Ci Citizens’ Proc oclivity to o Proc ocrastination on: Expl Exploring ng the he Tempo poral Dimensi nsion n of f Cl Clima mate Ch Change Pol olicy Pr Pref eferences Adrian Rinscheid * , Silvia Pianta ‡ & Elke Weber § Prepared for ICPP, June 26-28 2019, Montreal * University of St.Gallen & Swiss Competence Center for Energy Research (SCCER-CREST) ‡ Bocconi University & RFF-CMCC European Institute on Economics and the Environment, Italy § Woodrow Wilson School for Public and International Affairs & Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, Princeton University
Climate Change Action – it’s all about the speed of it • Urgency of bold climate measures stressed with increasing vigor (IPCC 2018; US Global Change Research 2018). • Crossing of climate tipping points could lead to uncontrollable and irreversible climate change (e.g., Lenton 2011; Lontzek et al. 2015). 6/26/19 Rinscheid et al. | ICPP Montréal 2
Why investigating public preferences? • Voters matter in democracies. • Recent concern about voters becoming an increasing barrier to ambitious climate policies (Batel and Devine-Wright 2018; Fraune and Knodt 2018; Lockwood 2018). • Our focus: Do citizens support the (necessary) implementation of decarbonization policies as early as possible or are they in favor of postponing them to later dates ? 6/26/19 Rinscheid et al. | ICPP Montréal 3
Phasing out internal combustion engines https://www.regeringen.se/tal/20192/01/regeringsforklaringen-den-21-januari-2019/ petrol-and-diesel-ban-plan-idUSKCN1MC121 | https://www.reuters.com/article/us-denmark-autos/denmark-embraces-electric-car-revolution-with- Own compilation, based on: IEA (2018b) | Center for Climate Protection (Burch and Gilchrist 2018) | Table 1. Jurisdictions with a political commitment to ban new gasoline and Contribution of the transportation sector to greenhouse gas diesel vehicle sales, and planned year of policy enactment (as of early 2019) emissions: • Globally: 14 % • USA: 29 % (no. 1 contributor to GHG emissions) Fossil fuel consumption is still rising globally (IEA 2018 a ). Decarbonizing transportation is a key element to mitigate CC (Creutzig et al. 2015; Fuglestvedt et al. 2008). To achieve the 2°-target, Internal combustion engines for personal transportation need to disappear no later than 2040 (Rockström et al. 2017). 6/26/19 Rinscheid et al. | ICPP Montréal 4
Exploring Temporal Preferences: Expectations • Behavioral science: present bias; orientation towards immediate benefits (e.g., Frederick et al. 2002; Weber and Johnson 2016) • Political science: citizens tend to reject policies that impose short-term costs, despite potentially large benefits in the future (Jacobs and Matthews 2012) • Environmental Psychology: CC often perceived as a problem with consequences distant in time (Brügger et al. 2015) Hypothesis 1: Citizens, when faced with the choice of enacting climate policies now or later, will favor later over immediate action. 6/26/19 Rinscheid et al. | ICPP Montréal 5
Exploring Temporal Preferences: Expectations • Environmental Psychology: temporal perception of CC differs (Brügger et al. 2015), also depending on own experiences (Spence et al. 2012). Hypothesis 2a: Citizens who perceive CC to be proximal will be in favor of earlier policy implementation. • Political Science: in the US, perception of CC is stongly tied to different party ideologies (McCright and Dunlap 2011) Hypothesis 2b: Self-identified Democrats will be in favor of earlier policy implementation, while self-identified Republicans will be in favor of later policy implementation. 6/26/19 Rinscheid et al. | ICPP Montréal 6
Our study: Research Design • representative sample of 1,520 American residents • Conjoint experiment Ø Respondents rank & rate several (8 x 2) hypothetical policy proposals Ø policy proposals randomly vary on different (5) policy attributes 6/26/19 Rinscheid et al. | ICPP Montréal 7
Our study: Research Design • representative sample of 1,520 American residents • Conjoint experiment Ø Respondents rank & rate several (8 x 2) hypothetical policy proposals Ø policy proposals randomly vary on different (5) policy attributes Policy attributes Attribute levels Beginning of policy 2020 2030 2040 2050 implementation Policy costs (per $ 2 $ 6 $ 10 $ 14 household, per month) Policy instrument Ban on new fossil Increase in fossil fuel Gov. subsidies for low- - fuel car sales taxes emission transportation alternatives Policy endorsement by Democratic Party Republican Party U.S. Alliance of Auto- Greenpeace mobile Manufacturers Pollution reduction 10% 20% 30% - 6/26/19 Rinscheid et al. | ICPP Montréal 8
Our study: Research Design • Fully randomized conjoint design Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Policy instruments Ban on new fossil fuel car sales Government subsidies for low- emission transportation alternatives Beginning of policy implementation 2020 2030 Policy costs (per household, per $6 $10 month) Immediate pollution reduction 10% immediate reduction of air 10% immediate reduction of air pollution pollution Policy endorsement by Democratic Party U.S. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Select one o o 9
Our study: Research Design • Fully randomized conjoint design Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Policy instruments Ban on new fossil fuel car sales Government subsidies for low- emission transportation alternatives Beginning of policy implementation 2020 2030 Policy costs (per household, per $6 $10 month) Immediate pollution reduction 10% immediate reduction of air 10% immediate reduction of air pollution pollution Policy endorsement by Democratic Party U.S. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Select one o o If you had the possibility to vote for Scenario 1 in a direct democratic vote, how likely would you vote for it? (0 is “would definitely NOT vote for” and 10 is “would definitely vote for”) Scenario 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 If you had the possibility to vote for Scenario 2 in a direct democratic vote, how likely would you vote for it? (0 is “would definitely NOT vote for” and 10 is “would definitely vote for”) 10 Scenario 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 1. Average effects of policy attributes on respondents’ policy preference to phase out fossil fuel cars. Results Timing: 2020 ● 2030 ● 2040 ● 2050 ● DV: dichotomized rating outcome Policy instrument: Ban ● Marginal effects indicate change in probability to Subsidies ● vote for a policy when comparing an attribute Taxes ● level with the baseline category, all else equal. Costs: $2 ● E.g., the probability that voters support policies $6 ● $10 ● implemented in 2030 is 2.6 percentage points $14 ● higher than the probability to support policies implemented in 2020 Pollution reduction: 10 % less pollution ● 20 % less pollution ● 30 % less pollution ● Endorsement by: Automobile Manufacturers ● Greenpeace ● Democratic Party ● Republican Party ● − .1 0 .1 Change in Pr(Vote for Phase − Out) 6/26/19 Rinscheid et al. | ICPP Montréal 11
Figure 1. Average effects of policy attributes on respondents’ policy preference to phase out fossil fuel cars. Results Timing: 2020 ● 2030 ● 2040 ● 2050 ● DV: dichotomized rating outcome Policy instrument: Ban ● Marginal effects indicate change in probability to Subsidies ● vote for a policy when comparing an attribute Taxes ● level with the baseline category, all else equal. Costs: $2 ● E.g., the probability that voters support policies $6 ● $10 ● implemented in 2030 is 2.6 percentage points $14 ● higher than the probability to support policies implemented in 2020 Pollution reduction: 10 % less pollution ● 20 % less pollution ● 30 % less pollution ● Hypothesis 1: citizens, when faced with the choice Endorsement by: of enacting climate policies now or later, will favor Automobile Manufacturers ● later over immediate action. Greenpeace ● ( ✓ ) => only when the choice is 2020 vs. 2030 Democratic Party ● Republican Party ● − .1 0 .1 Change in Pr(Vote for Phase − Out) 6/26/19 Rinscheid et al. | ICPP Montréal 12
Results Figure 2. Average effects of timing attribute on respondents’ policy preference by (a) psychological distance of climate change and (b) party identification. (a) (b) 6/26/19 Rinscheid et al. | ICPP Montréal 13
Results Figure 2. Average effects of timing attribute on respondents’ policy preference by (a) psychological distance of climate change and (b) party identification. (a) (b) Hypothesis 2a: Citizens who perceive CC to be proximal will be in favor of earlier policy implementation. 6/26/19 Rinscheid et al. | ICPP Montréal 14 ( ✓ ) => indifference between 2020 vs. 2030
Results Figure 2. Average effects of timing attribute on respondents’ policy preference by (a) psychological distance of climate change and (b) party identification. (a) (b) Hypothesis 2a: Citizens who perceive CC to be Hypothesis 2b: Self-identified Democrats will be in favor of proximal will be in favor of earlier policy earlier policy implementation, while self-identified Republicans implementation. will be in favor of later policy implementation. 6/26/19 Rinscheid et al. | ICPP Montréal 15 ( ✓ ) => indifference between 2020 vs. 2030 ( ✓ ) => hypothesized patterns confirmed for after 2030
Recommend
More recommend
