国家气候变化减缓承诺是否受到公民减排偏好的影响?来自全球代表性数据的证据

IF 6.6 2区 经济学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Heinz Welsch
{"title":"国家气候变化减缓承诺是否受到公民减排偏好的影响?来自全球代表性数据的证据","authors":"Heinz Welsch","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The Paris Agreement on Climate Change requests signatory countries to specify voluntary targets for their greenhouse gas emissions. The targets stated by the end of 2021 imply percentage emission reductions that vary widely across countries. This paper uses globally representative data from the Global Climate Change Survey to study how countries' emission reduction pledges are related to climate action preferences of their respective citizens. The study finds the following: (1) Nations' percentage reduction pledges (PRPs) are not significantly related to citizens' mean national willingness to contribute (WTC) to climate change mitigation. (2) WTC and PRPs are linked to key country characteristics in diametrically opposite ways. Specifically, (2a) WTC is positively related to average annual temperatures and negatively related to per-capita income and per-capita emissions, whereas (2b) PRPs are negatively related to average annual temperature and positively related to per-capita income and per-capita emissions. (3) Measures of divergence between PRPs and WTC are negatively related to citizens' satisfaction with democracy. Assuming that temperatures, per-capita income, and per-capita emissions indicate sensitivity to climate change, adaptive capacity, and mitigation costs, respectively, finding (2a) is consistent with standard cost-benefit considerations. Assuming that per-capita emissions and per-capita income indicate “Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities”, finding (2b) is consistent with ethical principles of equity and fairness. Considering right-wing populists' using climate change as a political battleground, finding (3) suggests the possibility that ambitious mitigation targets may backfire by fuelling support for anti-climate populist parties – a political-economy tragedy of the commons.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51021,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Economics","volume":"230 ","pages":"Article 108520"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are national climate change mitigation pledges shaped by citizens' mitigation preferences? Evidence from globally representative data\",\"authors\":\"Heinz Welsch\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108520\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The Paris Agreement on Climate Change requests signatory countries to specify voluntary targets for their greenhouse gas emissions. The targets stated by the end of 2021 imply percentage emission reductions that vary widely across countries. This paper uses globally representative data from the Global Climate Change Survey to study how countries' emission reduction pledges are related to climate action preferences of their respective citizens. The study finds the following: (1) Nations' percentage reduction pledges (PRPs) are not significantly related to citizens' mean national willingness to contribute (WTC) to climate change mitigation. (2) WTC and PRPs are linked to key country characteristics in diametrically opposite ways. Specifically, (2a) WTC is positively related to average annual temperatures and negatively related to per-capita income and per-capita emissions, whereas (2b) PRPs are negatively related to average annual temperature and positively related to per-capita income and per-capita emissions. (3) Measures of divergence between PRPs and WTC are negatively related to citizens' satisfaction with democracy. Assuming that temperatures, per-capita income, and per-capita emissions indicate sensitivity to climate change, adaptive capacity, and mitigation costs, respectively, finding (2a) is consistent with standard cost-benefit considerations. Assuming that per-capita emissions and per-capita income indicate “Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities”, finding (2b) is consistent with ethical principles of equity and fairness. Considering right-wing populists' using climate change as a political battleground, finding (3) suggests the possibility that ambitious mitigation targets may backfire by fuelling support for anti-climate populist parties – a political-economy tragedy of the commons.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecological Economics\",\"volume\":\"230 \",\"pages\":\"Article 108520\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecological Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800925000035\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800925000035","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

《巴黎气候变化协定》要求签署国制定自愿的温室气体排放目标。到2021年底的目标意味着各国之间的减排百分比差异很大。本文利用全球气候变化调查中具有全球代表性的数据,研究各国的减排承诺与本国公民的气候行动偏好之间的关系。研究发现:(1)各国的减排承诺百分比(PRPs)与公民的平均国家贡献意愿(WTC)之间没有显著相关。(2) WTC和prp以截然相反的方式与关键国家特征联系在一起。具体而言,(2a) WTC与年平均气温正相关,与人均收入和人均排放负相关,而(2b) PRPs与年平均气温负相关,与人均收入和人均排放正相关。(3) PRPs与WTC的差异与公民对民主的满意度呈负相关。假设温度、人均收入和人均排放量分别表明对气候变化的敏感性、适应能力和缓解成本,则结论(2a)与标准的成本效益考虑是一致的。假设人均排放和人均收入表明“有区别的责任和各自的能力”,结论(2b)符合公平和公平的伦理原则。考虑到右翼民粹主义者将气候变化作为政治战场,研究结果(3)表明,雄心勃勃的减排目标可能会适得其反,助长对反气候民粹主义政党的支持——这是一场政治经济悲剧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Are national climate change mitigation pledges shaped by citizens' mitigation preferences? Evidence from globally representative data
The Paris Agreement on Climate Change requests signatory countries to specify voluntary targets for their greenhouse gas emissions. The targets stated by the end of 2021 imply percentage emission reductions that vary widely across countries. This paper uses globally representative data from the Global Climate Change Survey to study how countries' emission reduction pledges are related to climate action preferences of their respective citizens. The study finds the following: (1) Nations' percentage reduction pledges (PRPs) are not significantly related to citizens' mean national willingness to contribute (WTC) to climate change mitigation. (2) WTC and PRPs are linked to key country characteristics in diametrically opposite ways. Specifically, (2a) WTC is positively related to average annual temperatures and negatively related to per-capita income and per-capita emissions, whereas (2b) PRPs are negatively related to average annual temperature and positively related to per-capita income and per-capita emissions. (3) Measures of divergence between PRPs and WTC are negatively related to citizens' satisfaction with democracy. Assuming that temperatures, per-capita income, and per-capita emissions indicate sensitivity to climate change, adaptive capacity, and mitigation costs, respectively, finding (2a) is consistent with standard cost-benefit considerations. Assuming that per-capita emissions and per-capita income indicate “Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities”, finding (2b) is consistent with ethical principles of equity and fairness. Considering right-wing populists' using climate change as a political battleground, finding (3) suggests the possibility that ambitious mitigation targets may backfire by fuelling support for anti-climate populist parties – a political-economy tragedy of the commons.
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
Ecological Economics
Ecological Economics 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
5.70%
发文量
313
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Ecological Economics is concerned with extending and integrating the understanding of the interfaces and interplay between "nature''s household" (ecosystems) and "humanity''s household" (the economy). Ecological economics is an interdisciplinary field defined by a set of concrete problems or challenges related to governing economic activity in a way that promotes human well-being, sustainability, and justice. The journal thus emphasizes critical work that draws on and integrates elements of ecological science, economics, and the analysis of values, behaviors, cultural practices, institutional structures, and societal dynamics. The journal is transdisciplinary in spirit and methodologically open, drawing on the insights offered by a variety of intellectual traditions, and appealing to a diverse readership. Specific research areas covered include: valuation of natural resources, sustainable agriculture and development, ecologically integrated technology, integrated ecologic-economic modelling at scales from local to regional to global, implications of thermodynamics for economics and ecology, renewable resource management and conservation, critical assessments of the basic assumptions underlying current economic and ecological paradigms and the implications of alternative assumptions, economic and ecological consequences of genetically engineered organisms, and gene pool inventory and management, alternative principles for valuing natural wealth, integrating natural resources and environmental services into national income and wealth accounts, methods of implementing efficient environmental policies, case studies of economic-ecologic conflict or harmony, etc. New issues in this area are rapidly emerging and will find a ready forum in Ecological Economics.
×
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