A study led by Marc Guinjoan, lecturer in the Department of Political Science and Public Administration of the UAB, with researchers Toni Rodon, from the UPF, and Joel Ardiaca, from the UB, reveals that citizen support for climate policies depends to a large extent on how the costs, benefits and redistributive effects are communicated. The research, published in the journal West European Politics and based on two experiments using representative samples of the Spanish population, explains why specific climate measures facebacklash despite wide public acceptation of the need to fight climate change.
The starting point
Although the majority of citizens acknowledge the reality of climate change and claim to support climate action in the abstract, this support often wavers when it comes to specific policies—such as restrictions on polluting vehicles, urban tolls (low-emission zones), taxes on flights, etc. The research team set out to understand why this happens and the role played by three key elements: the costs associated with these policies, the benefits they provide, and who stands to gain or lose from them.
How the study was conducted
The team designed two original experiments. The first—a vignette experiment included in two survey periods—exposed participants to ten different climate policies, randomly presenting them with information regarding the costs or benefits of these policies. The second—a conjoint experiment—presented respondents with hypothetical climate policy packages for fictional cities, varying their content, cost, benefits, and, above all, their expected impact on the wealthiest and poorest citizens.
Key results
The results indicate that highlighting the economic costs of a policy significantly reduces public support, whereas emphasising its benefits increases it only modestly. According to the authors, people tend to react more strongly to potential losses than to potential gains.
The research also reveals that redistribution is the most decisive factor. Participants are far more supportive of climate policies when informed that they will improve the situation of those with fewer resources. In contrast, the effects on the wealthiest individuals have minimal influence on their preferences.
Furthermore, significant ideological differences have also been identified. Those on the left are most in favour of climate measures and most sensitive to their redistributive effects, whereas those on the right show less overall support. The authors also observe particularly strong opposition among far-right supporters.
The results have direct implications for the design and communication of climate policies. On the one hand, they show that gaining public support depends not only on "what" is done, but also on "how" the distribution of costs and benefits is communicated. Emphasising distributive justice—for instance, by ensuring that measures do not disadvantage 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 polarised, with the far right acting as a key player in resisting these policies—a trend that could shape the future viability of climate action in European countries.
Finally, according to Guinjoan, "these results can help shift from abstract support for climate policies to the design of actions that are more effective and socially accepted". The research indicates that, to consolidate the public support needed to tackle the climate emergency, it is essential to combine environmental ambition with a sense of social equity and transparent communication regarding the costs of the measures.
Original article: Guinjoan, M., Rodon, T., & Ardiaca, J. (2026). Public support for climate policies: costs, redistribution, and ideological divides. West European Politics, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2026.2701769.
Funding: ATTCLIMATE Project (Spanish MCIN/AEI and European Union's NextGenerationEU/PRTR)
