A new study from the Climate Change Leadership Group at Uppsala University has revealed an unexpected finding: nearly 40% of the public supports rationing measures to fight climate change. The research explored the acceptability of rationing goods like meat and fuel, compared to traditional tax-based approaches. Surprisingly, the acceptability of rationing was found to be on par with that of taxes, challenging the common assumption that people would perceive rationing more negatively. The study also highlighted differences in attitudes across countries, with India and South Africa showing greater acceptance for rationing. These findings suggest that climate policies perceived as fair may enjoy higher levels of public support, paving the way for more effective climate action.
Rationing: Something We Can All Live With
The study, led by Oskar Lindgren, a doctoral student at Uppsala University, reported that nearly 40% of people indicated they could accept rationing to help reduce carbon emissions. So the implication is that there have been two parallel literatures on the economics of supply-side measures, yet most invoking rationing as a more radical and less feasible instrument relative to standard tax instruments such as carbon taxes.
One of the core findings from the study is that while rationing decisions are no less acceptable to taxpayers than tax contributions, Around forty-percent of those polled support or strongly support fuel rationing, lower than the figure for fuel tax at 39% In turn, this leads to a Variant of the Skepticism claim that if rationing were brought in as it restricts (or allows even less) people’s consumption, they would view rationing worse.
But the study also shows in Germany, more people are absolutely against fossil fuel taxes than absolutely against rationing. It appears rationing may be a feasible and acceptable climate policy tool than traditional tax-based approaches.
Attitudes Below Various Nations
The study also demonstrated differences in the public acceptability of rationing among different countries. India and South Africa were found to have the highest approval rates for rationing, such as fuel rations and limitations on emissions-intensive food like meat compared to other countries surveyed including Brazil, Germany and the US.
A widespread aversion to meat rationing was particularly striking—most respondents in Germany and the US were against. This may indicate that part of the reasons for public acceptance (or lack thereof) when rationing is considered lies in cultural and societal issues, as well as economic elements.
These results in the local context are crucial and show that climate policies must be locally contextualized and designed to meet the needs of different populations with different attitudes. The solutions must be adjusted to local conditions that are able win in broad acceptance among the population and achieve impact on a global scale being climate change a global challenge.
Fair and Effective Climate Policies
The results of the study indicate that rationing may be a politically plausible as well as acceptable policy tool for climate, especially if it is constructed as fair and equitable. Fair policies have greater acceptance, so the researchers suggest that rationing could be perceived as fairer than alternative market-based options such as taxes.
In addition, the survey provides grounds for a broader perspective on policy options and goes beyond mere economic instruments. Carbon taxes and other market-based instruments have been the main focus of climate policy, but the new study hints that rationing and soft measures might also play a role in constraining consumption with high carbon intensities.
The world is facing the very real threat of climate change, but these new findings should act as a much-needed reality check to give policymakers and researchers something to go on. By understanding what tools people have in their box, we can move forward with developing a more holistic and useful toolkit to fight this global problem. In the end, what we learn is that “‐ more research is now needed on attitudes towards rationing and the design of such policy instruments,” in order to help us move this kind of policy forward.
