政策捆绑对支持去碳化的中性和负面影响

IF 4.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Climatic Change Pub Date : 2024-03-25 DOI:10.1007/s10584-024-03720-7
{"title":"政策捆绑对支持去碳化的中性和负面影响","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s10584-024-03720-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>Decarbonization policies are frequently combined with other policies to increase public support or address related societal issues. To investigate the consequences of policy bundling, we conducted a survey experiment with 2,521 U.S. adults. We examined the effects of bundling decarbonization with policies favored by liberals (social justice and economic redistribution), broad bipartisan coalitions (infrastructure), and conservatives (pausing EPA regulations) on public support and polarization. Bundling with pausing EPA regulations decreased support and polarization by reducing liberal supportwithout significantly increasing conservative support. Bundling with social justice decreased support while increasing polarization by reducing conservative support without significantly increasing liberal support. Bundling with economic redistribution and infrastructure did not significantly change support or polarization. Policy bundling thus risks decreasing public support for decarbonization policies by alienating one ideological side of the electorate without gaining support from the other side. This risk exists even when policy bundling reduces polarization.</p>","PeriodicalId":10372,"journal":{"name":"Climatic Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Neutral and negative effects of policy bundling on support for decarbonization\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10584-024-03720-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>Decarbonization policies are frequently combined with other policies to increase public support or address related societal issues. To investigate the consequences of policy bundling, we conducted a survey experiment with 2,521 U.S. adults. We examined the effects of bundling decarbonization with policies favored by liberals (social justice and economic redistribution), broad bipartisan coalitions (infrastructure), and conservatives (pausing EPA regulations) on public support and polarization. Bundling with pausing EPA regulations decreased support and polarization by reducing liberal supportwithout significantly increasing conservative support. Bundling with social justice decreased support while increasing polarization by reducing conservative support without significantly increasing liberal support. Bundling with economic redistribution and infrastructure did not significantly change support or polarization. Policy bundling thus risks decreasing public support for decarbonization policies by alienating one ideological side of the electorate without gaining support from the other side. This risk exists even when policy bundling reduces polarization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10372,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Climatic Change\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Climatic Change\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-024-03720-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Climatic Change","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-024-03720-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要 低碳化政策经常与其他政策相结合,以增加公众支持或解决相关社会问题。为了研究政策捆绑的后果,我们对 2521 名美国成年人进行了调查实验。我们研究了将去碳化与自由派(社会公正和经济再分配)、两党广泛联盟(基础设施)和保守派(暂停环保局法规)所支持的政策捆绑在一起对公众支持和两极分化的影响。与暂停环保局法规捆绑会降低支持率和两极分化,因为自由派的支持率会下降,而保守派的支持率不会显著上升。与社会公正捆绑会降低支持率,同时增加两极分化,因为保守派的支持率会降低,而自由派的支持率不会显著增加。与经济再分配和基础设施捆绑在一起并未显著改变支持率或两极分化。因此,政策捆绑可能会疏远选民中意识形态的一方,而得不到另一方的支持,从而降低公众对去碳化政策的支持。即使政策捆绑减少了两极分化,这种风险依然存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Neutral and negative effects of policy bundling on support for decarbonization

Abstract

Decarbonization policies are frequently combined with other policies to increase public support or address related societal issues. To investigate the consequences of policy bundling, we conducted a survey experiment with 2,521 U.S. adults. We examined the effects of bundling decarbonization with policies favored by liberals (social justice and economic redistribution), broad bipartisan coalitions (infrastructure), and conservatives (pausing EPA regulations) on public support and polarization. Bundling with pausing EPA regulations decreased support and polarization by reducing liberal supportwithout significantly increasing conservative support. Bundling with social justice decreased support while increasing polarization by reducing conservative support without significantly increasing liberal support. Bundling with economic redistribution and infrastructure did not significantly change support or polarization. Policy bundling thus risks decreasing public support for decarbonization policies by alienating one ideological side of the electorate without gaining support from the other side. This risk exists even when policy bundling reduces polarization.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Climatic Change
Climatic Change 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.20
自引率
4.20%
发文量
180
审稿时长
7.5 months
期刊介绍: Climatic Change is dedicated to the totality of the problem of climatic variability and change - its descriptions, causes, implications and interactions among these. The purpose of the journal is to provide a means of exchange among those working in different disciplines on problems related to climatic variations. This means that authors have an opportunity to communicate the essence of their studies to people in other climate-related disciplines and to interested non-disciplinarians, as well as to report on research in which the originality is in the combinations of (not necessarily original) work from several disciplines. The journal also includes vigorous editorial and book review sections.
期刊最新文献
Green industrial policy for climate action in the basic materials industry Amplification of compound hot-dry extremes and associated population exposure over East Africa Raising the bar: What determines the ambition level of corporate climate targets? A 561-yr (1461-2022 CE) summer temperature reconstruction for Mid-Atlantic-Northeast USA shows connections to volcanic forcing and atmospheric circulation Might I have to move due to climate change? The role of exposure to risk and political partisanship in anticipation of future relocation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1