Why are carbon taxes unfair? Disentangling public perceptions of fairness

In order to reach climate goals, governments need to gain support from their voters for the necessary policy interventions, such as carbon dioxide taxes. Previous research concludes that people often do not support and legitimize such taxes because they perceive them as unfair. However, the notion of fairness implies a multitude of factors and despite attempts of the previous research to further nuance people’s fairness perceptions, we currently lack a more precise understanding of what people mean when they regard carbon taxes as unfair. In this article, we thoroughly investigate this problem by using original survey data from YouGov collected in the United States in 2018 and analyzing open-ended survey responses on why people think carbon taxes are unfair. Applying structural topic modeling, we unpack the multi-dimensional meaning of unfairness, as perceived by the US population. The results from our analysis show that people regard carbon taxes based on gas pricing as unfair because they perceive gas prices already being high, because of the need to drive, unfairness for the poor or rural population, lack of trust in government, or considerations that the purpose of the tax is unjustified. These findings help provide a more nuanced policy design to address fairness concerns related to carbon taxes.     

Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK

Anthropogenic influence on the climate – and possible societal responses to it – offers a unique window through which to examine the way people think about and relate to the natural world. This paper reports data from four, one-day deliberative workshops conducted with members of the UK public during early 2012. The workshops focused on geoengineering – the deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment – as one of three possible responses to climate change (alongside mitigation and adaptation). Here, we explore one of the most pervasive and wide-ranging themes to emerge from the workshops: whether geoengineering represented an unprecedented human intervention into ‘nature’, and what the moral consequences of this might be. Using the concept of ‘messing with nature’ as an analytical lens, we explore public perceptions of geoengineering. We also reflect on why ‘messing with nature’ was such a focal point for debate and disagreement, and whether the prospect of geoengineering may reveal new dimensions to the way that people think about the natural world, and their relationship to it.     

Natural variability or climate change? Stakeholder and citizen perceptions of extreme event attribution

Scientists can now connect extreme weather events with climate change using a methodology known as “extreme event attribution”, or EEA. The idea of connecting climate change and extreme weather has long been heralded as a panacea for communications, connecting the dangers of climate change to real-world, on-the-ground events. However, event attribution remains a nascent science, and attribution studies of the same event can sometimes produce divergent answers due to precise methodology used, variables examined, and the timescale selected for the event. The 2011–2017 California drought was assessed by 11 EEA studies which came to varying conclusions on its connection to climate change. This article uses the case study of the drought and a multi-methods approach to examine perceptions of EEA among key stakeholders and citizens. Twenty-five key informant interviews were conducted with different stakeholders: scientists performing EEA research, journalists, local and state-level policymakers, and non-governmental organization representatives. In addition, two focus groups with 20 California citizens were convened: one with environmentalists and another with agriculturalists. While climate change was viewed by many as a mild contributing factor to the California drought, many stakeholders had not heard of EEA or doubted that scientists could conclusively link the drought to anthropogenic climate change; those that were familiar with EEA felt that the science was generally uncertain. In the focus groups, presentation of divergent EEA results led participants to revert to pre-existing ideas about the drought-climate connection, or to question whether science had sufficiently advanced to analyze the event properly. These results indicate that while EEA continues to provoke interest and research in the scientific community, it is not currently utilized by many stakeholders, and may entrench the public in pre-existing views.     

Does risk communication really decrease cooperation in climate change mitigation?

Effective communication of risks involved in the climate change discussion is crucial and despite ambitious protection policies, the possibility of irreversible consequences actually occurring can only be diminished but never ruled out completely. We present a laboratory experiment that studies how residual risk of failure of climate change policies affects willingness to contribute to such policies. Despite prevailing views on people’s risk aversion, we found that contributions were higher at least in the final part of treatments including a residual risk. We interpret this as the product of a psychological process where residual risk puts participants into an ”alarm mode,” keeping their contributions high. We discuss the broad practical implications this might have on the real-world communication of climate change.     

Why is risk aversion unaccounted for in environmental policy evaluations?

U.S. environmental regulations are increasingly influenced by cost-benefit analyses that are performed based on the guidance of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB’s Circular A-4 directs Federal agencies to assume “risk neutrality” in conducting regulatory analysis, and in important instances, this guidance is not supported by economic theory. Risk neutrality is computationally convenient, and it can be justified when only the costs and benefits of regulations themselves are uncertain, because these risks are spread across a large population. However, the Circular A-4 does not distinguish between regulations that cause uncertainty and those that reduce pre-existing (i.e. baseline) uncertainty, such as the potential for catastrophic climate change. Basic economic theory shows that risk aversion should be incorporated into evaluations of policies that reduce pre-existing environmental uncertainty. Regulatory analyses generally ignore these risk-reduction benefits, leading to misinformed policymaking. Quantifying risk premiums is difficult and controversial, but no more so than discounting future costs and benefits to present value terms. Similar to how OMB has established discount rates for use in regulatory analyses, a method for when and how to incorporate risk aversion into policy evaluations should replace the blanket guidance for risk neutrality.     

Projecting long-term armed conflict risk: An underappreciated field of inquiry?

Little research has been done on projecting long-term conflict risks. Such projections are currently neither included in the development of socioeconomic scenarios or climate change impact assessments nor part of global agenda-setting policy processes. In contrast, in other fields of inquiry, long-term projections and scenario studies are established and relevant for both strategical agenda-setting and applied policies. Although making projections of armed conflict risk in response to climate change is surrounded by uncertainty, there are good reasons to further develop such scenario-based projections. In this perspective article we discuss why quantifying implications of climate change for future armed conflict risk is inherently uncertain, but necessary for shaping sustainable future policy agendas. We argue that both quantitative and qualitative projections can have a purpose in future climate change impact assessments and put out the challenges this poses for future research.     

Bridging science and community knowledge? The complicating role of natural variability in perceptions of climate change

Although the spatial and temporal scales on which climate varies is a prominent aspect of climate research in the natural sciences, its treatment in the social sciences remains relatively underdeveloped. The result is limited understanding of the public's capacity to perceive climate variability as distinct from change, and uncertainty surrounding how and when to best communicate information on variability/change. Ignoring variability in favour of change-focused analyses and language risks significant misrepresentation of public perception and knowledge, and precludes detailed synthesis of data from the social and natural sciences. An example is presented based on a regional comparison of variability-dominated climate observations and change-focused survey data, collected in western Newfoundland (Canada). This region experiences pronounced, slow-varying natural variability, which acted to obscure broader climate trends through the 1980s and 1990s; since the late 1990s, the same variability has amplified apparent change. While survey results confirm residents perceive regional climate change, it is not clear whether respondents distinguish variability from change. This presents uncertainty in the best approach to climate science communication in this region, and raises concern that subsequent variability-driven transient cooling will erode public support for climate action. Parallels are drawn between these regional concerns and similar uncertainty surrounding treatment of variability in discussion of global temperature trends, highlighting variability perception as a significant gap in human dimensions of climate change research.     

Public understandings of air pollution: the ‘localisation’ of environmental risk

Recent perspectives on public understandings of global environmental risk have emphasised the interpretation, judgement and ‘sense-making’ that takes place, modes of perception that are inextricably tied to aspects of ‘local’ context. In this paper we offer a current picture of the ways in which residents think about the problem of urban air pollution. To do this we utilise elements of a wider research project involving a survey and in-depth interviews with members of the public. In this way — and drawing upon the prior air pollution perception literature and recent work in the field of environmental and risk perception — we present a more analytical interpretation than has hitherto been approached. Conclusions are drawn which stress the localisation of people's understandings within the immediate physical, social and cultural landscape and also through a trust in personal experiences over any kind of information-based evidence. From this position, and with the development of implications for policy, we demonstrate the need to study public perceptions if the objectives of air quality, and more generally, environmental management are to be achieved.     

Trade-offs between physical risk and economic reward affect fishers’ vulnerability to changing storminess

Climate change-driven alterations in storm frequency and intensity threaten the wellbeing of billions of people who depend on fisheries for food security and livelihoods. Weather conditions shape vulnerability to both loss of life and reduced fishing opportunities through their influence on fishers' daily participation decisions. The trade-off between physical risk at sea and the economic rewards of continued fishing under adverse weather conditions is a critical component of fishers’ trip decisions but is poorly understood. We employed a stated choice experiment with skippers from a temperate mixed-species fishery in southwest England to empirically assess how fishers trade off the risks from greater wind speed and wave height with the benefits of expected catch and prices. Technical fishing and socio-economic data were collected for individual fishers to identify the factors influencing trade-off decisions. Fishers preferred increased wind speed and wave height up to a threshold, after which they became increasingly averse to worsening conditions. Fishing gear, vessel length, presence of crew, vessel ownership, age, recent fishing success and reliance on fishing income all influenced the skippers’ decisions to go to sea. This study provides a first insight into the socio-economic, environmental, and technical fishing factors that can influence the sensitivity of individual fishers to changing storminess. These insights can help to inform fisheries climate vulnerability assessments and the development of adaptation measures.     

How much climate change can pastoral livelihoods tolerate? Modelling rangeland use and evaluating risk

Livestock is the most important source of income for pastoral livelihoods in drylands. Pastoralists have developed flexible resource utilization strategies that enable them to cope with the high spatio-temporal resource variability typical to these areas. However, climate change in the form of decreasing mean annual precipitation accompanied by increasing variability has important consequences for rangeland productivity and thus pastoral livelihood security. Here, we use a spatial simulation model to assess impacts of changing precipitation regimes, and to identify limits of tolerance for these changes beyond which pastoral livelihoods cannot be secured. We also examine strategies to control these limits.Our results indicate that: (i) while reduced mean annual precipitation always had negative effects, increased precipitation variability can have negative, none or even positive effects, depending on the vegetation's recovery potential. (ii) Depending on income requirements there are limits of tolerance to decreases in mean annual precipitation beyond which precipitation regimes overcharge the coping capacity of the pastoral household and threaten its livelihood. (iii) There are certain strategies, in particular “Increasing mobility” and “Diversifying income for coping with income risks from pastoralism”, that allow the limits of tolerance to be shifted to a certain extent. We conclude that it is important to consider climate change and human requirements together to create appropriate climate change mitigation strategies in pastoral systems. Our results also shed new light on the discussion on disequilibrium rangeland systems by identifying mechanisms that can support fluctuating but non-degrading herbivore-vegetation dynamics. The paper finishes with remarks on the broader potential of the presented modelling approach beyond rangelands.     

Counting only the hits? The risk of underestimating the costs of stringent climate policy

This paper warns against the risk of underestimating the costs—and the uncertainty about the costs—of achieving stringent stabilization targets. We argue that a straightforward review of integrated assessment models results produces biased estimates for the more ambitious climate objectives such as those compatible with the 2°C of the European Union and the G8. The magnitude and range of estimates are significantly reduced because only the most optimistic results are reported for such targets. We suggest a procedure that addresses this partiality. The results show highly variable costs for the most ambitious scenarios.