The necessary consent

Tackling climate change is now a global priority, yet policies to reduce emissions and sustainable behaviors often encounter many obstacles. Why do people, despite recognizing the severity of the environmental crisis, struggle to support pro-environmental behaviors and policies?
A recent international study published in the American Economic Review tried to answer this question, collecting the opinions of over 40,000 people in 20 countries. The results reveal that support for climate policies does not only depend on people's awareness of the problem, but above all on three key factors: perceived effectiveness, social impact and personal interest.

People tend to support a climate policy when they believe it is effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If they believe that a measure will not bring real environmental benefits, they are unlikely to support it, even if they share the urgency of acting against climate change. Another crucial element is the perception of the social impact of the policy. If it is seen as harmful to lower income groups, consensus drops dramatically. Finally, people also evaluate the direct effect of a policy on their immediate well-being: if a measure is perceived as an additional cost to their budget, support tends to decline.

These three factors are clearly reflected in the opinions collected by the authors about different climate change mitigation strategies. The most positively evaluated policies are those that combine effectiveness and social justice, such as, for example, investments in green infrastructure and subsidies for low-emission technologies, which are considered not only beneficial for the environment, but also beneficial for society as a whole. Taxes on energy resources that emit carbon dioxide, on the other hand, are viewed with suspicion, but support increases significantly when the revenues generated by this measure are redistributed progressively, for example with transfers to low-income citizens. On the contrary, the most divisive measures are those that impose restrictions on transport, such as the ban on combustion-engine cars in urban centers.
Support for these initiatives is higher in countries with efficient public transport, while it is lower where there is a lack of valid alternatives to the use of private cars.

A particularly interesting aspect concerns the role of information. To understand whether better communication can influence support for climate policies, the study showed participants two types of videos: one on the effects of climate change and one explaining in detail how three environmental policies work.
The results show that the video on the impacts of global warming increased awareness of the problem, but had a modest effect on support for climate policies.
On the contrary, the video explaining in detail how some climate policies work generated a significant increase in support for these policies, demonstrating that people do not only need to be made aware of the risks of climate change, but above all to understand how the proposed solutions work and what concrete benefits they can bring.

This important research suggests that, to obtain broad consensus, measures must be designed in a way that citizens perceive them as socially fair, with compensation mechanisms for the most vulnerable groups.
Furthermore, communication plays a fundamental role: clearly explaining the benefits of policies and dismantling misperceptions can make the difference between the success and failure of an environmental measure. Finally, investments in sustainable infrastructure are among the most appreciated strategies, because they are perceived as effective and beneficial for all.

Pierluigi Conzo
NP March 2025