peer-led activities—makes sustainability more accessible and relevant to their daily lives.

Barriers and Areas for Improvement:

Despite high concern, there is a gap in understanding the most impactful actions, with many students overestimating the effect of recycling relative to systemic changes like investment choices or policy advocacy.

Students would like universities to provide more visible leadership, clearer communication about sustainability progress, and expanded opportunities for involvement in climate action

Conclusion:

University students in 2025 are highly concerned about sustainability and eager to play an active role in climate action. They trust academic sources, participate in a range of sustainable behaviours, and expect their institutions to lead by example. However, there is a need for better education on the most effective climate actions and for universities to further empower students through skills development and meaningful opportunities for engagement

Public opinion on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) for local councils is highly polarised and deeply influenced by lived experience and location. Our recent engagement, which involved residents who had expressed an interest in the LTN proposal, revealed several key themes:

Supporters’ Views.

Residents living inside LTN areas often report significant improvements: less car traffic, reduced noise and pollution, and safer, more pleasant streets for walking and cycling.

Many supporters cite better mental well-being due to increased physical activity and a cleaner environment.

National polling, especially in London, shows that a majority (58%) support LTNs, with only 17% opposed, suggesting broad but not universal backing for these schemes.

Critics’ Concerns:

Boundary road residents frequently worry about increased congestion, noise, and pollution being displaced onto their streets, rather than eliminated.

Older and disabled people, as well as those reliant on cars, feel disproportionately affected, citing longer journeys and reduced accessibility for essential services and deliveries.

Local businesses in some areas report a downturn in activity, attributing it to diverted traffic and reduced footfall, which they believe harms the high street.

There are concerns about increased antisocial behaviour and vandalism in quieter, less trafficked streets, and a perception of declining property values for homes now on busier boundary roads.

Community Division and Consultation:

LTNs have often divided communities, creating tension between those who benefit from quieter streets and those who experience negative side effects, such as increased traffic or perceived unfairness in implementation.

Many residents express frustration at a lack of meaningful consultation and feel their concerns were not adequately considered, leading to a sense of alienation and mistrust towards local authorities.

Balanced and Nuanced Views:

Some residents acknowledge the health and environmental benefits but question whether LTNs are a “one-size-fits-all” solution, calling for broader, more equitable transport strategies that address the needs of all community members.

There is a call for better communication, transparent decision-making, and genuine public participation to ensure LTNs are implemented fairly and effectively.

Conclusion:

While LTNs can deliver real improvements in local air quality, safety, and active travel, they also risk displacing problems and creating new challenges if not carefully planned and inclusively managed. Success depends on thoughtful design, robust consultation, and ongoing dialogue with all affected groups to balance competing needs and maintain community cohesion.

Note: The consultation phase focused on those who had already shown an interest in the LTN, which may not fully capture the breadth of perspectives present within the wider community.