Public support for climate policies largely depends on how their costs, benefits and redistributive effects are communicated, according to a study published in the academic journal West European Politics . The study is based on two experiments conducted with representative samples of the Spanish population, and explains why many specific climate measures generate opposition, despite the broad social consensus on the need to act against climate change.
The paper is signed by Joel Ardiaca, from the Faculty of Economics and Business at the University of Barcelona, Marc Guinjoan, from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and Toni Rodon, from Pompeu Fabra University.
The study suggests that, to consolidate the public support needed to tackle the climate emergency, it is essential to combine environmental ambition with a perception of social equity, along with transparent communication of the costs of the measures.
The starting point
Although the majority of the public acknowledges the reality of climate change and says it supports climate action in the abstract, this support often fades when it comes to specific policies such as restricting polluting vehicles, introducing urban tolls (low-emission zones) or levying taxes on flights.
The research team set out to understand why this happens and what role three key elements play: the cost of these policies, the benefits they provide, and the people who benefit from them or are harmed by them.
The methodology of the study
The team designed two experiments. The first, a vignette experiment included in two waves of surveys, presented participants with 10 different climate policies and, presented information about the costs or the benefits. The second, a conjoint experiment, presented survey participants with hypothetical climate policy packages applied to fictional cities, varying their content, cost, benefit and, above all, the expected impact on the wealthiest and poorest citizens.
Main results
The results indicate that highlighting the economic costs of a policy significantly reduces public support, whereas highlighting its benefits only increases it moderately. According to the authors, people tend to react more strongly to potential losses than to potential gains.
The study also reveals that the most decisive factor is redistribution: participants are much more supportive of climate policies when they are told they will improve the situation of people with fewer resources. In contrast, the effects on wealthier people have minimal influence on their preferences.
Moreover, significant ideological differences have been identified: those on the left are the most favourable towards climate measures and the most sensitive to their redistributive effects, whereas those on the right generally show less support. The authors also observe particularly high opposition among supporters of the far right.
The results have direct implications for the design and communication of climate policies. On the one hand, they show that gaining the public support does not depend solely on what is done, but especially on how information about who bears the costs and who reaps the benefits is communicated. Emphasising distributive justice - for example, by ensuring that measures do not harm those with fewer resources - can be an effective way to broaden social acceptance. On the other hand, the study warns that the climate debate is becoming politically polarized, with the far right as a key player in resisting these policies, a trend that could shape the future viability of climate action in European countries.
The study received funding from the project Political Attitudes, Climate Change, and Support for Mitigation Policies (ATTCLIMATE) - from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities and the State Research Agency (MCIN/AEI) - and also from the Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan of the European Union (NextGenerationEU funds).
