The influence of politics and labelling on New Zealanders’ attitudes towards animal agriculture emissions policy

IF 1.2 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Samantha K. Stanley, J. Kerr, Marc S. Wilson
{"title":"The influence of politics and labelling on New Zealanders’ attitudes towards animal agriculture emissions policy","authors":"Samantha K. Stanley, J. Kerr, Marc S. Wilson","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2020.1800414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT New Zealand’s primary strategy for tackling greenhouse gas emissions is the emissions trading scheme, which puts a price on emissions from all major industries – except animal agriculture. In the decade since the scheme was introduced, conversations about including emissions from animal agriculture have been shrouded in controversy, with a levy on such emissions dubbed a ‘fart tax’. Across two independent samples of New Zealanders, we examined whether support for a charge on farm emissions differed depending on how the charge was framed. We showed that participants were more supportive of including farm emissions in the existing scheme than supporting a ‘fart tax’, and also that the description of the policy that most closely aligned with the Labour Party’s original proposal for the charge (a levy on the agricultural sector to fund research into low carbon farming practices) garnered the most support. Across both samples, support also varied by political affiliation, with support highest among Green voters, followed by Labour voters, and National voters generally opposing the charge, regardless of framing. Frames did not interact with political affiliation in the expected way, suggesting that ‘fart tax’ referencing reaches across the political divide in undermining support for this policy.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00323187.2020.1800414","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2020.1800414","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT New Zealand’s primary strategy for tackling greenhouse gas emissions is the emissions trading scheme, which puts a price on emissions from all major industries – except animal agriculture. In the decade since the scheme was introduced, conversations about including emissions from animal agriculture have been shrouded in controversy, with a levy on such emissions dubbed a ‘fart tax’. Across two independent samples of New Zealanders, we examined whether support for a charge on farm emissions differed depending on how the charge was framed. We showed that participants were more supportive of including farm emissions in the existing scheme than supporting a ‘fart tax’, and also that the description of the policy that most closely aligned with the Labour Party’s original proposal for the charge (a levy on the agricultural sector to fund research into low carbon farming practices) garnered the most support. Across both samples, support also varied by political affiliation, with support highest among Green voters, followed by Labour voters, and National voters generally opposing the charge, regardless of framing. Frames did not interact with political affiliation in the expected way, suggesting that ‘fart tax’ referencing reaches across the political divide in undermining support for this policy.
政治和标签对新西兰人对畜牧业排放政策态度的影响
新西兰应对温室气体排放的主要策略是排放交易计划,该计划对除畜牧业外的所有主要行业的排放进行定价。自该计划推出以来的十年里,有关将动物农业排放纳入其中的讨论一直充满争议,对此类排放征税被称为“放屁税”。在两个独立的新西兰人样本中,我们研究了对农场排放收费的支持是否因收费框架的不同而不同。我们发现,参与者更支持将农场排放纳入现有计划,而不是支持“放屁税”,而且对政策的描述与工党最初的提案(对农业部门征税,以资助低碳农业实践的研究)最接近,获得了最多的支持。在这两个样本中,支持率也因政治派别而异,绿党选民的支持率最高,其次是工党选民,而国家党选民普遍反对这一指控,无论其构成如何。框架并没有以预期的方式与政治派别互动,这表明“放屁税”的引用跨越了政治分歧,破坏了对这项政策的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Political Science
Political Science POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Political Science publishes high quality original scholarly works in the broad field of political science. Submission of articles with a regional focus on New Zealand and the Asia-Pacific is particularly encouraged, but content is not limited to this focus. Contributions are invited from across the political science discipline, including from the fields of international relations, comparative politics, political theory and public administration. Proposals for collections of articles on a common theme or debate to be published as special issues are welcome, as well as individual submissions.
×
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