Was 2024 a reality check?

Like a lot of people I’ve been trying to make sense of what happened in 2024. Incumbent government after incumbent government was voted out, Donald Trump was re-elected as US President, and key global environmental summits ended in relative failure in Baku, Cali and Busan.

So what lessons can we take from these events? Here’s a theory, for the West at least. Sure saving endangered species and protecting the planet for future generations sounds nice, but if you are struggling to put food on the table for your kids it’s probably not top of mind when you cast your vote.

Polls around the US and UK elections bear this out. In the US, an exit poll conducted on behalf of the four major broadcasters found that the most important issues to voters were the economy, the state of democracy, immigration, and abortion. And in the UK, a YouGov survey conducted a month before the general election found the cost of living, health, the economy, and immigration and asylum to be the issues Britons said were mostly likely to affect their vote.

Similar results can be identified in relation to polling on climate action. A 2023 YouGov survey asked respondents in seven European countries about their willingness to make lifestyle changes to tackle climate change. The more a lifestyle change impacted an individual, the less likely they were to support it.

Politicians are unlikely to take meaningful action on climate change, biodiversity loss, and other environmental issues unless voters put pressure on them to do so. And even though climate change is contributing towards the rising cost of living, voters have yet to connect them in a way that makes a difference at the ballot box.

Perhaps the lesson from 2024 is that environmental issues can’t be tackled in isolation. Instead our ability to restore the natural world is linked to social cohesion - the move to a green economy must involve a just transition.