Mass support for global climate agreements depends on institutional design

Abstract

Effective climate mitigation requires international cooperation, and these global efforts need broad public support to be sustainable over the long run. We provide estimates of public support for different types of climate agreements in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Using data from a largescale experimental survey, we explore how three key dimensions of global climate cooperation-costs and distribution, participation, and enforcement-affect individuals' willingness to support these international efforts. We find that design features have significant effects on public support. Specifically, our results indicate that support is higher for global climate agreements that involve lower costs, distribute costs according to prominent fairness principles, encompass more countries, and include a small sanction if a country fails to meet its emissions reduction targets. In contrast to well-documented baseline differences in public support for climate mitigation efforts, opinion responds similarly to changes in climate policy design in all four countries. We also find that the effects of institutional design features can bring about decisive changes in the level of public support for a global climate agreement. Moreover, the results appear consistent with the view that the sensitivity of public support to design features reflects underlying norms of reciprocity and individuals' beliefs about the potential effectiveness of specific agreements.international institutions | environmental cooperation | global warming | international relations | public opinion

Reassessing the Links between GHG Emissions, Economic Growth, and the UNFCCC: A Difference-in-Differences Approach

“…A full review is not warranted here; key works include [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. What remains rare, however, are any ex post empirical estimates of the impact of the KP on either GHG emissions or economic growth.…”

“…However, these estimates of the DiD treatment effect are likely to suffer from considerable omitted variable bias, and are thus likely to be higher than the true impact. Models (2), (5) and (8) include our remaining covariates of interest, whereas Models (3), (6) and (9) additionally include two lagged terms of the dependent variable to account for serial correlation in the error structure. Models without the lagged dependent variable terms display moderate serial correlation in the error structure.…”

“…One difference is that the magnitude of the estimated DiD treatment effect is more consistent across the different models in Table 7 than in Table 5. Excluding Model (4), in which the coefficient is not statistically significant, estimates range from −0.106 in Model (2) to −0.174 in Model (6), which correspond to avoided emissions increases by the Annex I countries of 1.11-1.19 million MTCO2e annually in the post-treatment period.…”

When Will People Pay to Pollute? Environmental Taxes, Political Trust and Experimental Evidence from Britain

“…5 The literature on public attitudes towards taxes in general suggests that people are at least partly rational (Campbell 2009), in the basic sense that they seek to reduce the tax burden they have to pay, while seeking public benefits. With respect to the environment, then, while people are willing to pay a price for tackling problems like climate change (Tingley and Tomz 2014), they are nonetheless sensitive to the costs (Bechtel and Scheve 2013). At the same time, however, the public's fiscal preferences are also far from rational, in that they are contradictory.…”

An urban approach to planetary boundaries

“…Assessing bio-physical performance at the city-level Many researchers have refined ways to apportion contributions to ecosystem degradation and potential impacts to cities, relative to countries (Dahl 2012;Duren and Miller 2012;Bechtel and Scheve 2013). Greenhouse gas emissions provide a useful precedent.…”