How did the climate feature in the 2026 local & devolved elections?

To get a handle on if and how climate change showed up at the 2026 elections, we’ve partnered with Climate Barometer, and ran a rapid analysis of 76 election leaflets across five areas (East Aberdeenshire in Scotland, Afan Ogwr Rhondda in Wales, Milton Keynes, Suffolk County Council and Lewisham in England), as well as examining some key party manifestos from the Welsh (e.g. Plaid Cymru, Welsh Greens, Reform Wales) and Scottish elections (e.g. SNP, Scottish Labour, and Scottish Greens). 

This builds on our previous partnership focused on the Gorton & Denton by-election. 

Did climate change take a back seat? And if so, is this a problem or a sign that the climate discourse is evolving?

Explicit mentions of ‘climate’ related words (such as ‘climate’, ‘carbon’ and ‘planet’) were few and far between (just 18 mentions out of 25,000 words) in the 76 election leaflets analysed. We found no use of terms like ‘net zero’, ‘emissions’, ‘greenhouse’, ‘global warming’, or ‘decarbonise’ in the leaflets.

In the manifestos, these terms were used more readily. 

For instance, ‘climate’ and ‘net zero’ showed up more than 30 times in total in the SNP’s manifesto. And the Scottish Green Party had one of the strongest climate framings with more than 60 uses of these terms, alongside highlighting the importance of green jobs, renewable energy and active travel as responses to tackling climate change. 

So in Scotland, in particular, there were signs of climate showing up on its own terms. 

In general, climate was far from the main story. But our analysis shows that many of the political parties haven’t gone cold on climate change. Rather, climate change and nature is showing up in other ways. What’s missing is a story that pulls this together – and it’s in that story where talking about climate change can feel like a natural part of the narrative, and right now it isn’t.

People are unlikely to ever rank climate change on a par with the NHS or the cost of living as a top concern over a long period of time, so we should expect ebbs and flows in how prominent ‘the climate’ is in public and political discourse. 

Climate Barometer polling, and Climate Outreach data, regularly shows strong support for the nuts and bolts of the clean energy transition and even stronger support for protecting nature and wildlife. Climate Barometer’s recent polling on perceptions of climate impacts and adaptation policies show high levels of concerns about heatwaves, floods and droughts. 

So in a fragmented multi-party era, with a fragmented political consensus on net zero to match, low salience of ‘climate’ does not mean that people don’t care. 

Communication specialists have spent years arguing that campaigners and politicians should ground climate change in people’s everyday concerns and address the day-to-day challenges (e.g. the cost of public transport or heating homes) that can be a barrier to getting traction on climate change as an ‘issue’. 

But implicit in these calls is that communicators use these strategies as a ‘way in’ to bigger conversations about climate change (not as a way to avoid them). 

The very low number of explicit mentions of climate change and nature protection in these election materials seems to signal a lack of confidence (including from political parties supportive of climate action) in joining the dots back to climate change. 

However, climate-adjacent issues did show up in other ways.

Unsurprisingly, across the devolved election manifestos, energy and affordability was one of the key ways that climate and environment issues were communicated (which is what many messaging studies recommend). 

For instance, words like ‘bills’, ‘costs’, ‘cost of living’ and ‘afford/affordability’ together showed up more than 100 times in the SNP’s manifesto alone. Similar terms were also used quite frequently by Plaid, Scottish Greens, Welsh Greens and Scottish Labour, with a link to climate change:

“It’s been a difficult few years for people across Scotland. Our bills are through the roof, and the climate is in crisis.” – Scottish Greens Manifesto 

“A more energy secure Scotland will see us build the renewable energy generation that will lower bills, protect us from international shocks and secure good jobs for those currently employed in our offshore energy sector.” – SNP Manifesto

In the leaflets we analysed, there were fewer energy affordability mentions. But where they were present, climate messaging was embedded within wider concerns about energy affordability and energy independence. In fact, there were some interesting examples of (pro-climate) parties using fairness framings to argue for regional benefits from the energy transition:

“The North East powers the country. We deserve a fairer deal! […] Lower energy bills: Pass on the low cost Scottish renewable energy to consumers. Insulate homes across the North East of Scotland.” – Scottish Liberal Democrats

“An energy rich Scotland should mean energy rich Scots. A FRESH START WITH LOWER ENERGY BILLS.” – SNP

There were also examples of (anti-climate) parties using cost-based arguments to argue against renewables:

“Cut Energy Bills – Reform UK will abolish VAT on Britain’s domestic fuel costs and save £200 on your energy bills. Make the most of North Sea oil and gas industries.” – Reform UK (Scotland)

With the economy (and the cost of energy in particular) continuing to dominate public concerns, finding examples like this isn’t surprising. 

But we should recognise that where we see examples of fairness frames being used to communicate messages about renewables, this reflects a consensus among climate communicators on the critical role that fairness (and perceived fairness) plays in securing long term support for the transition. 

Beyond energy affordability and fairness framings, the other key way that climate showed up was via hyper-local issues. In four out of the five regions we focused on, transport was a major focus.

Buses, cycling – and of course roads and potholes – appeared on leaflets from the Greens to Reform UK – aligning with the key local issues raised in pre-election polling. In many cases, the language functioned as a measure of service competence rather than environmental concern. But given that transport accounts for nearly a third of the UK’s domestic emissions, hyper-local discussions about safe cycling routes and low traffic neighbourhoods represent key climate battlegrounds. 

Local risks – flooding in particular – were also being mentioned in the context of climate change:

“Flooding will continue to become more frequent and more severe. It feels like we have a 1 in 10 year event every year and it is only a matter of time before we see damage to our bridges. We have the opportunity to be proactive but the window is closing.” – Green Party (Kedinton, Suffolk)

“Addressing climate change as chair of the Broadland Futures Initiative elected members forum to develop an adaptation plan for flooding across The Broads.” – Green Party (Broadland, Norfolk)

Finally, there were plenty of examples of language around preserving local green space and preventing pollution and fly-tipping. 

We spoke with Green Party candidate for Carlford ward on Suffolk County Council, Stephen Munson. He told us his campaign was highlighting a £500,000 flood resilience fund and mass tree-planing scheme as key priorities.

It would be a stretch to say that these represent local ‘climate’ communication – but it is well established through Climate Outreach’s Britain Talks Climate & Nature research that key segments of the British public – like Rooted Patriots – have high threat perception (for things like local flood risks) and care about hyper-local environmental problems (like protecting green space and preventing fly tipping).  

So whilst the examples cited here formed a small part of the election materials we analysed, many of them are following or embodying the evidence base on what makes for good climate communication.

In one area we analysed, Saxmundham, renewable energy infrastructure was a doorstep issue. Parties, and voters, disagreed about the permission for a Sea Link converter station for Saxmundham. Suffolk Council ultimately was won by Reform UK, whose literature and campaigning in the area was strongly anti-renewables.

Reform UK benefitted from voter dissatisfaction with the national Labour Party. It’s not possible to assess how much this issue swayed voters, but it’s clear that more and more of these local fights are on the way at election time.

It is not surprising that this set of local elections saw climate taking a backseat. Local elections are by their nature harder to discern big picture national policies, with parties often seeking to assuage voters disillusioned by Westminster politics by shouting more loudly about their local achievements. 

It was noticeable that key framings around investment in renewables in making good economic sense by leading to cheaper bills was a key story in some parties’ manifestos. But the breakdown of the cross-party consensus on climate and net zero was also more apparent, with no mentions of ‘net zero’ in the Welsh Conservatives manifesto, and Reform UK sticking to national messages around deregulation and the economic harms of renewables. 

Where climate policies and impacts are really being felt is in people’s neighbourhoods and communities. This was reflected in hyper local issues in election communications, as opposed to mentions of ‘climate’ as an issue. 

More and more, the climate ‘story’ is a local one. Climate communicators need to listen and learn from these local stories and try and support in areas where there is local opposition or contention. 

And for the parties who are proudly leading on local ‘climate’ or ‘nature’ issues, they need to have more confidence in connecting this back to a bold national story about the future of our country.