Rationing of meat and fuel, two major contributors to climate change, is gaining public support as an effective and equitable way to reduce consumption.
According to new research from the Climate Change Leadership Group at Uppsala University, nearly 40% of the public could accept such measures. This groundbreaking study sheds light on a possible policy solution to help meet global climate targets while addressing concerns of fairness and equity.
“Rationing may seem dramatic, but so is climate change,” says Oskar Lindgren, a doctoral student in natural resources and sustainable development at Uppsala University, who led the study. He adds, “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.”
Lindgren’s study, published in Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, explores rationing as an alternative to carbon taxes, an economic tool frequently considered for mitigating climate change.
The search for fair climate solutions
As climate policies evolve, the need for effective tools that can reduce emissions without exacerbating inequalities has become a priority. Economic instruments such as carbon taxes have been widely studied, but rationing has received little attention in the context of climate change until now.
Lindgren’s research, involving nearly 9,000 participants from Brazil, India, Germany, South Africa, and the United States, is the first to systematically compare public acceptance of rationing with taxes on emission-intensive goods like meat and fuel.
The study’s findings are revealing. The acceptability of rationing and taxation is nearly equal, with 38% of respondents in favor or strongly in favor of fuel rationing, compared to 39% for fuel taxes.
Mikael Karlsson, Senior Lecturer in Climate Leadership at Uppsala University and one of the researchers behind the study, expressed surprise at this outcome. “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,” Karlsson explained.
Acceptance of rationing, however, varies by region and demographic factors. In India and South Africa, the idea of rationing both fuel and emissions-intensive food enjoys higher public support than in other countries. In contrast, resistance to meat rationing is particularly strong in Germany and the United States.
Climate concerns play a significant role in shaping attitudes: individuals most worried about climate change tend to support rationing more, while younger and more educated individuals are also more likely to back such measures.
The differences highlight the complexity of public opinion on climate policies and suggest that one-size-fits-all solutions may not be feasible. Cultural, economic, and political contexts will need to be considered when designing rationing systems or other policy instruments aimed at curbing high-carbon consumption.
One key reason for the growing support of rationing is its perceived fairness. Unlike taxes, which can disproportionately affect low-income individuals, rationing ensures equal access to resources regardless of income level. This aspect makes rationing more attractive to those concerned about equity in climate policy, particularly in countries with stark economic inequalities.
“More research is now needed on attitudes towards rationing and the design of such policy instruments,” says Lindgren. He points to existing examples like water rationing, already practiced in many drought-stricken regions, as a possible model for how rationing could work for fuel and food.
“Many people seem willing to limit their consumption for climate mitigation purposes, as long as others do the same,” he adds, calling the findings encouraging for policymakers seeking to implement climate solutions.
Lindgren and his colleagues emphasize that their research is just the beginning of a larger conversation on the role of rationing in combating climate change. As countries struggle to meet international climate targets, policies that can effectively reduce emissions while being acceptable to the public will be crucial.
Although the idea of rationing might seem drastic to some, the ongoing climate crisis could soon make such measures necessary. The study suggests that under the right conditions – particularly if fairness and equity are emphasized – public support for rationing might grow, providing policymakers with a new tool in the fight against climate change.
Journal Reference:
Lindgren, O., Elwing, E., Karlsson, M., Jagers, S.C., ‘Public acceptability of climate-motivated rationing’, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11, 1252 (2024). DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-03823-7
Article Source:
Press Release/Material by Uppsala University
Featured image credit: Zaenal Abidin | Unsplash
