Rationing of goods such as meat and fuel can both effectively and fairly reduce consumption with high climate impact. Almost 40 percent of the public say they could accept such measures. These are the findings of new research from the Climate Change Leadership Group at Uppsala University.
“Rationing may seem dramatic, but so is climate change. This may explain why support is rather high. One advantage of rationing is that it can be perceived as fair, if made independent of income. Policies perceived as fair often enjoy higher levels of acceptance,” explains Oskar Lindgren, doctoral student in natural resources and sustainable development at the Department of Earth Sciences at Uppsala University, who led the study, published in Nature magazine’s Humanities & Social Sciences Communications journal.
To achieve climate targets, policies that effectively reduce consumption with a high climate impact, such as meat and fuel, are needed. At the same time, public acceptance of a particular policy instrument strongly depends on whether it is perceived as fair or not. So far, research in this area has mainly examined economic instruments, such as carbon taxes, while giving little attention to other instruments that could be effective, like rationing.
A new study involving nearly 9,000 people in Brazil, India, Germany, South Africa and the United States compares the acceptability of rationing fuel and so-called “emission-intensive” food, such as meat, with the acceptability of taxes on the same products. The study is the first of its kind. One conclusion is that the acceptability of rationing is on par with the acceptability of taxes. For example, 38% of the people surveyed were in favour or strongly in favour of fuel rationing. The corresponding figure for fuel tax was 39%.
“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,” notes Mikael Karlsson, Senior Lecturer in Climate Leadership at Uppsala University and one of the researchers behind the study.
The study also shows that acceptability differs between countries. In India and South Africa, acceptability of rationing for both fuel and emissions-intensive food is higher than in the other countries. In particular, many respondents in Germany and the United States are strongly against meat rationing. Individuals who express concern about climate change are most likely to favour the instrument, but younger and more educated individuals also have a more positive attitude.
“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,” says Lindgren.
