Rationing essential goods like meat and fuel can significantly and equitably lower consumption that contributes to climate change. Nearly 40% of people surveyed are open to such actions.
Rationing essential goods like meat and fuel can significantly and equitably lower consumption that contributes to climate change. Nearly 40% of people surveyed are open to such actions. This information comes from recent research conducted by the Climate Change Leadership Group at Uppsala University.
“While rationing might sound extreme, the reality of climate change is equally serious. This could explain the considerable backing for such options. One benefit of rationing is its potential fairness, especially if it is not linked to income levels. Policies seen as fair generally receive more support,” says Oskar Lindgren, a doctoral student in natural resources and sustainable development at Uppsala University’s Department of Earth Sciences, and the study’s lead author, recently published in Nature magazine’s Humanities & Social Sciences Communications journal.
To meet climate goals, it is necessary to have policies that effectively decrease high-impact consumption, such as that of meat and fuel. Public acceptance of these policies relies heavily on their perceived fairness. Previous research has primarily focused on economic tools like carbon taxes, overlooking other potentially effective methods such as rationing.
A new study involving nearly 9,000 participants from Brazil, India, Germany, South Africa, and the United States compares how acceptable rationing fuel and “emission-heavy” foods like meat is in relation to taxation on those items. This study is unique in its approach. One key finding is that the acceptance of rationing is similar to that of taxation. For instance, 38% of respondents supported or strongly supported fuel rationing, while 39% favored a fuel tax.
“Interestingly, there is barely any difference in acceptance between rationing and taxing fossil fuels. We anticipated that rationing would be viewed more negatively since it directly restricts consumption. However, in Germany, a higher percentage of individuals strongly oppose fossil fuel taxes compared to those who oppose fossil fuel rationing,” observes Mikael Karlsson, Senior Lecturer in Climate Leadership at Uppsala University and co-researcher on the study.
The research also revealed variations in acceptance across different countries. In India and South Africa, the public is more open to rationing for both fuel and emission-heavy foods compared to other nations. Notably, many individuals in Germany and the United States strongly oppose meat rationing. Those who are concerned about climate change tend to support this approach, with younger and more educated individuals generally expressing more positive views.
“There’s a growing need for further exploration into public views on rationing and how to effectively design such policies. Water rationing is already occurring in many regions, and many people seem prepared to reduce their consumption for the sake of climate action, provided others do the same. These results are encouraging,” adds Lindgren.
