A large-scale survey in 13 EU countries, featuring CMCC scientists, finds that the political fate of climate policy proposals is determined by a sizable group that lies between clear supporters and clear opponents. This “conditional middle” is not always for or against climate measures; its support shifts depending on how each policy is designed, and often decides whether a proposal reaches majority backing.

A team of international researchers, including from CMCC, have helped show that a large conditional middle of voters across Europe often decides whether climate policies gain majority support, not the loudest supporters or opponents. The study, carried out within the Horizon Europe project Capable and published in Nature Climate Change surveyed around 19,000 people in the summer of 2024, addressing 15 specific climate proposals, ranging from carbon pricing and subsidies to bans and standards.

The authors classify respondents into four profiles based on their support across 15 climate policies: supporters, opposers, neutrals and the “conditional middle”. Supporters (36%) tend to favour most measures, opposers (21%) are largely against them, neutrals (10%) remain in the middle, while the conditional middle (33%) is more flexible and responsive to policy design.

For the conditional middle, the most important factor is the perceived personal and societal cost–benefit balance of each proposal. Across Europe, people in this group prefer measures that make it easier to adopt pro‑climate choices – such as government support, subsidies and shared public investments – over instruments with visible out‑of‑pocket costs like consumer-facing taxes or strict behavioural restrictions.

The study shows that instrument choice is a core part of political strategy, not just a technical detail. Taxes, bans, subsidies, standards or exemptions signal who bears the costs, who benefits, how much control the state exercises and how flexible a measure is – and the conditional middle reacts strongly to these signals.

One example is a proposed general ban on new cars with combustion engines: 73% of the conditional middle rejected it. When the proposal allowed replacement with synthetic fuels, rejection in this group dropped to 39%, illustrating how specific design choices can shift support.

“Our findings show that majorities for ambitious climate action in Europe are within reach – but only if policymakers design instruments that people see as fair and beneficial. The conditional middle doesn’t oppose climate policy; it demands smarter policy design,” says Johannes Emmerling, Senior Scientist at CMCC and CAPABLE project coordinator.

The study also examines how people want to see revenues from climate funds such as the EU Emissions Trading System spent. Across groups – and especially among the conditional middle – respondents prioritise visible benefits such as adaptation projects and compensation for vulnerable households over compensation for workers affected by decarbonisation.

Lessons for European policymakers

The study also offers hope through its investigation of the potential impact of small, and plausible, shifts within the conditional middle group. If the share of the conditional middle that were “unsure” about a policy shifted toward “support”, the number of proposals with majority backing could rise substantially – from 4 out of 15 to 10 out of 15. For Keith Smith, lead author of the study and senior researcher at ETH Zurich, these findings illustrate the influence of the conditional middle group on the feasibility of climate proposals across Europe. “If even a smaller portion of this group can be won over, we can find majorities for a range of concrete climate policies in Europe,” says Smith.

The findings suggest three practical lessons for policymakers. First, vocal public opposition should not be confused with a dominant negative opinion: staunch opponents are a minority, while a large, politically active group with undecided climate policy preferences often determines outcomes.

Secondly, the benefits of climate policy proposals need to be visible and seen as fairly distributed. People pay close attention to who pays and who benefits, and credible, concrete support for climate‑vulnerable groups is key to sustaining backing.

Thirdly, decisions on instruments should be made hand in hand with considerations of political feasibility. For the conditional middle, instrument choice and perceived cost–benefit balances are more decisive than party affiliation, climate attitudes or socio‑demographic characteristics, giving policymakers room to adjust designs without abandoning ambition.

“Overall, our research has also shown that climate policy instruments such as emissions trading or CO₂ taxes can be very effective – but to achieve the zero-emissions target in Europe, it is equally crucial to consider their social and political feasibility.” says Emmerling.

For more information:

Smith K, Mlakar Z, Levis A, Sanford M, et al. Climate Policy Feasibility across Europe Relies on the Conditional Middle. Nature Climate Change. 11.03.2026. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02562-8