To meet climate targets, policies that reduce the consumption of high-carbon-footprint goods like meat and fuel are essential. Public acceptance, however, is closely tied to how fair a policy is perceived to be. While most research has focused on economic tools like carbon taxes, less attention has been given to other potential strategies, such as rationing.
A study involving nearly 9,000 participants from Brazil, India, Germany, South Africa, and the US examined the acceptability of both taxes and rationing for fuel and emission-intensive foods like meat. The results revealed similar levels of support for both approaches: 38 % of respondents favored fuel rationing, while 39 % were in favor of a fuel tax.
Most surprisingly, there is hardly any difference in acceptability between rationing and taxation of fossil fuels. We expected rationing to be perceived more negatively because it directly limits people's consumption. But in Germany, the proportion of people who strongly oppose fossil fuel taxes is actually higher than the proportion who strongly oppose fossil fuel rationing.
Mikael Karlsson, Study Researcher and Senior Lecturer in Climate Leadership, Uppsala University
The study also shows that the acceptability of rationing policies varies by country. In South Africa and India, rationing of fuel and emissions-intensive food is more widely accepted compared to the US and Germany, where many respondents are strongly opposed to meat rationing. Support for rationing is generally higher among people who are concerned about climate change, with younger and better-educated individuals tending to be more open to these measures.
Lindgren concluded, “More research is now needed on attitudes towards rationing and the design of such policy instruments. Water rationing is taking place in many parts of the world, and many people seem willing to limit their consumption for climate mitigation purposes, as long as others do the same. These are encouraging findings.”
Journal Reference:
Lindgren, O., et. al. (2024) Public acceptability of climate-motivated rationing. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03823-7