Our researchers, Milan Ščasný and Iva Zvěřinová, co-authored a new article published in Nature Climate Change. The findings suggest that die-hard supporters or opponents don’t determine climate policy support in Europe; rather, it hinges on a large “conditional middle” (33%).
What drives this group is not political orientation or general climate concern. Instead, their preferences are influenced by their expectations about the costs and benefits of a policy: who bears the costs, who benefits, and how much it intrudes on their lives. (In our evaluations, political views and socio-demographic factors account for only a minor portion of the differences in their support — approximately 5%.)
Why does this matter? Because small swings in the middle can change what is politically feasible. In a simple simulation, shifting just the undecided segment of the conditional middle from neutral to supportive raises the number of climate policies with majority approval in Europe from 4 out of 15 to 10 out of 15.
The researchers also asked where climate policy revenues should go (e.g., Social Climate Fund–type revenues). The conditional middle prioritises visible benefits, especially climate change adaptation investments and support for vulnerable households. In comparison, support for compensating workers negatively affected by decarbonisation appears to be lower.
Three practical takeaways:
1) Ensure fairness is transparent. People have strong reactions to who incurs costs and who reaps benefits, as well as the credibility of support for vulnerable groups.
2) Consider the choice of instruments as a political strategy. Taxes, bans, subsidies, standards, and exemptions aren’t just technical tools; they convey messages about costs, control, and flexibility.
3) Don’t confuse loud opposition with public opinion. Many Europeans aren’t hardened opponents; they’re conditional supporters.
This survey was part of the Horizon Europe–funded CAPABLE project, which collected 19,328 responses across 13 EU countries to evaluate 15 concrete climate policy proposals.
Smith, E. K., Mlakar, Ž., Levis, A., Sanford, M., Stapper, L., Bouman, T., Emmerling, J., Perlaviciute, G., Tavoni, M., Berger, L., van den Bergh, J., Bernauer, T., Casamassima, A., Epper, T., Eddai, N., Savin, I., Ščasný, M., Turmunkh, U., Zvěřinová, I., & Pianta, S. (2026). Climate policy feasibility across Europe relies on the conditional middle. Nature Climate Change, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02562-8
Further Information
https://capableclimate.eu/the-middle-swing-voters-who-decide-the-europes-climate-policy/