Seeking common ground? Heterogeneous support for carbon pricing and climate policies across audience segments

IF 6.9 2区 经济学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Jeroen Barrez
{"title":"Seeking common ground? Heterogeneous support for carbon pricing and climate policies across audience segments","authors":"Jeroen Barrez","doi":"10.1016/j.erss.2025.103993","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Public resistance remains a significant barrier to implementing the ambitious climate policies that are needed to limit global warming below 2 degrees. While numerous studies have explored public support for climate policies in general, this paper advances the understanding by investigating whether (lack of) support towards carbon pricing and climate policies is concentrated among specific societal groups. A latent class analysis identifies five distinct audience segments in Belgium based on similar climate attitudes and behavioural intentions: the Alarmed (6.9 %), Concerned (38.3 %), Cautious (36.1 %), Disengaged (15.2 %), and Doubtful (3.6 %), and explores the characteristics of these segments. This research also highlights the heterogeneity in preferences across subgroups and shows that belonging to one segment strongly predicts support for climate policies. The Alarmed are most in favour of these policies, while the Doubtful show the least support. More importantly, this study provides novel insights into the acceptability of carbon pricing policies across these subgroups and reveals how revenue use can make carbon pricing acceptable to segments with more sceptical climate attitudes. More specifically, while environmental earmarking risks resulting in “preaching to the converted”, using revenues for non-climate policies such as reducing labour taxes could make carbon pricing acceptable among the Doubtful and Disengaged segments and lessen the risk of social unrest and contestation. More generally, this research shows that considering the heterogeneity of public preferences offers novel insights, and could ultimately help policymakers design and implement more effective carbon pricing and climate policies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48384,"journal":{"name":"Energy Research & Social Science","volume":"122 ","pages":"Article 103993"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Research & Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462962500074X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Public resistance remains a significant barrier to implementing the ambitious climate policies that are needed to limit global warming below 2 degrees. While numerous studies have explored public support for climate policies in general, this paper advances the understanding by investigating whether (lack of) support towards carbon pricing and climate policies is concentrated among specific societal groups. A latent class analysis identifies five distinct audience segments in Belgium based on similar climate attitudes and behavioural intentions: the Alarmed (6.9 %), Concerned (38.3 %), Cautious (36.1 %), Disengaged (15.2 %), and Doubtful (3.6 %), and explores the characteristics of these segments. This research also highlights the heterogeneity in preferences across subgroups and shows that belonging to one segment strongly predicts support for climate policies. The Alarmed are most in favour of these policies, while the Doubtful show the least support. More importantly, this study provides novel insights into the acceptability of carbon pricing policies across these subgroups and reveals how revenue use can make carbon pricing acceptable to segments with more sceptical climate attitudes. More specifically, while environmental earmarking risks resulting in “preaching to the converted”, using revenues for non-climate policies such as reducing labour taxes could make carbon pricing acceptable among the Doubtful and Disengaged segments and lessen the risk of social unrest and contestation. More generally, this research shows that considering the heterogeneity of public preferences offers novel insights, and could ultimately help policymakers design and implement more effective carbon pricing and climate policies.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Energy Research & Social Science
Energy Research & Social Science ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
14.00
自引率
16.40%
发文量
441
审稿时长
55 days
期刊介绍: Energy Research & Social Science (ERSS) is a peer-reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles examining the relationship between energy systems and society. ERSS covers a range of topics revolving around the intersection of energy technologies, fuels, and resources on one side and social processes and influences - including communities of energy users, people affected by energy production, social institutions, customs, traditions, behaviors, and policies - on the other. Put another way, ERSS investigates the social system surrounding energy technology and hardware. ERSS is relevant for energy practitioners, researchers interested in the social aspects of energy production or use, and policymakers. Energy Research & Social Science (ERSS) provides an interdisciplinary forum to discuss how social and technical issues related to energy production and consumption interact. Energy production, distribution, and consumption all have both technical and human components, and the latter involves the human causes and consequences of energy-related activities and processes as well as social structures that shape how people interact with energy systems. Energy analysis, therefore, needs to look beyond the dimensions of technology and economics to include these social and human elements.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信