Research finds that around 40% of the population supports rationing measures to fight climate change

Rationing goods such as meat and fuel can effectively and equitably reduce climate-intensive consumption. Almost 40% of the population said they could accept such measures. These are the findings of a new study by Uppsala University’s Climate Change Leadership Group.

“Rationing may seem dramatic, but so is climate change. This may explain why support is quite high. One of the benefits of rationing is that it is fair regardless of income. It is to be regarded as such.

“Policies that are perceived as fair are often accepted at higher levels,” explains Oskar Lindgren, a PhD student in Natural Resources and Sustainable Development at Uppsala University’s School of Earth Sciences, who led the study. do.

Achieving climate goals requires policies that effectively reduce climate-intensive consumption, such as meat and fuel. At the same time, whether a particular policy measure is accepted by the public depends largely on whether it is perceived to be fair.

So far, research in this area has mainly investigated economic instruments such as carbon taxes, with little attention to other potentially effective instruments such as rationing.

A new study of nearly 9,000 people in Brazil, India, Germany, South Africa and the United States examines the acceptability of rationing so-called “emissions-intensive” foods such as fuel and meat, as well as the acceptability of taxes on the same products. Comparing gender. .

One conclusion is that the acceptability of rationing is equivalent to the acceptability of taxes. For example, 38% of those surveyed supported or strongly supported fuel rationing. The corresponding figure for fuel tax was 39%.

“Most surprisingly, there is little difference in terms of acceptability between fossil fuel rationing and taxation. Because rationing directly limits people’s consumption, we find rationing more negative. I expected it to be recognized.

“However, in Germany, the proportion of people who strongly oppose fossil fuel taxes is actually higher than the proportion who strongly oppose fossil fuel rationing,” says Dr. , points out Mikael Karlsson, one of the researchers who supported this study.

The study also shows that acceptability varies by country. India and South Africa have higher tolerance for rationing both fuel and emissions-intensive foods than other countries.

In particular, many respondents in Germany and the United States strongly oppose meat rationing. People who express concern about climate change are most likely to support this measure, but younger and more educated people also have more positive attitudes.

“Further research is now needed into thinking about rationing and the design of such policy instruments.Water rationing occurs in many parts of the world, and many people are reducing their water consumption for climate mitigation purposes. “These are encouraging findings,” Lindgren said.