如何通过收入回收来增加公众对碳定价的支持

IF 25.7 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Andrej Woerner, Taisuke Imai, Davide D. Pace, Klaus M. Schmidt
{"title":"如何通过收入回收来增加公众对碳定价的支持","authors":"Andrej Woerner, Taisuke Imai, Davide D. Pace, Klaus M. Schmidt","doi":"10.1038/s41893-024-01466-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Carbon pricing is a powerful but politically contentious tool for tackling climate change. Governments can, however, try to increase public support for it by adjusting how the revenues raised by the carbon price are used. In a fully incentivized experiment with a large representative sample of the German population, we compare voter support for five different carbon pricing schemes. We show that uniform carbon dividends (equal per capita transfers to all citizens) receive substantially more support than a carbon dividend that favours poorer people, than earmarking revenues for climate projects and especially than using revenues for the general government budget. Among the uniform carbon dividend schemes, a climate premium that pays a fixed upfront transfer equal to the expected carbon revenues receives more support than a carbon dividend scheme where the size of the transfer is determined ex post based on the actual revenues. Furthermore, we show that participants and experts underestimate public support for carbon pricing. These findings suggest that policies for sustainable development gain more support when affected voters are uniformly compensated for the costs imposed on them. In addition, the paper highlights the importance of incentivized experiments in studying public support for such policies. How revenues from a carbon price are returned to society may affect public support for the adoption of such a policy. In an experiment with a large sample of the German population, public support for a carbon price is assessed for five different revenue recycling schemes.","PeriodicalId":19056,"journal":{"name":"Nature Sustainability","volume":"7 12","pages":"1633-1641"},"PeriodicalIF":25.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-024-01466-9.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How to increase public support for carbon pricing with revenue recycling\",\"authors\":\"Andrej Woerner, Taisuke Imai, Davide D. Pace, Klaus M. Schmidt\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41893-024-01466-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Carbon pricing is a powerful but politically contentious tool for tackling climate change. Governments can, however, try to increase public support for it by adjusting how the revenues raised by the carbon price are used. In a fully incentivized experiment with a large representative sample of the German population, we compare voter support for five different carbon pricing schemes. We show that uniform carbon dividends (equal per capita transfers to all citizens) receive substantially more support than a carbon dividend that favours poorer people, than earmarking revenues for climate projects and especially than using revenues for the general government budget. Among the uniform carbon dividend schemes, a climate premium that pays a fixed upfront transfer equal to the expected carbon revenues receives more support than a carbon dividend scheme where the size of the transfer is determined ex post based on the actual revenues. Furthermore, we show that participants and experts underestimate public support for carbon pricing. These findings suggest that policies for sustainable development gain more support when affected voters are uniformly compensated for the costs imposed on them. In addition, the paper highlights the importance of incentivized experiments in studying public support for such policies. How revenues from a carbon price are returned to society may affect public support for the adoption of such a policy. In an experiment with a large sample of the German population, public support for a carbon price is assessed for five different revenue recycling schemes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19056,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature Sustainability\",\"volume\":\"7 12\",\"pages\":\"1633-1641\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":25.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-024-01466-9.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature Sustainability\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-024-01466-9\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-024-01466-9","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

碳定价是应对气候变化的有力工具,但在政治上存在争议。然而,政府可以尝试通过调整碳价带来的收入的使用方式来增加公众对它的支持。在一项充分激励的实验中,我们对德国人口的大量代表性样本进行了比较,比较了选民对五种不同碳定价方案的支持。我们表明,统一的碳红利(向所有公民平等的人均转移)比有利于穷人的碳红利、比专门用于气候项目的收入、特别是比将收入用于一般政府预算的碳红利获得更多的支持。在统一的碳红利计划中,与碳红利计划相比,支付与预期碳收入相等的固定前期转移的气候溢价计划获得了更多的支持,而碳红利计划的转移规模是根据实际收入在事后确定的。此外,我们表明参与者和专家低估了公众对碳定价的支持。这些发现表明,当受影响的选民对施加在他们身上的成本得到统一的补偿时,可持续发展政策获得了更多的支持。此外,本文还强调了激励实验在研究公众对此类政策的支持方面的重要性。碳价收入如何回馈社会,可能会影响公众对采用这一政策的支持。在一项以德国人口为大样本的实验中,对五种不同的收入回收方案评估了公众对碳价的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

How to increase public support for carbon pricing with revenue recycling

How to increase public support for carbon pricing with revenue recycling
Carbon pricing is a powerful but politically contentious tool for tackling climate change. Governments can, however, try to increase public support for it by adjusting how the revenues raised by the carbon price are used. In a fully incentivized experiment with a large representative sample of the German population, we compare voter support for five different carbon pricing schemes. We show that uniform carbon dividends (equal per capita transfers to all citizens) receive substantially more support than a carbon dividend that favours poorer people, than earmarking revenues for climate projects and especially than using revenues for the general government budget. Among the uniform carbon dividend schemes, a climate premium that pays a fixed upfront transfer equal to the expected carbon revenues receives more support than a carbon dividend scheme where the size of the transfer is determined ex post based on the actual revenues. Furthermore, we show that participants and experts underestimate public support for carbon pricing. These findings suggest that policies for sustainable development gain more support when affected voters are uniformly compensated for the costs imposed on them. In addition, the paper highlights the importance of incentivized experiments in studying public support for such policies. How revenues from a carbon price are returned to society may affect public support for the adoption of such a policy. In an experiment with a large sample of the German population, public support for a carbon price is assessed for five different revenue recycling schemes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nature Sustainability
Nature Sustainability Energy-Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
CiteScore
41.90
自引率
1.10%
发文量
159
期刊介绍: Nature Sustainability aims to facilitate cross-disciplinary dialogues and bring together research fields that contribute to understanding how we organize our lives in a finite world and the impacts of our actions. Nature Sustainability will not only publish fundamental research but also significant investigations into policies and solutions for ensuring human well-being now and in the future.Its ultimate goal is to address the greatest challenges of our time.
×
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