A fair share: Burden-sharing preferences in the United States and China

Abstract

Using a choice experiment, we investigated preferences for distributing the economic burden of decreasing CO 2 emissions in the two largest CO 2 -emitting countries: the United States and China. We asked respondents about their preferences for four burden-sharing rules to reduce CO 2 emissions according to their country's 1) historical emissions, 2) income level, 3) equal right to emit per person, and 4) current emissions. We found that U.S. respondents preferred the rule based on current emissions, while the equal right to emit rule was clearly least preferred. The Chinese respondents, on the other hand, preferred the historical rule, while the current emissions rule was the least preferred. Respondents overall favored the rule that was least costly for their country. These marked differences may explain the difficulties countries face in agreeing how to share costs, presenting a tough hurdle to overcome in future negotiations. We also found that the strength of the preferences was much stronger in China, suggesting that how mitigation costs are shared across countries is more important there.

Citizens' perceptions of justice in international climate policy: an empirical analysis

“…Also, in particular for the US, the government's strong focus on the sovereignty principle in climate negotiations appears to reflect citizens' fairness perception incompletely. Likewise, we find only limited support for a potential self-serving bias, which had been identified in the studies by Lange et al (2010) for delegation members ("negotiators") and Carlsson et al (2013) for ordinary citizens. Neither German nor US citizens appear to clearly favor burdensharing principles that are in their countries' best economic interest.…”

“…The findings by Lange et al (2010) in particular, suggest that negotiators at climate conferences prefer burden-sharing rules that are in their countries' economic interest. This general finding on the so called in-group or self-serving bias is also supported by Carlsson et al (2013). 8 Relying on a discrete choice experiment, the authors find that citizens tend to favor the burden-sharing principle that is least costly to their home country.…”

“…Comparing findings across studies, is problematic, however, since methodologies differ. In particular, Carlsson et al (2013) rely on a choice experiment designed to elicit citizens' preferences for a particular principle. Compared to our study, in Lange et al (2010), conference delegates were presented with more complex decision tasks and more complicated burden-sharing options.…”

“…Quoting Adams (1965) and Deutsch (1975), Carlsson et al (2013) point out that these effort-or burden-sharing rules can generally be traced back to the basic principles of distributive justice: equity, equality, and need.…”

“…The studies by Dannenberg et al (2010) and Lange et al (2010) rely on individuals who had been involved in international climate policy negotiations, while Carlsson et al (2013) studies ordinary citizens in China and the US. The findings by Lange et al (2010) in particular, suggest that negotiators at climate conferences prefer burden-sharing rules that are in their countries' economic interest.…”